[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Ambivalence and system



Larry, you are probably right, and I mis-remembered what I read about Luria and Romantic science. It was probably Mike Cole writing on Luria
that I remembered.

Re Veresov. I don't know his writing, but I certainly welcome the idea that there might be multiple equally valid routes to development of
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory.

Re Schlegel. I have never read him. I did read Pinkard's "German Philosophy 1769-1860" and I recall that I was intrigued by Schegel then. But I have forgotten it all, except that, as you note, Hegel treated Schlegel with contempt. The Schlegel women are a story waiting to be told though! Dorothea and Caroline, the wives of the two Schlegel
brothers. Two amazing Renaissance women.

Andy

Larry Purss wrote:
Hi Andy
No, I haven't read Luria's comments on romantic science. I recently read Mike's epilogue in the book on Luria recently archived at XMCA. Luria's specific thoughts on romantic science I would like to read. As well as reading the book on Schlegel and German Romanticism I have been re-reading Veresov's introductory chapter in "Vygotsky Before Vygotsky". The central themes of consciousness, monism, and objectivty, and Vygotsky's multiple developing perspectives on the relation BETWEEN these 3 concepts. Consciousness interpreted not from a single unified system but rather multiple perspectives or "systems of analysis". Verosov seems to be asking, what was considered "foundational" within Vygotsky's search for explaining consciousness. As I read Verosov's answer the "system of relations" which included the concepts consciousness, monism, and objectivity was interpreted differently at different periods in Vygotsky's life. The relations between these 3 concepts [the various systems] was answered in multiple or plural relational configurations which historically modified what Vygotsky included in his search for the "objective analysis of mind" at each historical moment. My reading of Veresov suggests that Vygotsky's final version or system, which is his cultural historical model was asking the same "questions" about the possible relations between the 3 concepts but Vygotsky's final answer after 1932 was radically tranformed from his earlier answers to the same question. Verosov also suggests that Activity theory emerged from cultural historical in the 1930's as one POSSIBLE branching of cultural historical theory as a particular system or CHAT but that other branches which focus more on "meaning" and "sense" are also possible approaches. This seems to open up a space for alternative answers or a plurality of responses to the relation between the 3 concepts. Schlegel as a Romantic, writing in 1800, had this to say in response to Fichte. "Our philosophy does not begin like the others with a first principle - where the first proposition is like the center of the first ring of a comet - with the rest a long tail of mist - we depart from a small but living seed - our center lies in the middle" Schlegel's perspective commits him to something like "life" as the framework for understanding reality. Schlegel's philosophical method is genetic or synthetic as opposed to deductive or syllogistic and underscores the historical dimension to his approach. The focus is on coming into being and to understanding the development or genesis of an idea. To understand how a thing comes into being, we do well to look at its various phases of development or its history. Schlegel's commitment is to starting in the middle, in the midst of the dynamic flow itself. Schlegel saw the various philosophical systems that comprise the history of philosophy as links in a coherent chain, with the understanding of any given philosophical system requiring understanding of the chains to which it is connected. In the 1800's these ideas were ridiculed by the grand system builders of German Idealism and dimissed as "merely" aesthetic or romantic. Today I get the sense that many would continue to dismiss Schlegel as merely romantic but within the sociocultural turn in psychology there are frameworks that would share Schlegel's sense-ability. In particular the hermeneutical framework. Larry

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    Larry,
    Have you read Luria's comments on Romanic Science?
    Andy


    Nektarios Alexi wrote:

        Sounds like it:)


        -----Original Message-----
        From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
        <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike Cole
        Sent: Sun 11/20/2011 1:21 PM
        To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
        Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
        Subject: Re: [xmca] Ambivalence and system
         Romantic science, Larry?
        :-)
        Mike

        On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Larry Purss
        <lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:

            I wanted to reflect a little more on the centrality of
            ambivalence as
            inherent in all systemic conceptual worldviews by a
            backward glance to the
            tension between early German Romanticism and German Idealism.
            This is not an arena I know well but Andy's writings have
            clled me tlearn
            more.
            I am reading a book on Schlegel's contribution to the
            ideas circulating in
            Jena at the beginning of the 1800's. A time which has been
            referred to as
            Early German Romanticism.
            Schlegel wrote this comment when reflecting on thinking
            systematically.

            "It is equally fatal for the spirit to have a system and
            to have none. It
            will simply have to decide to combine the two"
            This comment seems to share the same sensibility as
            Zygmunt Bauman's notion
            of "ambivalence" as ontological to all system
            constructions.  "liquid
            modernity" as diachronic versus more structural notions of
            solid modernity
            is a case in point.

            Every philosopher must have a system, for to make claims
            and construct
            arguments, we must assume some system, FOR WE NEED LIMITS,
            but this must be
            done with the recognition that ANY particular system is a
            PART of a
            PLURALITY of other systems.  This is the recognition that
            one must
            simultaneouslly be WITHIN a system and be without it.

            This way of thinking, which can be framed as "romantic"
            [no final system]
            is also hermeneutic.
            Just further reflections on the ontological necessity of
            ambivalence at the
            heart of our projects.

            Larry
            __________________________________________
            _____
            xmca mailing list
            xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
            http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
        __________________________________________
        _____
        xmca mailing list
        xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

        __________________________________________
        _____
        xmca mailing list
        xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
    Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
    Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
    <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>

    __________________________________________
    _____
    xmca mailing list
    xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca