Re: [xmca] Wells article

Thanks for this time consuming and instructive note, Andy. We ALL need to be
able to
construct a way to consider, jointly, the incredibly polysemic
(multi-meaninged) words were
are discoursing about ( :-) ) if we are to converge on some sort of
more-or-less concensus.

Gordon's article is proving an exceptionally rich source of reflective
examination of complex
core concepts.
mike

On 10/5/07, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> Eric, the problem is that the relevant words - ideal, object, subject,
> discourse, activity, action, act, operation, thought, matter, mind - all
> have radically different meanings according to whether they are taken as
> part of Leontyev's Activity Theory, Marxism more generally, Kantian
> philosophy, Hegelian philosophy or everyday common sense.
>
> I included a link
> http://marx.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/ideal/ideal.htm in earlier mail,
> solely to clarify what "ideal" meant to me and in the CHAT tradition. The
> way Ilyenkov explains the meaning of "ideal" he does indeed see it as
> evolving out of human objectives and needs, but it does not mean the same
> as "ideal" as in the sentence: "It would be ideal if there were no mice
> here." "Ideal" refers to the universal aspect of an activity which is
> reified or objectified, that is to say, imputed to the properties of
> material objects or actually embodied in matter by changing the form of
> matter through some kind of labour, so that the material object can be
> interpreted and used to coordinate collaborative human activity. Every
> concept or thought is an ideal, because that is exactly how we think and
> use concepts.
>
> In an earlier mail I included a link to
> http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five2.htm so that if anyone
> wanted they could check up on what is meant by "material" in the tradition
> of thinking to which CHAT belongs.
>
> "Subject" and "object" are also very contested words. "Object" does not
> mean for us what it means in a sentence like: "The object was to get rid
> of
> the mice" and "Subject" does not mean what it means in the sentence: "The
> subject of our conversation was the best method for eradication of mice."
> "Object" in the sense of what is intended to be achieved is similar to
> "object" here, and perhaps someone else will help me here, but I suspect
> that when Leontyev and his followers talk about "object-oriented activity"
> they do indeed mean "object" in this sense, as opposed to the meaning of
> "object" when contrasted with "subject". The two meanings are closely
> related but not identical.
>
> The meaning of "subject" is extremely tricky and I will make it my
> contribution hopefully before I die to clarify this one. Despite the fact
> that CHAT arose from the tradition of thought: Hegel - Marx - Vygotsky,
> using the Hegelian meaning of the word "subject", in common with all
> contemporary philosophy, advocates of CHAT almost invariably use the word
> "subject" in its Kantian sense, tied to methodological individualism. This
> meaning is so ubiquitous and also it remains the only means of capturing
> the ethical meaning, that it is almost impossible to avoid using "subject"
> in the sense of a morally responsible individual person. But that is not
> what it meant to Hegel and Marx. I don't have the knowledge to track how
> it
> was used by the Russians, though I'd love to be told.
>
> So Eric, almost all the difficulties you and I have had communicating in
> this discussion, I think, derive from differences in word meaning. I am a
> bit stubborn that way, I admit. I refuse to give up the meaning of words
> when those meanings are so profound and contain so much of science from
> the
> past which is lost in everyday language. Apologies. All I can do is enjoin
> you to acquaint yourself with the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky meaning of these
> words as I try to follow what they mean in the Kant-common sense-modern
> philosophy usage. My observation is that within CHAT these words are used
> with inconsistent meanings by different people.
>
> Andy
>
> At 10:54 AM 5/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Paul:
> >
> >I truely believe that the result may be far from the ideal. However, if
> >there is a discourse taking place between people who are engaged in a
> goal
> >directed activity, then within the paramaters of this discoursing the
> >"ideal" is the "object"??? I must admit I am engaging in this discussion
> >more for a sense of trying to hear what my thoughts are as I write them
> >down. Here is an example:
> >
> >Perhaps I have mice in my basement. I go to the feed mill and talk to an
> >expert on mice eradication. The ideal would be to rid my basement of
> mice.
> >The discourse between I and the expert revolves around ridding my
> basement
> >of mice. This may not result from the efforts I engage upon my return
> home
> >but nevertheless, when I am talking to the expert we are engaged in a
> >discourse of "rid the mice"; not, "get rid of SOME of the mice."
> >
> > Andy, I do not think the expert sees me as a subject to be manipulated
> but
> >rather views "rid the mice" as the subject. The ideal provides a
> catalyst
> >for how to discourse with me, the customer.
> >
> >Is any of this making sense?
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
> > Dillon
> >
> > <phd_crit_think@ To: "eXtended Mind,
> > Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > yahoo.com> cc:
> >
> > Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells
> > article
> > xmca-bounces@web
> >
> > er.ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 10/03/2007
> > 01:41
> >
> > PM
> >
> > Please
> > respond
> >
> > to
> > "eXtended
> >
> > Mind,
> > Culture,
> >
> > Activity"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Eric,
> >
> > Before entering into the argument strictly speaking, I would like you
> to
> >look at some evidence (see attachment).
> >
> > I don't agree that the "ideal" exists in the discussion unless that
> >discussion has an identifiable
> >[object/frame-of-reference/verifiabilty-space/etc?] that exists
> >independently of the ideal that exists in the discussion and against
> which
> >any given instantiation of the ideal as developed in the discussion can
> be
> >compared. Say the shape of a knife. Form as ideal - cleaver or scalpel?
> >
> > Also, internalized discussions in which imagined communities
> participate,
> >"Walter Mitty" comes to mind, must clearly enter in the discussion space
> in
> >which shadows of ideals sport and play.
> >
> > I think the evidence I' ve attached provides an arguable demonstration
> of
> >how the ideal in discussion can lead one far from the ideal that might
> >exist independently of that discussion.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> >
> >Paul:
> >
> >That is indeed a good question pertaining to the "ideal". If the ideal
> >nose is invisioned then what is the product end result of the operation?
> >There is the activity of the "noe job" and then there is the operation of
> >changing the nose. The ideal is the discussion of what the new nose
> >should look like and then there is the material end of a new nose. Just
> >positing in fun : )
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
> >
> >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >cc:
> >bcc:
> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells article
> >Paul Dillon
> >
> >Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >10/02/2007 03:25 PM MST
> >Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" size=-1>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >before or after the nose job?
> >
> >ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> >Paul;
> >
> >And here I had always invisioned you as Robert Zimmerman : )
> >
> >
> >
> >Paul Dillon
> >
> >
> >yahoo.com> cc:
> >Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells article
> >xmca-bounces@web
> >er.ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> >10/02/2007 02:29
> >PM
> >Please respond
> >to "eXtended
> >Mind, Culture,
> >Activity"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Sure and I'm Alexander the Grape.
> >
> >
> >Kevin Rocap wrote:
> >That was....
> >
> >A Gordon Knot?
> >
> >;-)
> >
> >Paul Dillon wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It just ocurred to me that listserv threads are something akin to
> Andean
> >quipu, threads with knots used to record every kind of information. But .
> .
> >.
> > >
> > > Maybe Gordon could explain how what he's proposing relates to
> Habermas'
> >theory of communicative action, a fourth level to the Weberian continuum,
> >beyond strategic action, communicative action, with its own ideal state,
> >oriented to reaching understanding. As far as I can tell, this wheel
> might
> >already have been employed in building various kinds of vehicles. So
> maybe
> >some clarification would be useful.
> > >
> > > Paul. Dillon
> > >
> > > "Worthen, Helena Harlow" wrote:
> > > Andy --
> > >
> > > Are you saying you don't see a useful difference between language
> being
> > > used to coordinate actions directed toward a shared goal, and language
> > > being used to create something that is not the shared goal of the
> > > participants, but something different? I think this is a useful
> > > distinction, because the latter would give us a name for the process
> we
> > > would expect to see if we could zoom in on and observe in slow motion
> > > (maybe in a transcript) the way words get turned, replaced, defined
> and
> > > re-defined in the process of negotiating an agree-upon text.
> > >
> > > Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> > > Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> > > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > > 504 E. Armory, Room 227
> > > Champaign, IL 61821
> > > Phone: 217-244-4095
> > > hworthen@uiuc.edu
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:15 PM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Wells article
> > >
> > > Helena,
> > > I took it that Gordon ended up saying that Halliday's distinction
> cannot
> > > be
> > > sustained.
> > > Here is what he says:
> > >
> > > "From this work it has becomes apparent that the initial distinction
> > > made
> > > by Halliday (1978)
> > > between ancillary and constitutive discoursing, although useful
> > > conceptually, is an oversimplification
> > > of actual practice. The first and most obvious complication is that
> many
> > >
> > > interactions
> > > involve more than one genre, as when a shopper discusses the weather
> or
> > > current events in
> > > the course of a purchasing action.
> > > A second issue is that the distinction between ancillary and
> > > constitutive
> > > discoursing is
> > > not as clear-cut as Halliday suggested. Taking the football example
> from
> > >
> > > earlier, at various
> > > points before and during the game, the coach discusses strategy with
> the
> > >
> > > entire team and perhaps
> > > also with one or more individuals; he will probably also shout from
> the
> > > sidelines. Although the
> > > latter might fit Halliday's argument that "any instructions or other
> > > verbal
> > > interaction among
> > > the players are part of this social action" (p. 144), it is not so
> clear
> > >
> > > that the strategy talk before
> > > the team leaves the dressing room is entirely part of the "social
> > > action"
> > > of the game itself.
> > > However, the most difficult issue is that of determining what goals
> are
> > > involved in any
> > > action in which discoursing plays a part. The problem is that
> > > participants
> > > rarely announce their
> > > goals, expecting others to be able to deduce them from the situation
> and
> > >
> > > from the genre form
> > > they adopt."
> > >
> > > So I didn't follow this issue any further because I wouldn't support
> > > this
> > > particular dichotomy at any but a superficial level. I think discourse
> > > is
> > > always, along with other elements of material culture, part of
> > > constituting
> > > the project. I see conflict as essentially indistinguishable from
> > > collaboration and the material/ideal distinction between project also
> > > untenable. Anyway, Gordon gave three reasons for not making this
> > > distinction and that was good enough for me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > At 02:41 PM 1/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Hello, xmca:
> > >>
> > >> I'll take a shot at the Wells article, as usual, from the point of
> view
> > >> of a labor educator.
> > >>
> > >> As I read it, he's distinguishing between the use of language as
> > >> "ancillary" to an activity and the use of language that actually
> > >> constitutes what participants are doing. When people use language to
> > >> coordinate activity, that's "ancillary." When the thing that has to
> > >>
> > > "get
> > >
> > >> done" is itself made out of language (he gives the example of a
> meeting
> > >> with an agenda and agreed-upon decisions to be made - p. 167) then
> > >> that's "constitutive discoursing," the co-construction of "possible
> > >> worlds" (he references Bruner). However, he's saying, this
> distinction
> > >> has already been made (by Halliday). Wells then says that the
> > >> distinction between the two is not always clear, because people may
> be
> > >> co-constructing with different goals in mind. He lists some examples
> of
> > >> different goals in the middle of page 173.
> > >>
> > >> At this point, I am thinking that Wells is right but I'd like him to
> > >> give an example where people are co-constructing something but have
> > >>
> > > more
> > >
> > >> strikingly different goals in mind -- goals more different than the
> > >> goals of a trio of researchers observing their own discoursing or
> even
> > >> than the goals of a teacher and three students in a busy classroom.
> > >>
> > >> Of course I was reading this article keeping in mind the
> > >>
> > > co-constructive
> > >
> > >> constitutive discoursing that takes place when workers and employers
> > >> bargain a contract. The contract is an example of a "possible world."
> > >>
> > > It
> > >
> > >> is built up bit by bit over the years, written down and enforced
> > >>
> > > through
> > >
> > >> yards and yards, miles and miles of talk. In fact, both the contract
> > >>
> > > and
> > >
> > >> the process by which it is negotiated are negotiated. But most
> helpful
> > >> of all to me, as I try to understand what is actually happening when
> > >> people negotiate their conditions of work, was Wells' point that(p
> 174)
> > >> the "the participants are not interchangeable." Constitutive
> > >> discoursing (the co-creation of something through language) is
> > >> characterized by participants in an itneraction who are not
> > >> interchangeable. It is the different perspectives of the parties to
> the
> > >> negotiation that make the co-construction of something possible.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not convinced that the word "discoursing" is going to get into
> > >> popular use. It may be that Wells doesn't expect it to go much
> further
> > >> himself; in fact, he could be putting forth this term ironically,
> since
> > >> by the end of the article he appears to have pulled the plug on the
> > >> notion that discoursing is an activity in its own right.
> > >>
> > >> Is there a significant stream of argument that says that the use of
> > >> language for no other purpose (no co-construction, no constitution)
> is
> > >> in itself an activity? Wouldn't that be like carrying a tape recorder
> > >> down a busy street or drifting from channel to channel on the TV? But
> > >> then we'd be in the realms of art.
> > >>
> > >> I saw Chris Marker's movie, Les Chats Perches (?) last night. Now
> > >> there's a record of co-construction of an emergent text and possible
> > >> world.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Helena Worthen
> > >> Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> > >> Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> > >> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > >> 504 E. Armory, Room 227
> > >> Champaign, IL 61821
> > >> Phone: 217-244-4095
> > >> hworthen@uiuc.edu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > >
> > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> > > AIM
> > > identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
> story.
> > > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest
> shows
> >on Yahoo! TV.
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> >Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo!
> >Games.(See attached file: mjackson nose.jpg)
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> mobile 0409 358 651
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Fri Oct 5 21:08 PDT 2007