Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Charles

I would like to circle back to a comment you wrote 5 days ago before.  It
is playing with the contrast between the notions of *evoke* and *inform*
which I "heard" in the 3 way conversation between Mike, you , and Andy.

The phrase *hear the other into voice* as a particular *ideal type* of chat
or conversation which evokes further response and continues the language
game.

Charles You elaborated with this comment:


My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last sentence of
my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's ideas and accounts
to new moments, and how that provides new refining disciplines. What
strikes me most about Eliot's poem, which I commented on in my lost
message, is how urgent he feels the need to continually rearticulate
himself, despite what others may have said more powerfully or even himself
in better times. Of course, Eliot was caught up in both religious and artic
stic disciplines which seemed to call for this constant rearticulation to
measure the quality of his soul and his path in the world. To what extent,
more generally all of us are driven to rearticulate the self in those
disciplines important to the self, is a question I am now thinking about.
Is this a characteristic of participation in particular social worlds or is
a consequence of the organization of the human brain and consciousness, in
the manner Ramachandran proposes."

Your last sentence is a fascinating opening for further reflections on the
reality of THIS genre that you have *thrown your lot in with* and are
*cultivating* is personally moving and *evocative* for you personally as
you develop your concepts within these chats  as meaningful participation
within shared social worlds.

 The concept of *gist* as the movement of  internal reflections of
*innervoice* moving outward into shared projects within various
disciplinary discourses.

Charles you then added a further reflection questioning if this evocative
movement  from internal reflections returning through participation with
others back into shared  social worlds [generating and participating in
particular genres] is a movement of consciousness in the manner
Ramachandran proposes.

I'm hoping by drawing your attention back to this comment to encourage you
and others to continue the conversation so I can listen in and *develop* my
own horizon of understanding on this fascinating and evocative topic.

Larry

Chuck

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Charles Bazerman <
bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:

> Mike Forwarded the current string, and I have now rejoined the list. An
> earlier message I sent about T.S. Eliot's poem got lost, and I may repost
> it later.  Right now, however, let me respond to these Andy and Larry's
> thoughtful comments.  I think Andy has got my intentions and situation
> right.  I was certainly invoking my understanding of Vygotsky's ideas of
> scientific and spontaneous concepts, and was interpreting scientific to
> include organized sets of practices where there were stronger degrees of
> public criticism and social accountability, particularly with respect to
> coherence among concepts and collected evidence gathered according to
> communal standards in pursuit of communal projects. And thus I would indeed
> associate concepts with use and practice within social groupings.  (I am
> using the term social groupings rather than the more common term community
> in order to emphasize the varieties among groupings and the differentiation
> of roles, positions, and objects within
> those groupings, although collective objects may bind those groups
> together.)
>
> To some degree any publicly articulated ideas are accountable to communal
> expectations, practices, and rules of accountability, even if such rules
> are of the sorts such as "let it pass, because it is not important for
> immediate action" or "let's accept everyone's ideas, although we may not
> understand them or agree with them, in the name of goodwill or mutual
> support." Each of these do provide climates in which we formulate our
> ideas.  So in this way the spectrum of spontaneous to
> disciplined/scientific concepts is continuous and does not provide bright
> lines, except as we historically construct them.  However, we have
> historically created more robust social groupings devoted to particular
> lines of practice and projects, with more explicit and detailed sets of
> expectations and criteria of judgment for the consequentiality of proposed
> ideas--and these groupings have as well been associated with emergent
> institutions associate with the objects of these groupings.
>
> These might include 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 and
> communal thinking.  These may not all have occurred to Vygotsky as
> scientific, as attached as he was to the emergence of "scientific
> socialism" (though his connection with the arts, especially literature
> drama and the early film, may have led him to include them in his view of
> an increasingly scientific social order). Thus I may be drawing the fuzzy
> line between spontaneous and scientific concepts nearer to the spontaneous
> end than Vygotsky, who might as well have been drawing a somewhat brighter
> line.  However, since Vygotsky did not elaborate extended visions of
> society or history, especially after he articulated his view of concepts,
> we may not ever know what he thought or even if he
> thought very much about this issue.  His earlier writings about the arts,
> however, did indicate that he did treat them as capable of disciplined
> evocation of internal states to create shared experiences.
>
> This discussion still leaves me with the dilemma that both Andy and Larry
> point toward, that my own articulation of concepts is within the
> intellectual project and practices of historically emerged disciplines and
> projects. Guilty. I do not claim to escape social time or social space, but
> only speak to them.  It is in fact Yrjo's call for the special issue that
> drew together my various ruminations about concepts  in other contexts to a
> new articulation, directed towards the inter/multi-disciplinary world of
> MCA, situated within the wider social intellectual projects that have drawn
> on activity theory.  I found this context gave fresh wind to my sails to
> push my thinking further.   Additionally, it was the review processes and
> dialog around publication that further helped me articulate my thought for
> this particular social formation and occasion. Accordingly and obviously, I
> draw on the conceptual world and intellectual practices that come with the
> activity theory projects. I
>  have cast my bets with this particular lot and the fate of my text
> depends on the usefulness for people engaged with this evolving project or
> with future projects that might find a useful resource in this set of
> concepts.
>
> My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last sentence of
> my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's ideas and accounts
> to new moments, and how that provides new refining disciplines.  What
> strikes me most about Eliot's poem, which I commented on in my lost
> message, is how urgent he feels the need to continually rearticulate
> himself, despite what others may have said more powerfully or even himself
> in better times.  Of course, Eliot was caught up in both religious and
> artic stic disciplines which seemed to call for this constant
> rearticulation to measure the quality of his soul and his path in the
> world. To what extent, more generally all of us are driven to rearticulate
> the self in those disciplines important to the self, is a question I am now
> thinking about.  Is this a characteristic of participation in particular
> social worlds or is a consequence of the organization of the human brain
> and consciousness, in the manner Ramachandran proposes.
>
> Chuck
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:11 am
> Subject: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> To: Chuck Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>
>
> > Chuck-
> >
> > There are some comments on your xmca paper. You might want to join
> > xmca for a bit or I will just forward for your comments.
> > mike
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> >
> > I appreciated Bazerman's deployment of the conceptr of "genre" and I also
> > liked his use of "gist".
> >
> > To be fair, Larry, Bazerman qualifies the use of "scientific" by
> following
> > the term with "(or disciplined or schooled)," and this indicates a much
> > broader concept of concept, much closer to what I would take to be a
> "true"
> > concept in Vygotsky's sense. I wonder if his use of "scientific" to
> "stand
> > for" that whole category of concept was a nod to Vyvgotsky? In general
> > though, I think what Bazerman calls "conceptual words" and "scientific
> > (disciplined or schooled)" concepts are precisely concepts which arise
> > from
> > problems in a definite system of practice, or dare I say it, a
> > project. A
> > set of practices has to have rules in order to generate contradictions
> > which are the source of new concepts.
> >
> > But I think the problem that Bazerman has in developing this insight
> flows
> > from his concept of concept. Yes, the concept of concept is circular.
> > When
> > you make claims about concepts, or say anything about them, you are
> already
> > presuming your interlocutor shares your understanding of the subject
> > matter, i.e. your concept of concept. ...
> >
> > So Bazerman wants to categorise concepts and sets off trying to make a
> > typology, and so we have "spontaneous" and "scientific" concepts ...
> which
> > immediately leads to observations like yours about the "fuzzy boundaries"
> > not to say "shifting boundaries" etc. Because despite it all, it seems,
> > Bazerman still cannot get away from the concept of concept as a means
> > of
> > categorisation. So the first thing you have to do in talking about
> concepts
> > is to set up a typology of concepts.
> >
> > There are a lot of nice things about this paper, but so long as you are
> > stuck on categorisation and typologies you will forever be tied in knots
> > trying to understand concepts, I think.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > Larry Purss wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike
> > >
> > > I will attempt a commentary on Charles Bazerman's article "Writing With
> > > Concepts: Communal Internalized and Externalized"
> > >
> > > I struggled with how to enter into this genre of writing which is
> exploring
> > > the concept of concepts.  The topic of the paper I find fascinating
> > and the
> > > insight that concepts are embedded within genres allows reflection
> > on the
> > > notion of *romantic science*
> > >
> > > In particular the genre's propensity to explore concepts as two
> > *kinds* -
> > > spontaneous and scientific. Bazerman then offers a qualification
> > that these
> > > *kinds* have fuzzy boundaries.
> > >
> > > It is this notion of the fuzzy boundaries within this particular
> > genre that
> > > I would like to explore further. When we enter into a dialogue on the
> > > relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts and
> > explore the
> > > functions of each are we moving away from *strict* dialectcs towards
> > > *interpretive* dialectics*?
> > > In other words is the relationship BETWEEN spontaneous and scientific
> > > concepts a *real* or an *interpretive* distinction?
> > > Do these distinctions exist in the natural world or are they aspects
> > of a
> > > particular genre which has developed textually and intertextually
> through
> > > effective history?
> > >
> > > What I'm playing with is the theme of *romantic science*.
> > >
> > > I also want to share an image which this article sparked.
> > > At the AERA conference in Vancouver, I felt a sense or mood of
> > > fragmentation within the *project* of AERA.  There were multiple genres
> > > with the corresponding conceptual *tools* or *artifacts*. The
> > throngs were
> > > moving aboutt as if at a trade fair  picking up and putting down the
> > > various tools, artifacts, and scientific concepts wondering if these
> > tools
> > > would be useful for their particular projects. But where was the
> > sense or
> > > mood of *shared purpose* within *commonly shared projects*?
> > >
> > > Charles Bazerman's article is exploring a fascinating theme of
> > genres and
> > > concepts. I hear Andy's voice calling us to put this particular
> > genre in a
> > > wider framework engaging with our ancestors. The topic as genre is
> > > fascinating but it does have a history within an evolving dialogue.
> > > As Andy is passionate about calling us to remember  the genre exploring
> > > concepts of concepts has a romantic history.  Exploring scientific and
> > > spontaneous concepts [with their FUZZY boundaries] is one way into this
> > > fascinating genre.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Dear Colleagues--
> > >>
> > >> I have been reminded of an issue that has been nagging at me for some
> > >> time,
> > >> that we have not had a discussion of any of the articles in the
> special
> > >> issue of
> > >> MCA called "concepts in the wild."  The article selected by a
> > plurality of
> > >> voters
> > >> was by Chuck Bazerman on concepts in the process of writing. But no
> > one
> > >> has
> > >> commented on the article. That seems to me a shame. In fact, the
> entire
> > >> issue,
> > >> with its stellar set of authors and papers is worth discussing, and
> > I
> > >> figure there will be more
> > >> articles on this general theme in the time to come, spanning as it
> > does,
> > >> the story of
> > >> all those practice in which we acquire and deploy concepts in
> organizing
> > >> our social life and experience the world.
> > >>
> > >> Below are two items for your consideration: The first is the
> > abstract of
> > >> Chuck's paper. The second
> > >> is a stanza from a poem by T.S. Elliott which I believe is relevant
> > to
> > >> topic of the paper and
> > >> in any event, worth considering in its own right. I first
> > encountered it
> > >> in
> > >> Jack Goody's *Domestication of the Savage Mind, *a book about the
> > >> relationship between thinking and writing in societies varying in
> their
> > >> practices related to the concept of literacy.
> > >>
> > >> If the 25 people or more who led us to this article are not in a
> position
> > >> to contribute to the discusion,
> > >> perhaps this invitation will be sufficient for others, including
> > Chuck, to
> > >> do so.
> > >>
> > >> And if no one is interested in this discussion, we might re-visit the
> > >> process by which articles for discussion taken from MCA. Or  not.
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >> -----------------------
> > >>
> > >> T. S. Elliott from “East Coker”
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
> > >>
> > >> Twenty years largely wasted, the years of *l'entre deux guerres*
> > >>
> > >> Trying to use words, and every attempt
> > >>
> > >> Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
> > >>
> > >> Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
> > >>
> > >> For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
> > >>
> > >> One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
> > >>
> > >> Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
> > >>
> > >> With shabby equipment always deteriorating
> > >>
> > >> In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
> > >>
> > >> Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
> > >>
> > >> By strength and submission, has already been discovered
> > >>
> > >> Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
> > >>
> > >> To emulate—but there is no competition—
> > >>
> > >> There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
> > >>
> > >> And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
> > >>
> > >> That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
> > >>
> > >> For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The whole poem is here:
> > >> ______________________________**____________
> > >> _____
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > ______________________________**____________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**____________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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