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

Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist) and cherries



I could try to put my view succintly like this: epistemology and ontology are themselves projects, or families of projects, and their concepts are systems of artefact-mediated collaborative activity. We can participate in or parttake in those projects to some degree in using and critiquing the concepts which are indigenous to them.

In English: I may use an activity-theoretical ontology, but I still treat the ticket machine in the tram as if it were just a thing, not a social construct.

Like all human beings I am a born realist, at least so far as everyday activity goes. But for solving difficult theoretical problems in social science and psychology, that realist ontology is insufficient. The same goes for epistemology.

But also I generally don't approve of slicing epitemology or ontology away from the projects of which they are specialised parts. I take a leaf or two from Fichte and Hegel on this point. But at the end of the day I follow Marx on these questions. I liked what Moses Hess says about Ontology (and appreciated by Marx) that ontology is about _Being_ and Having, but as socialists we are more interested in _Doing_ (Taetigkeit). In the beginning, ... :)

Andy

Larry Purss wrote:
Andy
I'm not a philosopher so I'm thinking as a person who is learning how to take on certain "projects." However the basic question seems to be are ontologies and epistemologies "concepts" we HAVE or "concepts" we ARE. Martin's writings seem to point to an engagement with ontology as saying every epistemological stance we have operates or is generated by an ontogical form of BEING-IN-THE-WORLD. Now developmentally our epistmological structures are transformed HISTORICALLY but our ontological assumptions of existence have moral implications.

For the philosophers in the crowd who understand Continental philosophy, I hope I'm articulating this clearly
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist) and cherries
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

 > Larry, (if I may be permitted to intercede with my 2 cents)
 > I guess it depends on what sort of a debate. J G Fichte said
 > that "what theory of knowledge you choose depends on what
 > sort of a person you are," and Hegel, rather than adopting
 > any theory of epistemology or ontology (who cares?), made
 > epistemology and ontology into objects of critique which
 > revealed the movement of thought. For my part, I think we
 > use different ontologies and different epistemologies
 > according to the activity/project we are engaged in.
 >
 > Andy
 > Larry Purss wrote:
 > > Jay
 > > Sign me up for embracing ambiguity and existing with the
 > tension of not knowing and looking for linkages across theories.
 > > Your comment that nothing DEFINITE or DEFINITIVE comes from
 > the debates between ontology and epistemology I may agree with
 > BUT it does make a difference on guiding how we OUGHT to proceed
 > and the "kinds of persons" we want to become.  Taking a
 > "second person" "ego-alter" position on ontology supports a
 > moral conviction that EMBRACES the "other's DIFFERENCE" and in
 > the engagement with otherness "self" emerges in relationship.
 > > Whether this is "true" or a construction I will leave as
 > "uncertain and "fallible" BUT as a moral stance I believe it is
 > the historical tension needed to BALANCE the precvious notion of
 > the encapsulated self.
 > >
 > > Larry
 > >
 > > ----- Original Message -----
 > > From: Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
 > > Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 9:37 pm
 > > Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist) and cherries
 > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
 > >
 > >> I truncated and added the cherries to make a comment on the
 > >> "cherry-picking" debate that Jenna's blog (link below)
 > pivoted
 > >> into the conversation here.
 > >>
 > >> There it seems to be about the reputed evils of mixing
 > theories
 > >> (of learning and/or development). But I took the lesson
 > >> concerning cherry-picking from Fred Erickson, for whom it
 > was,
 > >> much more persuasively, about the dangers of selectively
 > picking
 > >> just those items of data or evidence that support a
 > particular
 > >> position.
 > >> I think that cherry-picking (the metaphor means picking just
 > the
 > >> sweet, ripe cherries from the tree and leaving the unripe
 > sour
 > >> ones) items of evidence to support a hypothesis or a theory
 > is
 > >> OK when the theory is very new and needs some benefit of the
 > >> doubt so it can be developed and elaborated into something
 > worth
 > >> more carefully evaluating. Rather than just trying to kill it
 > >> off in the cradle.
 > >>
 > >> Once it's old enough to fend for itself, then it's dangerous
 > to
 > >> its future well-being to feed it only ripe cherries and not
 > see
 > >> how it copes, or doesn't, with sour cherries that are
 > inevitably
 > >> also to be found. Cherry-picking evidence is what happens
 > with
 > >> cults, religions, conspiracy theories, political fanaticisms,
 > >> and other things that scholarly inquiry tries to avoid
 > becoming.
 > >> I have a religious faith that eating occasional sour cherries
 > is
 > >> good for the healthy development of useful and interesting
 > new
 > >> theories and practices. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger!
 > >>
 > >> But this view of cherry-picking does NOT apply in the same
 > sense
 > >> to concepts, ideas, methods, discourse thematics,
 > >> representations, and the like. They are the only stuff around
 > >> from which to build new theories and practices, and it makes
 > >> sense to explore any possible combination of them that might
 > be
 > >> helpful. While philosophers may shudder, I simply don't
 > believe
 > >> any two ideas are inherently and necessarily incompatible
 > with
 > >> one another, or that philosophical purism or canons of
 > >> "consistency" are really of much use, much less intellectual
 > >> necessities. This stance is generally associated with
 > >> postmodernism, but need not be. I think it's better
 > associated
 > >> with a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty in the
 > >> theory-creation process. And some philosophers certainly seem
 > to
 > >> agree (e.g. Feyerabend, Latour, Serres).
 > >>
 > >> Of course I also don't believe that theories ever do, or ever
 > >> can, definitively (much less uniquely) explain phenomena.
 > They
 > >> are just tools for getting on with the inquiry, or
 > provisionally
 > >> guiding practice, until something else comes along.
 > >>
 > >> JAY.
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> Jay Lemke
 > >> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
 > >> Educational Studies
 > >> University of Michigan
 > >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 > >> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
 > >>
 > >> Visiting Scholar
 > >> Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
 > >> University of California -- San Diego
 > >> La Jolla, CA
 > >> USA 92093
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Jenna McWilliams wrote:
 > >>
 > >>> I don't know! That's why I've pitched this issue to you guys.
 > >>>
 > >>> I recently sat on the sidelines watching a pair of academics
 > >> argue over whether cultural-historical learning theories are
 > as
 > >> theoretically rigorous as cognitivist theories. As you might
 > >> imagine, the cognitivist argued they aren't as rigorous,
 > while
 > >> the situative theorist argued they were. I wonder if you xmca-
 > >> ers have thoughts on this.
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>> ~~
 > >>>
 > >>> Jenna McWilliams
 > >>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
 > >>> ~
 > >>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
 > >>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
 > >>> ~
 > >>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
 > >>> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:50 PM, mike cole wrote:
 > >>>
 > >>>> Jenna-- No wonder you are so quiet on XMCA-- you are busy
 > in
 > >> another>> interesting discussion, differently mediated!
 > >>>> So, vis a vis the local conversation, how do constructivism or
 > >>>> constructionism
 > >>>> relate to cultural-historical theories?
 > >>>> mike
 > >>>>
 > >>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jenna McWilliams
 > >> <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>wrote:>>
 > >>>>> Hello,
 > >>>>> I'm really enjoying this conversation, as it aligns really
 > >> nicely with
 > >>>>> issues I'm grappling with both in my graduate work and in
 > my
 > >> research>>> projects and groups.
 > >>>>> Though I'm a shameless self-promoter, I normally wouldn't
 > >> plug my blog in
 > >>>>> such an esteemed listserv--except that I recently
 > published
 > >> a post about the
 > >>>>> (ir)reconcilability of sociocultural and cognitivist
 > >> learning theories (at
 > >>>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-i-am-not-
 > >> constructionist.html,>>> if you want to see). It's the
 > >> conversation below the post that interests me
 > >>>>> now--a fun debate has started about whether pulling from
 > >> sociocultural and
 > >>>>> cognitivist theories can be called "synthesis" or
 > >> "cherrypicking." I fall on
 > >>>>> the "cherrypicking" side of things, though I can
 > acknowledge how
 > >>>>> rhetorically poor that term is.
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> I was going to post some of this thread in the comments
 > >> section before I
 > >>>>> started worrying about the appropriateness of doing that,
 > so
 > >> instead I'll
 > >>>>> just set forth a plea to anyone who's interested to join
 > in
 > >> on the
 > >>>>> conversation. My readers and I would be most grateful for
 > >> any thoughts you
 > >>>>> are willing to offer.
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Thanks for this listserv, which is supporting my knowledge
 > >> acquisition and
 > >>>>> enabling me to participate in knowledge production.
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> jenna
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> ~~
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Jenna McWilliams
 > >>>>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
 > >>>>> ~
 > >>>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
 > >>>>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
 > >>>>> ~
 > >>>>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
 > >>>>> jennamcjenna@gmail.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
 > >
 > >
 >
 > --
 > -----------------------------------------------------------------
 > -------
 > Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
 > Skype andy.blunden
 > An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity:
 > http://www.brill.nl/scss
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > xmca mailing list
 > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
 > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
 >

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca