These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 19 April 2011 13:27, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> wrote: > Hi Huw, > > My worry about seeing activity in terms of cybernetics is that, for the > most part, cybernetics is a dynamic system and has interesting ideas in > terms of feeback loops, it is also representatitve of basically a closed > system (at least that seems to be the way is was discussed at the Sears > conference, which is one of the reason Bateson may have felt so out of place > there - well that and the fact that nobody would talk to him.) > > I think this is temperamental difficulty. If you compare Beer and Ashby they are, at least for me, worlds apart in tone and focus (open/closed). Yet Beer actively recognised Ashby's genius. For me, the most encouraging aspect of Bateson, Beer, Halliday, Vygotsky, and others, is their insistence on holistic (systemic, relational, unitary) approaches. I didn't say it was easy (a justifiable worry) only that it seems to work conceptually. > All right, all right, I can already hear Andy saying, "What do you mean > closed system Michael?" > > So by closed system I guess I mean that all the players are already there > in the system, and while they change based on the ways they interact with > each other and there is a dynamism to the interaction, it does not promote > or welcome, or particularly know what to do with links out to unexpected > information sources. > Yes, drawing a delimited boundary around a system: "I conceive of this system as being uninfluenced by any other dynamics beyond this boundary". I think that for anyone who's got their head around mediation they're unlikely to fall into that trap, although treating a system as closed can be a useful simplification. Huw > Michael > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 8:20 AM > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu; lchcmike@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts) > > > > > > Huw-- > > > > > > What notion of activity are you using when you write below: > > > > > > "The omission I'm noticing here is that knowing and experiencing is an > > > activity" ? > > > > > > (I include the immediately preceeding paragraph for context) > > > mike > > > > Mental activity. Experiencing is not passive, it is met half way and is > > actively interpreted (when I get round to it, Husserl is the place to go > for > > this, I believe). > > [...] > > > For clarity, with respect to further interpretations lifted from the other > thread, I am conceiving of this activity cybernetically, i.e. as part of > the > process of self-regulation. That is, our experience and our knowing is, > amongst other things, mediated by our concepts (or the semiotic units > derived from their employment) as part of our regulatory processes which we > call activity. > > I hope that helps! > > Huw > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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