[Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
mike cole
mcole@ucsd.edu
Tue Sep 16 22:02:29 PDT 2014
If others agree, Andy, then it provides a context within which to make
judgments about the kind of enterprise CHAT has become, in its various
instantations, which are certainly multiple!
On the other hand, maybe I am just being dull, the problems have been
solved.
mike
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> I think Vygotsky spoke optimistically about resolving the crisis in
> Psychology because he was writing in the wake of the successful Russian
> Revolution. Alas it was not to be so. But as a Marxist he would know that
> without the resolution of the crisis of humanity there could be no
> resolution in the crisis of any of the special sciences. Which is all the
> more reason to tackle the disciplinary boundaries inhibiting the
> development of both psychology and social theory.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
>> Complicated discussion about CHAT and whether its a science or not.
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind, perhaps: Vygotsky said he was seeking to
>> resolve the crisis in psychology as he diagnosed it a century ago. In my
>> view, he did not resolve it. I made the argument at the end of Cultural
>> Psychology and can post a draft of the chapter here if it needs
>> rehearsing.
>> I believe, to the extent that it can be solved, it requires one to take
>> seriously the fusion of theory and practice. Seems like Vygotsky said
>> something along these same lines, too, about practice being the crucible
>> of
>> theory.
>>
>> The question of what can be learned from an analysis of projects such as
>> those present in Andy's collection seems an important one. I am biased. I
>> would hate to think that i learned nothing from the past 30+ years of
>> involvement in the 5th Dimension!
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Greg Thompson <
>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> David,
>>> I'd note that in addition to Andy's introduction, there was a "spirited"
>>> contribution (or two or three...) that use empirical stuff to contribute
>>> to
>>> theory.
>>> -greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:06 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link to the TOC of your edited volume, which perhaps
>>>> unintentionally illustrates my point that empirical studies using
>>>> CHAT/sociocultural theory generally aren't intended as contributions to
>>>> theory, per se; as you noted, the affordances for theorizing were
>>>> brought
>>>> out by you, rather than by the authors as part of their motive for
>>>> producing the empirical work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've hung out with cognitive psychologists quite a bit, and there's a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> very
>>>
>>>
>>>> clear demarcation between applied studies which utilize cognitive theory
>>>> for applicative purposes and pure studies whose sole raison d'être is to
>>>> inform theory. Furthermore, it is a fairly rare occurrence for anyone to
>>>> attempt to address theory in any other way than through the lens of
>>>> empirical studies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My own experience of this community includes appreciation of the tight
>>>> logic of their theorizing, and also of the inventiveness of researchers
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> generating truly provocative data that they are then forced to contend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But
>>>
>>>
>>>> it also includes a sense of frustration with the absence of any critique
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> or input to theory from outside of the little studies that, one after
>>>> another, niggle away at the theoretical infrastructure. Excluded, here,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> not only philosophical inputs to theory, but even broader methodological
>>>> constraints regarding the character of good theories. (My own grounding
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> mathematical theorizing includes a deliciously salient sense of the
>>>> “elegance” that makes a theory truly admirable and worthy.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somehow, it seems noteworthy that CHAT/sociocultural psychology—whatever
>>>> its virtues—isn’t organized like other branches of psychology (e.g.,
>>>> behavioral, cognitive, developmental) with respect to the role of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> empirical
>>>
>>>
>>>> data in theory construction. Andy, in your response to Jenna, you
>>>>
>>>>
>>> described
>>>
>>>
>>>> science as an objective practice that “is not dependant on what you and
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I,
>>>
>>>
>>>> writing here on xmca in 2014, says it is.” The question all this raises
>>>>
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> whether CHAT/sociocultural psychology actually qualifies as a scientific
>>>> practice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 7:59 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David, in the recently published book, "Collaborative Projects. An
>>>> Interdisciplinary Study," authors were invited to submit studies with
>>>> empirical content (in the sense in which you are using the word) which
>>>> illustrated the use of the concept of "project" within CHAT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/6756231/Collaborative_Projects._An_
>>> Interdisciplinary_Study
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you can see from the Table of Contents, more than a dozen different
>>>> practical studies were contributed, and I am satisfied that the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> collection
>>>
>>>
>>>> functioned to illuminate the philosophical issues about the nature of
>>>> "an
>>>> activity," and its ue as a unit of analysis, even though they are only
>>>> explicitly addressed in the long Introduction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David H Kirshner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>> Clearly, as in Katherine Neal's response, and in MCA,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> CHAT/sociocultural
>>>
>>>
>>>> theory informs empirical research.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What's less clear is that empirical research informs CHAT/sociocultural
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> theorizing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not quite sure what to make of that.
>>>>> David
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike
>>>>> cole
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:15 AM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>> Your followup comment is closely related to the second part of
>>>>> your
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> initiating message, David. So i will respond in line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, I think it would be helpful to distinguish between MCA and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> xmca.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The idea behind xmca was to provide a discussion forum for articles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> appear in MCA so that instead of authors having to wait 2+ years for
>>>> feedback on their ideas (which rarely comes, even then!), we could
>>>>
>>>>
>>> discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>> the published work and learn from it in a timely manner. By an large,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> effort has, in my opinion, failed. Thanks to the recent decision to have
>>>> the editors pick out articles for discussion which include the author(s)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> the discussion, this situation has been somewhat mitigated. But only
>>>> somewhat. xma discussions have all the characteristics of Vygotskian
>>>> chaining, as a rule.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, when I take down a bundle of recent MCA issues and look at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> titles, they at least sound like they are about empirical matters
>>>> ranging
>>>> across a wide variety of content areas. Are you saying that these
>>>>
>>>>
>>> articles
>>>
>>>
>>>> are not really empirical? Or that they are not really helping us to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> develop
>>>
>>>
>>>> better methods to deal with perceived problems of social value? Again,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>
>>>> raises the question of "MCA or xmca".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, perhaps it would be helpful if those of us who believe that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> empirical work guided by CHAT ideas of some value has been produced in,
>>>> say, the past two decades, would post brief summiaries of that work with
>>>> references.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe its just all verbal sound and fury, signifying the usual!
>>>>> mike
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:50 AM, David H Kirshner <
>>>>> dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Does CHAT theory really advance with respect to empirical studies?
>>>>>> If so, then why isn't the XMCA discussion a discussion about
>>>>>> so-and-so's empirical results and how we should interpret
>>>>>> them?
>>>>>> Various branches of psychology (e.g., cognitive and
>>>>>> developmental) do
>>>>>> address concepts, and do conduct empirical research related
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> concepts.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's true, they rarely enter into full-blooded discussion of what is
>>>>>> a concept. But perhaps that's because they're scientists
>>>>>> rather than
>>>>>> philosophers. They're operating within a framework that is
>>>>>> bounded
>>>>>> primarily by empirical and methodological expectations and
>>>>>> obligations; theory evolves within those boundaries.
>>>>>> It's not clear to me that the Vygotskyan research community
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> operated in that fashion, and I'm wondering what would
>>>>>> happen if it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> did.
>>>
>>>
>>>> David
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 10:23 AM
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>>> Well, Lisa, I think that is a project which requires a lot
>>>>>> of what
>>>>>> David would call "philosophical" discussion. :) The
>>>>>> Psychology of
>>>>>> Concepts, as it is know to American psychology, i.e., the
>>>>>> "mainstream"
>>>>>> do endless laboratory tests and questionnaires and surveys
>>>>>> and so far
>>>>>> as I can see have still haven't figured out what a concept
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>> Lisa Yamagata-Lynch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I am guilty for being fixated about thinking and talking about
>>>>>>> methods and how to better understand how we can make a
>>>>>>> trustworthy
>>>>>>> leap from understanding the world to understanding
>>>>>>> concepts. Again
>>>>>>> just talking aloud.
>>>>>>> Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor
>>>>>>> Educational
>>>>>>> Psychology and Counseling
>>>>>>> http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net/
>>>>>>> A532
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bailey
>>>
>>>
>>>> Education Complex
>>>>>>> IT Online Program Coordinator
>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>> of Tennessee
>>>>>>> http://itonline.utk.edu/
>>>>>>> Knoxville, TN 37996
>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline
>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>> 865-974-7712
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Andy Blunden <
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess because xmca is a discussion list, Lisa, and
>>>>>>> we all have
>>>>>>> our specific research interests.
>>>>>>> But when we publish, most of us have something to
>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>> I have to plead guilty, I suppose, to spending more
>>>>>>> of my share
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> time arguing about concepts though. It is my special interest.
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> Lisa Yamagata-Lynch wrote:
>>>>>>> Why is it that we came to what David stated as:
>>>>>>> Generally, we CHATters do not "collaborate and
>>>>>>> argue over
>>>>>>> facts." We are engaged in making endless
>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>> elaborations, distinctions, and qualifications
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> completely detached from empirical specifics.
>>>>>>> Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Educational
>>>
>>>
>>>> Psychology and Counseling
>>>>>>> http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> A532
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bailey Education Complex
>>>>>>> IT Online Program Coordinator
>>>>>>> University of Tennessee
>>>>>>> http://itonline.utk.edu/
>>>>>>> Knoxville, TN 37996
>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phone:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 865-974-7712 <tel:865-974-7712>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:56 AM, David H
>>>>>>> Kirshner
>>>>>>> <dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu<mailto:
>>>>>>> dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> %
>>>
>>>
>>>> 20%3cmailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>> I don't think it's at all clear that CHAT is
>>>>>>> a scientific
>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>> though it might initially have been
>>>>>>> conceived as such.
>>>>>>> Generally, we CHATters do not "collaborate
>>>>>>> and argue over
>>>>>>> facts."
>>>>>>> We are engaged in making endless theoretical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> elaborations,
>>>
>>>
>>>> distinctions, and qualifications almost completely
>>>>>>> detached from
>>>>>>> empirical specifics. And as your note has
>>>>>>> revealed, even
>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>> level of theory, we're not all playing the
>>>>>>> same game.
>>>>>>> I agree with you that simply creating an
>>>>>>> obligation that
>>>>>>> claims be
>>>>>>> framed empirically does not imply we will
>>>>>>> "agree on the
>>>>>>> significance of that claim." But perhaps in
>>>>>>> an empirical
>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>> theoretical issues surface as methodological
>>>>>>> issues. In
>>>>>>> this case,
>>>>>>> there is a possibility that disagreements
>>>>>>> lead to
>>>>>>> separation of
>>>>>>> research enterprises, with (greater)
>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> agreement
>>>
>>>
>>>> as a
>>>>>>> consequence.
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>>]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:24 AM
>>>>>>> To: David H Kirshner
>>>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>> CHAT is a scientific project. Insofar as it
>>>>>>> is science
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> must
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> strive to produce empirically verifiable claims which are
>>>>>>> meaningful irrespective of the conceptual
>>>>>>> frame into
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>> they
>>>>>>> are accepted. But as a project it is
>>>>>>> characterised by a
>>>>>>> system of
>>>>>>> concepts. People can agree on this or that
>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> experimental
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> finding, but still not agree on the significance of that
>>>>>>> claim. We
>>>>>>> CHATters talk to one another, collaborate
>>>>>>> and argue over
>>>>>>> facts;
>>>>>>> all of this is possible only to the extent
>>>>>>> that we share
>>>>>>> concepts.
>>>>>>> "Facts" are the lingua franca of science. As
>>>>>>> worthy a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> goal
>>>
>>>
>>>> as it
>>>>>>> is to lay out some agreed facts, I think it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> ill-conceived to
>>>>>>> think that this is a means of consolidating
>>>>>>> a current of
>>>>>>> research
>>>>>>> like CHAT. You can call it philosophical or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> psychological,
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't
>>>>>>> think that makes any difference.
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> David H Kirshner wrote:
>>>>>>> > Following on Andy's discussion of artefact
>>>>>>> mediation,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> seems
>>>>>>> inherently a problem of CHAT discourse to
>>>>>>> distinguishing
>>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>>> to elaborate Vygotsky's psychology more
>>>>>>> fully, from
>>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> solve the problems Vygotsky was addressing, de novo. In
>>>>>>> tandem, is
>>>>>>> ambiguity as to whether CHAT is a
>>>>>>> psychological or
>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>> discourse.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I wonder, in the spirit of psychology, if
>>>>>>> advancement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> CHAT
>>>>>>> would not be better served by embedding
>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>> discussion in
>>>>>>> analysis of empirical data. The point, here,
>>>>>>> would not be
>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>> CHAT more directly relevant to domains of
>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>> (though that
>>>>>>> would not be a bad thing). Rather, an
>>>>>>> empirical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> obligation
>>>
>>>
>>>> might
>>>>>>> transmute (some) questions of theory into
>>>>>>> questions of
>>>>>>> methodology. In that way, CHAT could become
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> differentiated
>>>
>>>
>>>> into
>>>>>>> distinct psychological schools, each
>>>>>>> constrained by
>>>>>>> methodological
>>>>>>> strictures that also support a more
>>>>>>> homogeneous
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> theoretical
>>>
>>>
>>>> environment. At the same time, a wide-open CHAT community
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> look across these various schools to pursue
>>>>>>> broader
>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>> problematics.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > David
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy
>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 7:02 AM
>>>>>>> > To: Huw Lloyd
>>>>>>> > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception
>>>>>>> and direct
>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Ah! I see!
>>>>>>> > As Hegel said: "There is nothing, nothing
>>>>>>> in heaven, or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally
>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>> both immediacy and mediation." I have no
>>>>>>> great problem
>>>>>>> with anyone
>>>>>>> saying that anything is mediated by anything
>>>>>>> else, where
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> appropriate. My problem is that the specific insight of
>>>>>>> Vygotsky,
>>>>>>> that artefact-mediation of actions provides
>>>>>>> an especially
>>>>>>> productive unit of analysis for science is
>>>>>>> lost if
>>>>>>> mediation in
>>>>>>> the broad sense is mixed up in CHAT
>>>>>>> literature with
>>>>>>> artefact-mediation to the point that
>>>>>>> artefact-mediation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> lost.
>>>>>>> Still, I would prefer that if you were to
>>>>>>> make the point
>>>>>>> you were
>>>>>>> referring to you used some expression other
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "mediation."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Artefact mediation of actions is a
>>>>>>> brilliant insight. I
>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>> what I like, but to do anything (other than
>>>>>>> have dreams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>>> thoughts) I have to use some material object to transmit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> my
>>>
>>>
>>>> actions, so to speak - a tool, a word, a gesture, or
>>>>>>> whatever -
>>>>>>> but all these artefacts which I use, without
>>>>>>> exception,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> products of the history and culture into which I was
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> born.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can
>>>>>>> choose which artefact to use, but culture
>>>>>>> and history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> produce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> them. So every action I take is essentially
>>>>>>> cultural-historical as
>>>>>>> well as personal. Also, because artefacts
>>>>>>> are material
>>>>>>> objects,
>>>>>>> their physical form is the same for
>>>>>>> everyone, it is
>>>>>>> universal. So
>>>>>>> communication as much as miscommunication
>>>>>>> takes place
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> through
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> everyone interpreting the same material objects,
>>>>>>> artefacts, that I
>>>>>>> am using in my actions. How can they do
>>>>>>> that? Because
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> too
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mediate their actions with the same set of universal
>>>>>>> artefacts! So
>>>>>>> all human action is opened to cultural and
>>>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which is as objective as any branch of natural science.
>>>>>>> Wonderful, eh?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Andy
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> If you want to study how action changes
>>>>>>> then you need
>>>>>>> to study the
>>>>>>> >> history and production of the action.
>>>>>>> Under such
>>>>>>> circumstances,
>>>>>>> >> assertions that concepts cannot mediate
>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> production
>>>
>>>
>>>> of) actions
>>>>>>> >> become more obviously false. If one has
>>>>>>> simplified,
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> >> "clarity", the action away from its
>>>>>>> genetic base then
>>>>>>> it may seem
>>>>>>> >> correct to assert that a concept cannot
>>>>>>> mediate an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> action.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> The conservation tasks (e.g. conservation
>>>>>>> of volume)
>>>>>>> are an elegant
>>>>>>> >> way to demonstrate this.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Best,
>>>>>>> >> Huw
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On 15 September 2014 04:26, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<
>>>>>>> mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> he, he, Huw!
>>>>>>> >> For me, reduction, simplification and
>>>>>>> typology are
>>>>>>> the very
>>>>>>> >> problems that need to be remedied by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> clarification!
>>>
>>>
>>>> and I
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> >> don't think obfuscation is ever
>>>>>>> helpful, generally
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> used to
>>>>>>> >> obscure the genesis of phenomena.
>>>>>>> Distinction is
>>>>>>> not equal to
>>>>>>> >> separation.
>>>>>>> >> I really don't know what you are
>>>>>>> referring to with
>>>>>>> product and
>>>>>>> >> history. Perhaps you could explain?
>>>>>>> >> Andy
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> >> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I agree about precision, but not
>>>>>>> with a call
>>>>>>> for "clarity".
>>>>>>> >> Reduction to clarity is a
>>>>>>> projection or
>>>>>>> reification of the
>>>>>>> >> need for simplicity. Simplicity
>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> entails
>>>
>>>
>>>> typologies or
>>>>>>> >> other simplistic devices which
>>>>>>> prevent the
>>>>>>> conception and
>>>>>>> >> perception of genetic relations.
>>>>>>> Actually in
>>>>>>> cases such as
>>>>>>> >> these we are interested in
>>>>>>> (clarifying) the
>>>>>>> entanglements
>>>>>>> >> between artefacts and mind. I
>>>>>>> think It would
>>>>>>> be equally
>>>>>>> >> appropriate and meaning-prompting
>>>>>>> to state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>>> >> obfuscate (see darkly) too.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I think it is this "need for
>>>>>>> simplification"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> leads me to
>>>>>>> >> disagree with the 2nd paragraph.
>>>>>>> For example,
>>>>>>> why separate
>>>>>>> >> the act from its production and
>>>>>>> history?
>>>>>>> >> Of course, if one had the
>>>>>>> discipline to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> de-couple
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> clarity from
>>>>>>> >> modes of simplicity, then we
>>>>>>> wouldn't have the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Best,
>>>>>>> >> Huw
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On 14 September 2014 07:02, Andy
>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> My impression, Greg and David
>>>>>>> Ki, is that
>>>>>>> in the CHAT
>>>>>>> >> tradition
>>>>>>> >> specifically, as opposed to
>>>>>>> the English
>>>>>>> language in
>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>> >> mediation refers to
>>>>>>> *artefact-mediation*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of
>>>
>>>
>>>> course, every
>>>>>>> >> action
>>>>>>> >> is both mediated and
>>>>>>> immediate, and in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> many
>>>
>>>
>>>> discursive
>>>>>>> >> contexts,
>>>>>>> >> "mediation" is a concept
>>>>>>> which may be
>>>>>>> evoked quite
>>>>>>> >> legitimately,
>>>>>>> >> but with no special
>>>>>>> significant for the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> use
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> CHAT. In social
>>>>>>> >> theory, for example,
>>>>>>> mediation of
>>>>>>> activities by other
>>>>>>> >> activities
>>>>>>> >> or institutions is as
>>>>>>> ubiquitous as
>>>>>>> mediation of
>>>>>>> actions by
>>>>>>> >> artefacts is in the domain of
>>>>>>> psychology.
>>>>>>> But if
>>>>>>> the topic is
>>>>>>> >> psychology, I think
>>>>>>> artefact-mediation is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> so
>>>
>>>
>>>> central, that I
>>>>>>> >> prefer to spell it out and
>>>>>>> use the term
>>>>>>> >> "artefact-mediated" rather
>>>>>>> >> than the vague term
>>>>>>> "mediated".
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I have come across usages
>>>>>>> like "mediated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> such-and-such a
>>>>>>> >> concept." Like Alice in
>>>>>>> Wonderland one can
>>>>>>> use words to
>>>>>>> >> mean what
>>>>>>> >> you like, but I find a
>>>>>>> formulation like
>>>>>>> this in the
>>>>>>> context of
>>>>>>> >> CHAT problematic, because it
>>>>>>> is using the
>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>> >> "mediation" in
>>>>>>> >> the most general sense in a
>>>>>>> way which
>>>>>>> obscures the
>>>>>>> fact that a
>>>>>>> >> concept is not immediately
>>>>>>> present in any
>>>>>>> act of
>>>>>>> >> communication or
>>>>>>> >> any other act, and therefore
>>>>>>> *cannot
>>>>>>> mediate actions*.
>>>>>>> >> Artefacts,
>>>>>>> >> such as spoken words, which
>>>>>>> may be signs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> for a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> concept, can of
>>>>>>> >> course mediate an act of
>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> point is
>>>>>>> >> that a
>>>>>>> >> word is not universally and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> unproblematically
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sign for
>>>>>>> >> any one
>>>>>>> >> concept. It means different
>>>>>>> things to
>>>>>>> different people.
>>>>>>> >> Concepts
>>>>>>> >> are not artefacts. Artefacts
>>>>>>> are universal
>>>>>>> in their
>>>>>>> >> materiality,
>>>>>>> >> but particular in their
>>>>>>> meaning. So when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> have a
>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>> >> in mind
>>>>>>> >> when we use a word in
>>>>>>> communication, the
>>>>>>> communication is
>>>>>>> >> mediated
>>>>>>> >> by the word not the concept,
>>>>>>> and it is a
>>>>>>> mistake
>>>>>>> not to be
>>>>>>> >> aware
>>>>>>> >> of that.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> So I would prefer it if
>>>>>>> "mediation" were
>>>>>>> always used in
>>>>>>> >> qualified
>>>>>>> >> way so that its specific
>>>>>>> meaning is made
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Andy
>>>>>>> >> PS. And David Ki is
>>>>>>> completely right in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> his
>>>
>>>
>>>> comment, too.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~
>>>>>>> andy/
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> >> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%
>>>>>>> 7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> >> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%
>>>>>>> 7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Does "mediation" only
>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> language
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> culture?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Or does it include nerve
>>>>>>> fibers? (in
>>>>>>> which case we
>>>>>>> >> would need
>>>>>>> >> to include
>>>>>>> >> reflexes)
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> And does it include our
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> socio-contextual
>>>
>>>
>>>> surround as in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
--
Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction and re-
construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but more or
less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths, and
Gray, 2001]
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list