Re: [xmca] Socio-cultural theories

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Denise
I also would be really interested in hearing othere remarks. It seems to me
a time honoured "tradition" :-} for scholars to think out loud and debate
the pros and cons of different perspectives.
As Andy points out, it seems that everyone has been responding to Kant
and Hegel since they articulated their perspectives. This thread is in the
same spirit of inquiry.

ps Andy, I just read Mead's article on D'Arcy and Hegelian perspectives.

I do believe that its productive  to reflect on ones reflections or take a
perspective on ones perspectives [meataperspectives] in conversations with
others and have these reflections "transform" how one positions oneself in
the actual "real" world.

Larry


On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>wrote:

> Dear Mike and Larry, I for one am really interested in others remarks, I
> especially would like to read what those categorized would say. Where would
> Engestrom. Y place himself. Probably he would say that he is not
> interested:) Apparently he is on the opposite end of the continuum to
> Valsiner?
>
> Denise
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of mike cole
> Sent: 21 August 2010 02:00
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> Cc: Keith Sawyer
> Subject: [xmca] Socio-cultural theories
>
> I greatly admire the work of Keith Sawyer, Larry. As I do a large number of
> the people
> he discussed in the article that Denise distributed. And it is always
> interesting to see one's work
> compared analytically with those of others. Its also interesting to try to
> wrestle with the tangle of inter-related ideas embodied in a variety of
> statements abstract from their context and arrayed against each other. I
> have always struggled with the idea of inclusive and exclusive
> inseparability, to take one example. Barbara opts for real real
> inseparability. But she separates perspectives. In doing so, she makes
> distinctions that sound a lot like "individual," small group," and
> "everyone
> there." Of course, these are just perspectives on the same flow of
> activity,
> but what principles provide the template to the next person to know how to
> make the same separations?
>
> Keiths terrific discussion is a reminder of how difficult it is to be
> consistent in this maelstrom of scholarly inquiry, and how statements taken
> from different periods, abstracted from their
> context (oops, tough word to use, in this... ugh, discussion), afford
> setting up a firm category -- like sociocultural theory, or who fits in the
> category of socio-cultural theorist. Kind of like distinguishing the dancer
> from the dance. Impossible, of course. But somehow we slip into doing it
> all
> the time.
>
> I'll be interested in what others make of these complex issues.
>
>
> Thanks to Denise for this stimulating read. I'll read with interests what
> others think about these
> issues.
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> 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