Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

[Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>]

Hello Larry,
In Peter's video and his illustration of why 'apprentice teachers' find
study of teaching so difficult, he brought in his gardening practice as a
vehicle to consider 'scientific' . There is the 'natural science'
ingredient 'writ large' to draw upon, rather than 'purely social
relations'. true here to make breakthroughs science 'lags' behind movements
which often appear first in arts.
 For some reason I'd menton cubo-futurists - although I have little idea of
the movement, it sounds so exciting:) I'm drawn by emotion first, or if
friends are all excited about some artistic turn , through social relations
an 'appearance' begins a curiosity...which - you never know- might develop
into science:)
Christine.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

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