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

Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication



Andy, Charles

As I listened in to your conversation reflecting on "ideal typical paths of
development" the question of the place of *genres* was in the backgound of
my reading.

QUESTION:  Andy, do you perceive "ideal typical paths of development as a
genre" or having the potential to become a genre?
Also do you perceive genres and "traditions" as having a family resemblance
and having the potential to become part of the conversation exploring
"ideal typical paths of development"?


Andy, as your concrete example [of the practice of law], or Charles
concrete example [of filling out tax forms as a practice]  indicate,
concepts develop within activity settings within historical events THROUGH
TIME within *life worlds*.

Your referencing Brandom [a student of Rorty] is fascinating.
 Your comment was:

 What I am interested in is an approach at the fundamental level which can
do justice to the subtlety and complexity of your discourse. Let me cite
from the American Pragmatic philosopher, a student of Richard Rorty at
Pittburg, Robert Brandom:

"Traditional term logics built up from below, offering first
accounts of the meanings of the concepts associated with singular
and general terms (in a nominalistic way: in terms of what they name
or stand for), then of judgments constructed by relating those
terms, and finally of properties of /inferences /relating to those
judgments. This order of explanation is still typical of
contemporary representational approaches to semantics ... Pragmatist
semantic theories typically adopt a top-down approach because they
start from the /use /of concepts, and what one does with concepts is
apply them in judgment and action." [/Articulating Reasons/,
Brandom 200, p. 13]

Andy this *Traditional* [classical?] genre known as a nominalistic "way" as
the *starting* point seems to point to an approach that Taylor refers to as
*strict* [sedimented] dialectics.  The terms are known PRIOR to
constructing the framework or theory that is built up using known products.

Andy, your inviting us to consider a new starting point within praxis or
*shared projects* [as anticipated projections]  you are wanting to start
with *ideal  typical formations*

It is interesting you mention Rorty. I want to attach a paper which may be
tangential to this thread, but he is exploring pragmatism as grounding
PARTICULAR genres in practice WITHIN effective history. Andy, it may have
some relevance for exploring *ideal typical forms of development* For me
this a fuzzy concept but hope with your willingness to *hear me into
speech* that I will develop further.

Larry

Larry


However, how do you understand the relationship between these concepts?

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Thanks Charles. The example I gave was intended to challenge the idea that
> concepts can be understood in terms of a typology or system of
> classification. Rather I think the approach should utilise "ideal typical
> paths of development." And this is what I see Vygotsky doing.
>
> That said, your further explanation of how you understand "scientific" as
> what I would call an ideal typical case of "not only the secular
> institutions and disciplines of the academy and professions, but also those
> of the spiritual domain, the performing and graphic arts, commerce games
> and sports, politics, criminal culture, and other domains that have a
> robust alignment of practice..." I think that small qualification goes a
> long way to giving people cause to think when they read Vygotsky.
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> Charles Bazerman wrote:
>
>> I look forward to your elaborations and will view your video.
>> Chuck
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27 pm
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm sorry for being so obscure, Chuck. I am still working on how to
>>> explain my position. But all I am proposing is my reading of Vygotsky on
>>> Concepts as set out in "Thinking and Speech." Nothing more. I certainly do
>>> not think concepts are "philosophic phantasms," although this is the most
>>> common response to discovery of the kind of points I am raising:
>>> "Well, if concepts are not like this, then they must be philosophic
>>> phantasms and not worth chasing after."
>>>
>>> I am fine with locating yourself in this world in a pragmatist way,
>>> etc., etc. I do nothing different. Though I am not sure what you mean by
>>> "communal" and other allusions to "community." Maybe my video
>>>
>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/**129320/videos/35819238<https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/35819238>
>>>
>>> explains it better. Yes, I think there is a "more grounded approach,"
>>> though those are not words of mine. I am certainly not trying to "deal
>>> with concepts in an abstract way," in fact that is a fair definition of
>>> what I am opposing.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> Charles Bazerman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy, I am not sure I see what you are driving at, and thus I do not
>>>> know how to continue the discussion.  I know you have written and just
>>>> published a book on concepts, but I have not read it.       Are you
>>>> suggesting that there is a more grounded approach to concepts or that
>>>> concepts dissolve and that we should not chase after them as philosophic
>>>> phantasms?        I am trying to deal with concepts not in an abstract
>>>> philosophic way
>>>>
>>> but in a pragmatist way based on the social circulation of terms and
>>> their use in communal practices and then on what evidence we can glean
>>> about internal phenomena--and as I say in the essay, my primary activity
>>> system and project as a teacher of writing has to do with helping people
>>> engage with public circulation of words which people find of value in their
>>> endeavors and in their personal understanding of the world which they act
>>> within.  To that task I bring the resources of Vygotsky and activity
>>> theory.  I do not claim an epistemic position outside those realms of
>>> practice.  So what are you trying to persuade me and others of, or what
>>> difficulty in my pursuit of my practices within my activity systems do you
>>> want me to attend to?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Once I have better bearings of the intersection of our interests, I may
>>>> be able to say something more useful.
>>>>       Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>  ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>

Attachment: NOVEMBER 12 2012 RORTY RICHARD -habermaslyotardpostmodernity FREE.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

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