[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] trinocular perception
Thanks for this summary and explanation. I had a discussion with students in
a class this week talking about bottom-up and top-down approaches to reading
instruction in conjunction with the idea of functional reorganization of the
brain. This sounds like another good example to use for discussing the
importance of multiple approaches and implications of emphasizing certain
approaches to learning at the expense of others. While I only contrasted
bottom-up and top-down, I can see how I will have to revisit the subject and
add this other very important and overlooked approach of participatory
enactment. I am so glad I read this!
Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of David Kellogg
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ablunden@mira.net; Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
Subject: Re: [xmca] trinocular perception
Andy, Larry:
Andy's citation should read "unpublished MA thesis by Jo Hyosun, Seoul
National University of Education, 2007". (I can send you the whole thesis,
which is about a hundred pages long, or the article we wrote together which
is about thirty; they are both in English).
I guess I'd call our perspective (and Vygotsky's) a trinocular one:
synthetic, from below, analytic, from above, and participatory, from round
about and inside the story. But it's really just a form of
analysis-for-synthesis. Vygotsky's point, you remember, is that speech has
two different dimensions, one of which is part to whole (the synthetic,
syntactic dimension of formulating utterances) and one of which is whole ot
parts (which is actually not perception, but rather semantic processing).
Jo Hyosun found that children who watched a video clip could barely list the
nouns they had seen, and were only capable of stringing them together into a
story if they were HEAVILY prompted. In particular, the processes could only
be conveyed by yes/no questions.
The spectacular part of the result was that later (sometimes even two days
later, when the literal memory of the clip should have completely faded) the
children were able to role play the story using whole utterances, some of
which were actually more complete (that is, closer to the original
utterances they heard on the video clip) than the yes/no questions and
wh-questions the teacher had used in debriefing the video clip.
We also used two different "tools" to assist role play, one of which
consisted of a cartoon with speech bubbles (placing the children "inside"
the story) and the other of which consisted of a map of the characters'
movements (placing the children "outside" the story). The former was
significantly more effective in recovering the text the children had heard.
Now, part of this is simply that it's much easier for the children to use
direct speech, participatively inside the story, than indirect speech,
descriptively outside it. But not all of it. When we asked the children to
immediately role play, right after the video clip, we got very little
language; the most effective strategy--by far--was for the children to
analyze the text using y/n questions and wh-questions with the teacher and
then role play it at a later date.
So I think Larry (and Vygotsky) is right. What is really required is
analysis for synthesis: the analyzing of a picture/video in order to
re-synthesize it as a role play. There are really THREE ways of approaching
the picture video: as a passive observer, as an active understander, and as
a participatory enactant. Halliday would call this trinocular vision.
David KelloggSeoul National University of Education
--- On Fri, 6/24/11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] perception
To: "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 7:35 AM
Larry do I read you correctly, that you are advocated "binocular vision,"
seeing both from whole to part and from part to whole?
OK, that's a point. There are indeed contexts in which a process proceeds in
that way. "The absolute is also relative."
But also "There is an absolute within the relative." A neuroscientific
understanding of the psyche must *still* begin from the whole.
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
> Hi Andy
> I want to add on to your comment
> It intrigues me the doggedness of the prejudice of analytical
> philosophy, going back centuries and right up to the present day, that
> perception and indeed the Universe itself, begins with arbitrarily small
> individual chunks and composes the whole from there up, bit by bit. And
> there is no basis in fact for the prejudice at all. I could cite Liberal
> and bourgeois ideology, I suppose, but even then it seems difficult to
> accept.
> Lawrence Hass in his book about Merleau-Ponty talks about this theme when
he talks about analyzing living perception through neuroscientific
explanations. Hass takes the stance that analytic explanations are always
derivative from the totality of lived perception. One must experience the
gestalen before proceeding to analyze it. Analytic explanations are always
ABOUT experience. However he makes an important point that it does not
follow from this stance that 2nd order constructions are IDEAL of a MORE
ORIGINAL reality. The sense-data atomistic perspective of much of science
is ideal. BUT for Hass the nerves and synapses ARE REAL and modular brain
FUNCTIONS are explanations of the real. Analysis can tell us about the real.
However, analysis always constucts THIS particular PERSPECTIVE, as a form of
discourse, [way of thinking, speaking, and working] which is always PARTIAL,
always LIMITED, always BOUND to a perspective. The
neurobiological perspective IS real but NOT MORE REAL than living
perception. At an ontological level perception [lived experience or
neurobiology]is always BOUND TO PERSPECTIVES that are always partial and
partial. [This is to keep in mind our culture's bias or "prejudice" against
prejudice is also bound to a particular perspective] Hass, used the
metaphor of BInocular vision to elaborate this point.[Merleau-Ponty and
Bateson both used this metaphor] Every monocular vision is partial and
looking out of one eye gives a REAL but partial perception. Each eye gives
a partial perspective on the world. Neither of these partial monocular
visions can be compared with the BInocular gestalen vision that has more
depth and clarity than either of the monocular visions. MEANING from either
monocular vision and meaning from binocular vision are different FORMS of
recognition. Merleau-Ponty's project is to explore these differences.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Thanks David. Vygotsky is reporting Stern's work in the citation I
> gave,
> but refers to the method "introduced into psychology a long time
> ago" so
> he wasn't even going to give Stern credit for originality in this
> instance.
> But anyway, I can cite "unpublished work by D. Kellogg" for
> authetication. Thank you.
>
> It intrigues me the doggedness of the prejudice of analytical
> philosophy, going back centuries and right up to the present day, that
> perception and indeed the Universe itself, begins with arbitrarily
> small
> individual chunks and composes the whole from there up, bit by
> bit. And
> there is no basis in fact for the prejudice at all. I could cite
> Liberal
> and bourgeois ideology, I suppose, but even then it seems difficult to
> accept.
>
> Andy
>
> David Kellogg wrote:
>
> Yes, Andy. The experiment was actually Stern's. One of my
> students and I replicated this experiment with a video clip
> and got even more spectacular results. We submitted this as
> our contribution to the MCA special issue on foreign language
> learning. Naturally, it was rejected, and we were told in no
> uncertain terms not to resubmit!
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
> --- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> Subject: [xmca] perception
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 10:41 PM
>
> Vygotsky reports on several occasions (eg LSV CW v. 5 pp
> 86-87) on
> an experiment in which children are shown a painting and then
> asked to describe it, but then in a variation on the
> experiment,
> are asked to act out what they see in the painting. Version 1
> tests the child's ability bring their perception into conscious
> awareness and then translate it into words and deliver a
> series of
> words one after the other, in answer to a question from a
> stranger
> and version 2 tests their perception of the painting more
> or less
> viscerally.
>
> Can anyone tell me if these results still sand or have
> there been
> more recent experiments perhaps producing some different
> result?
>
> Andy
>
>
> --
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA:
>
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
>
<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
>
<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
> <http://www.marxists.org/>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA:
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
__________________________________________
_____
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