Re: [xmca] 1982 paper on schooling

[ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>]

I am interested on the effect of schooling on concept formation, the
relationswhip between everyday and scientific concetps as a candidate
research topic for my master thesis that I will start to work October 2010
onwards !

Ulvi



2010/6/26, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>:
>
> That article connects to several ongoing threads, Andy. But lets see if
> others are interested before I directly comment.
>
> Instead, I think that the cover of the current issue of the New Yorker
> magazine provides interesting food for thought one concepts and their
> representations. It is accessible from www.newyorker.com.  Try to click on
> the cover and than use control+ (on a pc) to get a larger and larger
> imaged.
> The different layers of meaning appear to move between the syntagmatic and
> paradigmatic dimensions of meaning making. Besides,
> its clever.
> mike
>
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > I just had a read of Mike's 1982 paper with Roy D'Andrade on the
> influence
> > of schooling on concept formation:
> >
> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/ap82v4n2.PDF
> >
> > Great paper!
> >
> > It occurred to me that Luria is in agreement with many others that a
> > hierarchical system of categories,  a taxonomy, is the archetype of the
> > "abstract" concept. Luria's conception of how this relates to prior forms
> of
> > concept (affective and concrete) is the main point of interest in the
> > article, but I would like to question whether this taxonomical idea is
> valid
> > as the archetype of the "true" concept. The article claims that
> taxonomical
> > practices ("true" or not) are archetypal school practices, and this is an
> > interesting and different question.
> >
> > An interesting counterpoint to this is Hegel's classification of 3
> > different components which he thinks must *all* be present in the
> formation
> > of a true concept:
> >
> > The subject is (a) ascribed certain qualities; (b) seen as having having
> a
> > certain place in a system of social practice; and (c) taken under its
> genus,
> > as belonging to a certain living whole.
> >
> > Further, I think (c) does not actually amount to the kind of Linnaean
> > hierarchical family tree, but could also be interpreted like genre and
> > archetype without the implied underlying totality. Also, there is all too
> > much room for subsuming (c) under (a) as almost all of present-day
> > philosophy and natural science are wont to do.
> >
> > Mike, you have done a lot of work on the role of this "taxonomical
> > activity" in and out of school. Davydov on the other hand, emphasises (b)
> as
> > opposed to (a). It would be interesting to investigate concept-formation
> on
> > this wider frame.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca