Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Andy, Huw, Christine
As I "listen in" on this conversation [which I'm grasping in "parts"
struggling for the "general"]  I wanted to amplify the contrast of
perspectives with the phrase "in between".  Christine sent me an article by
Maturana [thanks Christine] which highlights emotionality and stances
[dispositions] when exploring "explanations"

"We scientists like to explain the praxis of living and the PASSION for
explaining IS the fundamental eotion that supports what we DO as such.
Furthermore, what is peculiar to MODERN scientists in general, and
expecially to modern natural scentists, as they DO science, is their
particular MANNER OF LISTENING [stance] for what they consider ACCEPTABLE
refomulations of the praxis of living, and their serious attempt to remain
ALWAYS consistent with it [stance] in their statements ABOUT what happens
in their domain of experience"

As Christine points out this is a rigourous practice with clearly defined
"rituals" LEADING TO "dispositions" or "personalities" [stances] within
lived experience.  Christine is pointing out that w can embrace science but
as a particular TYPE of activity bracketed within the more general activity
of lived world,

Larry

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 January 2012 13:32, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 19 January 2012 12:32, Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Huw, Andy
> >>
> >> I'd  use 'generate' rather than 'works' - and I wouldn't use 'mirror'.
> The
> >> two domains ( of the thought experiment and that of actuality in praxis
> >> ,living) are relate not through 'complete description of particulars of
> >> actuality' (we cannot fully capture all detail of living) corroborating
> >> some image 'mirrored' -; but the relation is through 'operational
> >> coherences' ( to use Maturana's expression) of praxis of living , or
> >> 'criterion of acceptability' that we use in listening to accounts in our
> >> 'languaging' in conversations about experience.
> >
> >
> I'm fine with this elaboration.
>
>
> > Just to say that this does
> >> not reduce to the domain of  our physiological living, actuality is
> >> experienced 'in between'.
> >>
> >
> On this I disagree.
>
>
> >> Second on systems: I find helpful that 'system'  as notion is in our
> >> 'thought experiment domain' , not existing 'in the world' , so I'm
> >> confused
> >> trying to interpret
> >>
> >> "All systems comprise of material relations".
> >>
> >>
> Because the "thought experiment domain" takes place within such a system.
>
> 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