Andy
your comment:
"Ideal typical path of development" *points to* distinct settings
(e.g. natural science, everyday life at home, school, etc.) which is
indeed close to the idea of "genre," but "ideal typical path of
development" is after all about *paths of development*, ideal ones at
that, not settings, projects, theories, domains, social groups,
frames, or anything else. :)
Andy, if the focus remains on *typical paths of development* OF
genres, OF distinct settings OF the existential life world, is it
possible to have a conversation within the multi-verse of *romantic
science*
As I understand the focus on *typical* is *scientific* the paths of
development may be romantic and implicate effective history.
I am circling around your invitation to have conversations that are
interdiciplinary. Simon Critchley, exploring the development of
Continental Philosophy wrote about Heidegger's idea of
*an existential CONCEPTION of science*
Critchley commented,
"This would show how the practices of the natural sciences arise out
of life-world practices, and that the life-world practices are not
simply reducible to natural scientific explanation"
Andy, your specific project to develop awareness of the *typical
paths* of develop of concept use and transformation through time is
emerging within a particular tradition or genre of discourse [within
effective history]. I am playfully inquiring if it may be
possible to *play* [a word you would not use but points to a
hermeneutical genre] on a larger *field of play* that *hears* and
acknowledges your voice.
I will bring the discussion back to the paper under discussion and the
fuzzy boundaries between spontaneous and scientific [systematically
'true' organized] concepts. Andy the path of development FROM
spontaneous TO scientific concepts seems to have deen articulated
within a genre. However, this is not a dis-interested scientific
development.
Mike pointed to developmental praxis as centrally concerning *social
goods, including moral goods*.
Within our developing understanding of ideal paths of concept
formation how is this emerging understanding circling back to
exploring how our *hearing* gives *voice* to the other*?
{Which I suggest is one way to view the development of psychology as
a project within a shared moral compass}
Larry
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Larry, you ask me how "ideal typical paths of development" relate
to genres. Well, they are about different though related aspects
of concepts.
"Genre" is not a concept I use, but that is just because I come
from Marx and Hegel, whose writings predated the linguistic turn
which popularised the idea of genre. As a writer and teacher of
writing, it is natural that Chuck should use "genre." I think it
is an excellent concept that conveys a whole suite of ways in
which concepts are used and framed. Concepts are both aggregates
of more finite meanings, and themselves units of larger entities,
which can perhaps be captured with the idea of "genre," rather
than "project," social formation, discourse or something, because
"genre" points to the character of the discourse itself, rather
than the setting or motivation.
"Ideal typical path of development" *points to* distinct settings
(e.g. natural science, everyday life at home, school, etc.) which
is indeed close to the idea of "genre," but "ideal typical path of
development" is after all about *paths of development*, ideal ones
at that, not settings, projects, theories, domains, social groups,
frames, or anything else. :)
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
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 <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto: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
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto: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 <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto: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
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 <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca