Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

>From this framework CHAT perspectives could be seen as collecting both sides
of the antinomy into a new synthesis or integration.
Yep
mike

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Martin & Mike
> My "reading" of the article was to put emphasis on  the constuct
> "dialectical" and the notion of a tension between two polarities in a
> particular type of opposition (ie the figure ground configuration) and that
> historically this tension has oscillated with first one side and then the
> other in the ascendency but in reality BOTH are required and "development"
> cannot exist unless their is a "tension" between these polarities.
> Now the mention of "culture" as a construct or social representation
> "integrating" these two antinomy's does fit with the article's notion of a
> dialectical relation of nature/nurture tension being integrated
> (interweaved) through culture.
> I was reading the article as viewing the concept of development as a
> "construction" but not any old construction but rather a social
> representation of particular salience in Western civilization. However the
> yin/yang symbol points to Eastern dialectical notions as also being
> implicated in their constructions of development.
> My reading of the article was Arnie's question if our historical
> narratives of development and our notions of ontological development follow
> a similar dialectical trajectory of nature/nurture antinomy and oscillation
> through historical time. From this framework CHAT perspectives could be seen
> as collecting both sides of the antinomy into a new synthesis or
> integration.
> Andy, with your background in dialectical theory, how do you read the
> question Arnie is presenting in his article?
> Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > Your helixes/helices seemed appropriate to the discussion, Martin.
> > XXX-history is cultural-historical genesis. And, as Steve suggested,
> > the twisted rope of many strands may be at the end of the
> > rainbow of
> > promises.
> >
> > I have been pondering David Ke's question about the
> > object/objective/motivation for play. It came together in my
> > thinking with
> > Yrjo's metaphor of being always "just over the horizon" and its dual
> > material and ideal nature, most recently mentioned by Wolf-
> > Michael. Might it
> > be the dream of being coordinated with a world entirely
> > consistent with
> > one's own dreams? A world, extending, as Leslie White put it,
> > that extends
> > from infinity to infinity, in both directions?
> >
> > probably not, just wondering.
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Martin Packer
> > <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Larry,
> > >
> > > I didn't mean to detract from the discussion with my playful
> > helices. I
> > > haven't found time yet to read Sameroff's article, so I don't
> > know if he is
> > > proposing that there is an antimony between nature and nurture
> > in human
> > > development, or in our *conceptions* of development. I took
> > Mike to be
> > > suggesting, in his recent message, that when we pay attention
> > to culture we
> > > can transcend that antimony, since culture is a 'second
> > nature' that
> > > provides nurture, and since culture is the medium in which
> > human brains and
> > > bodies grow, and since all nurture offered to the growing
> > child is mediated
> > > by culture, and since culture has been transforming human
> > nature throughout
> > > anthropogenesis through its selective evolutionary pressures.
> > >
> > > Eric, yes, I should have added phylogenesis, not just
> > biological evolution.
> > > What then is the "XX-genesis" term for history?
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems the double or triple helix is a significant way of
> > trying to
> > > configure dynamic processes.  However, what the
> > particular specific double
> > > helix referred to in the article is pointing to is a very
> > specific tension
> > > BETWEEN two specific constructs "Nature" and "nurture".
> > The current debates
> > > raging about neuroscience on the one side and the tension with
> > relational> notions of development on the other hand (ie the
> > > self-other-object/representation triangle) suggest a
> > dialectical tension
> > > which the article says may be INHERENT to development.
> > To me this is asking
> > > a question about how the mind constructs significant social
> > representations.>  What is specific about this particular
> > double helix is the HISTORICAL
> > > salience of this SPECIFIC ANTIMONY through centuries of
> > dialogue and theory.
> > > My question is "Is there significance to the extended duration
> > of this
> > > specific antimony through centuries. Does this historical
> > engagement with
> > > the specific notions of nature and nurture have relevance for CHAT
> > > discussions.  This is not to say other double or triple
> > helix models may not
> > > have more explanatory power but that is not the specific
> > question asked in
> > > the article. The question being asked specifically is if this
> > specific> nature/nurture antinomy is inherent to the notion of
> > development? Other
> > > double or triple helix's could be conceptualized within the
> > nature/nurture> antinomy but the question I believe is being
> > asked is how relevant a
> > > dialectical (or alternatively dialogically) nature/nurture
> > antinomy is to
> > > our primary (ontological??) notions of Development as a social
> > > representation.
> > > > When I read the article, it seemed to capture the tension we are
> > > exploring about the place of neuroscience in our theories of
> > development.> For some scholars one side or the other side is in
> > ascendence and
> > > historically one side or the other is in ascendence. What the
> > article is
> > > asking is if we must "INTEGRATE" what is often seen as in
> > opposition and
> > > realize nature/nurture is in a figure/ground type of
> > relational pattern
> > > (like the ying/yang visual representation) and the movement
> > BETWEEN the two
> > > positions is basic to development.
> > > > Do others have thoughts on the specific question Arnie has
> > asked in his
> > > article about the historical dynamic of the nature/nurture
> > antinomy in
> > > developmental theories as well as in ontological and cultural
> > historical> development. This question speaks to me about the
> > possible relevance of
> > > Moscovici's theory of social representations.
> > > > One alternative answer is to generate other double or triple
> > helix models
> > > which may become social representations over time as they are
> > debated in a
> > > community of inquiry but the article as written is pointing to
> > a very
> > > salient social representation within our Western tradition.
> > Does that
> > > recognition of its historical roots change how we view this
> > particular> antinomy?
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > > > Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:59 pm
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
> > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > >
> > > >> That's right, Steve, though I'm pretty sure I didn't see this
> > > >> title until after I made the diagram. And of course
> > Lewontin is
> > > >> referring to different factors. And, also, of course, collagen
> > > >> actually does have a triple-helix structure, which Francis Crick
> > > >> thought was more interesting than the double helix of DNA, but
> > > >> which got very little attention.
> > > >>
> > > >> Martin
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On the triple helix metaphor:  Richard Lewontin used it
> > > >> in the title of his 1998/2000 collection of essays _The Triple
> > > >> Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment_.  His core theme
> > > >> regarding biological development is that solely considering the
> > > >> interaction between gene and organism makes for bad
> > > >> biology.   The environment has decisive influence
> > as well.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Steve
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What do others think of the double helix (and/or the other
> > > >> visual images in the article). How central is the double helix
> > > >> (either as an "is Like" or "IS" objectification) to your notions
> > > >> of the human sciences?
> > > >>>>> Larry
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> ...and I am pretty sure I stole, I mean appropriated, this
> > > >> from someone; I've forgotten who...
> > > >>>> <PastedGraphic-2.pdf>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> 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
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> developmental
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca