[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
On 26 April 2011 14:50, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> Huw:
>
> The problem is that CHAT in particular and developmental psychology in
> general does not utilize systems theory in its methodology. Jaan Valsiner
> goes so far as refuting system theory as an explanatory tool for human
> development. This critique can be found in is book "Culture and the
> development of children's action".
Do you have a page number or quote, please?
> If you are not interested in defining
> system of action in your own words could you please steer me to an article
> that could enlighten me?
>
My working definition of action was "that which self-regulating things do
over time". So it remains to describe what self-regulation is, which
Maturana and Varela did a great job on (Autopoiesis and Cognition).
I note that on page 147 of the edition I looked at, Valsiner seems to refer
to Bertalanffy in a favourable light (you could take a look at General
System Theory).
You could look at soft systems methodology (Soft Systems Methodlogy in
Action, Checkland and Scholes).
You could also contrast Vickers (The Art of Judgement) with Simon (The
Sciences of the Artificial).
For some easy to read introductions to systems thinking and systems design
you could look at some of Weinberg's books (An Introduction to General
Systems Thinking, General Principals of System Design).
In psychology, reading between the lines of, say, Winnicott (transitional
phenomena), Vygotsky, Erickson (Hypnosis and systemic aspects), Jung
(Personality theory) might help too. Already mentioned in Wertsch's Mind as
Action.
Got to go.
Huw
>
> eric
>
>
>
> From: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: 04/25/2011 08:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>
>
> On 25 April 2011 21:18, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 25 April 2011 15:10, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Huw:
> >>
> >> Thank you for the dialogue. I am having a difficult time understanding
> >> what you mean by a "system of action".
> >>
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with not understanding it, unless it's a problem
> for
> > you.
> >
> >
> >> It is not a part of CHAT and
> >> doesn't fit into what LSV was describing in T& S when he discusses the
> >> development of concepts.
> >
> >
> > If you say so, but consider this: if you don't know what I'm referring
> to
> > how do you know it's "not in there"?
> >
> >
> >> Perhaps if you gave me a background of how you
> >> use this in your daily practice I could understand.
> >
> >
> > I seem to have the habit of turning my interests into my work, so I'm
> not
> > quite sure where to start, and would likely entail quite a brain dump.
> Some
> > of the more interesting ones would takes pages to write. But this is
> all
> > common-sense, surely? Here are a few more examples:
> >
> > When I say to my wife, "Would you like me to go to Tescos?", I use the
> > phrase "go to Tescos" to describe an action which consists of a
> particular
> > set of relations (relations that comprise a system). This act is done
> in
> > the context of maintaining our food supplies at home (another system).
> >
> > Picture this: A man is in a small boat off an African shore. He pales
> > water to keep the boat afloat. He fishes to support his family (or keep
> his
> > house afloat, if he had a mortgage). His breathing , paling, fishing,
> etc.
> > are all actions in particular contexts (systems of relation) and his
> > capacity to act is constrained and afforded by the system "he is in".
> >
> >
>
> Another long day. I meant bail. Though one can bail with a pail it
> seems. Conflation/inner form anyone?
>
>
> > You mentioned before about the qualitative differences of hydrogen,
> oxygen
> > and water. Well, how about considering the differences of man, boat,
> and
> > man-in-boat? Or man, calculator and man-using-calculator? Or man,
> > means-of-addition and man-using-the-means-of-addition?
> >
> > Huw
> >
> >
> >> For me I utilize
> >> LSV's writing in my work with adolescents with sever mental health
> issues.
> >>
> >>
> > That sounds like rewarding and challenging work, Eric.
> >
> > Huw
> >
> >
> >> eric
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >> Date: 04/21/2011 06:57 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
> >> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 21 April 2011 18:18, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Huw:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> > Hi, Eric. I'm a bit fresher now, so I thought I'd give this a go.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words. I can
> >> appreciate
> >> >>> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay
> of
> >> >>> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within
> A
> >> >>> reality. 6" of snow in april is what it is, right? So, if one
> were
> >> to
> >> >>> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of
> camera
> >> and
> >> >>> media time is that a tool or a concept? Methinks a concept is
> neutral
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april. Thanks to Martin
> I
> >> have
> >> >>> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7
> when
> >> >>> discussing the merger of thinking and speech; being that word
> meaning
> >> >>> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
> >> >>> speaking the word. However, the quality of the word meaning in a
> dual
> >> >>> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept:
> >> Snow
> >> >>> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts
> >> but
> >> >>> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> > If you're using quality as mentioned in your more recent post, then
> I'm
> >> in
> >> > agreement here that it is the concept (or seed of the concept to be
> >> > subjectively discovered).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Tool use is an
> >> >>> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea
> >> onto
> >> >>> another but it is merely a quantity. No?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> > No. A scientific concept is a system of relations, as is a quality.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding use, my employment of a hammer is a system. As is my
> >> employment
> >> > of a concept. We could talk about a quantitative change to this
> system
> >> of
> >> > action, increasing the mass of the hammer for instance, but the
> action
> >> > itself comprises a system.
> >> >
> >> > The concept of mass refers to a system of relations. The measurement
> of
> >> > mass comprises a quantity.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Measurement as in the product of measuring. Measuring is a system of
> >> action.
> >>
> >>
> >> > There is a nice bit in Bateson's "Mind and Nature" when he talks
> about
> >> the
> >> > interaction between Form and Process that he stumbled across whilst
> out
> >> > doing field work of Iatmul culture (page 210 in my copy) where he
> >> describes
> >> > the interaction of systems of process (action) and systems of type
> >> > (qualities, concepts). This might help you to get your head around
> the
> >> > system of action and the system of a concept.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Going back to the example of
> >> >>> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it
> >> that
> >> >>> qualifies poverty?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> > If there is an agreed concept of poverty then it will be based on an
> >> > implied set of relations, this is the agreed qualification (e.g.
> income
> >> less
> >> > than the cost of rent + food for a given area).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
> >> >>> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one
> is
> >> >>> not
> >> >>> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
> >> >>> purposes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> > Still fuzzy on your meaning for this bit. The word does not _need_
> to
> >> > denote a systemic concept in this sense. Typically, noun phrases are
> >> used
> >> > for this purpose, though someone can say a word without thinking its
> >> > meaning, or think up their own meaning, if that's your point?
> >> >
> >> > I hope this helps for you, Eric.
> >> >
> >> > Of course concept formations are only going to come about through
> >> > particular kinds of social interaction. So if this is all seems
> really
> >> > crazy, I'd wait till your fresh and then hang on with some
> >> determination.
> >> >
> >> > 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
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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