[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
- To: "lchcmike@gmail.com" <lchcmike@gmail.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Subject: RE: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
- From: David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 18:12:54 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Cc:
- Delivered-to: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
- In-reply-to: <CAHCnM0DNSMcM5WM-reyMtJ3tj2WfDkpwMyCt7mfFyHKaMUJVog@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <509A19F2.1080002@mira.net> <509A5220.7010301@deliberations.com.au> <509A655A.4010307@mira.net> <CAGaCnpyHK-acj9jBMPDm9_iXq2=uK=h7NxWd2YR2LuTQnncNJg@mail.gmail.com> <FB6B95550D6FA542B9A40180151A0D59051632C5@hermit.cdu-staff.local> <509A78EC.2080704@mira.net> <FB6B95550D6FA542B9A40180151A0D59051632C7@hermit.cdu-staff.local> <1F3A303FB8B8A9429CE2720B7C8D4B730ED59E68@BY2PRD0610MB354.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CAHCnM0DNSMcM5WM-reyMtJ3tj2WfDkpwMyCt7mfFyHKaMUJVog@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
- Thread-index: AQHNvMDqUX9qZPTJYkS10uiL6PPUVAAApeAYl96At2CAAB4WAIAABoCg
- Thread-topic: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
Mike,
Empirical falsification requires a theoretical system that is sufficiently fixed and determinate so as to enable indubitable logical deduction. Whether the correct word for such a system is "closed" or "bounded" I don't know. Feel free to substitute "bounded, if that works better for you; but the question stands.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:39 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
David-- It had never occurred to me that sciences are by definition closed.
Bounded perhaps? With leaky borders and a commitment to falsification?
mike
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:08 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
> So, Nektarios, CHAT is just chat!
> More seriously, thinking of CHAT as a methodology--a set of
> practices--accommodates what seems to be its irrevocably "open,"
> non-absolute in character.
> But what does this do to the aspirations of sociocultural psychology
> to be taken seriously as a "science?" Aren't sciences, by definition,
> closed systems of thought?
> --Has sociocultural psychology renounced those ambitions?
> --Are theorists divided on the question of whether sociocultural
> theory strives for closure?
> --Are theorists ambivalent about this issue, unsure about how to frame
> these aspirations?
> --Or, perhaps, in a poststructural frame, are the aspirations of
> sociocultural theory indexed to particular discourses, in some of
> which sociocultural theory is clearly scientific, and others clearly not?
> --None of the above?
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Nektarios Alexi
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:25 AM
> To: ablunden@mira.net
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
>
>
> What an interesting genealogy!!
>
> So the father of CHAT was Aristotle?:) Is ike the Abraham of Bible?:)
>
> But i think in terms of dialectical materialism CHAT it is all them
> interrelating to each other,and one theorists complementing each other
> and very often the fruit of it is a qualitavely different theory than
> the other but neverthless the fruit of the previous theories.. So it
> means that CHAT it is not a close system, it is not an absolute
> theory, it is more like a method that because of its not teleological
> morphology it always create the appropriate space to integrate
> anything relevant that helps us to understand us (humans) in relation to society and culture and vice versa?
>
>
>
> Nektarios
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> Sent: Thu 11/8/2012 12:36 AM
> To: Nektarios Alexi
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
>
> Others can probably enlighten us more than I can, Nektarios, but I
> think he was a very erudite person. Clearly from a young age he was
> hungry for knowledge and read widely in many languages. But
> specifically, he was coming of age in Russia right in the midst of the
> Russian Revolution. This revolution threw literally millions of people
> into all kinds of "social criticism" (Luria describes the tumultuous
> scene in his University at the time, in his Autobiography). New
> movements in Art, literature, Linguistics, natural science, social
> theory, philosophy, technology, social organisation,... sprung up
> spontaneously on all sides. Vygotsky was a part of that. That is the
> main thing. But for geopolitical reasons it was a short-lived "Spring."
>
> In particular, I think, Vygotsky came from Art Criticism (in a milieu
> where drama theory, linguistics and aesthetic theory were making world
> historic advances in Vygotsky's immediate social circle. Then his
> intellectual disposition (as exhibited in his Psychology of Art) took
> him into education and scientific psychology. At that time, prior to
> and independently of the Revolution, Russia was already in the
> forefront of Behaviourist research in Psychology. Vygotsky was in an
> ideal position to bring the social criticism he learnt as a student
> into the scientific establishment around Pavlov, Bekhterev, etc. Add
> to that his close study of Marx's Capital, Lenin's philosophical
> works, and Engels' popularisation, is the broth which produced Vygotsky.
>
> See http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/chat/Genealogy-CHAT.htm
>
> Andy
>
> Nektarios Alexi wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> My question is how Vygotsky could tackle such subtle problems
> in the theories of Piaget but also others in his book Thought and Language?
> What kind of intellectual or theoretical backgorund did Vygotsky had
> that allowed him to see the human nature in such a depth and not just
> that but also find the precise language to describe it, but not just
> describe it but describe it in scientific terms and also with
> evidence? Can we say that it was his comprehensive knowledge on arts
> and especially of classic literature that helped him to see that deep
> and notice such subtle details and errors in so many other important psychological theories of his time?
> Just saying..
>
> Nektarios
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
> Sent: Thu 11/8/2012 12:02 AM
> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
>
> Andy
> I just finished reading your article in the newsletter.
> It is a clear statement of ways to expand the conversation.
> I have recently re-read the 1st chapter of Raymond Williams
> book *Marxism
> and Literature* on the concept of *culture*. It is a wonderful
> history on
> the shifting flowing transforming meanings of various uses of
> the concept
> *culture*
>
> I noticed at the beginning of the article you are affiliated
> with a group
> with the title *continental philosophy*
> I often wonder if this umbrella term could be more explicitly
> brought into
> the conversation to illuminate the multiple streams of
> sociocultural theory
> and how CHAT is situated within this umbrella term.
> It would possibly assist in engaging deeply with philosophy as
> you advocate.
>
> I would like to bring in a distinction that Charles Taylor
> uses between
> what he refers to as *strict* dialectics and *interpretive*
> dialectics.
>
> Strict dialectics assumes each side of the dialectic [for example
> individual and social] are interactive but the essence of the
> objects
> interacting is determined. Interpretive dialectics in contrast
> puts in play
> the interpretive nature of the objects which are then joined
> in interaction.
>
> I am attaching the first two chapters of Raymond Williams book
> *Marxism and
> Literature* which I believe is an example of *interpretive*
> dialectics as
> described by Charles Taylor.
>
> The contrast between the notions *strict* and *interpretive*
> may be helpful
> in illuminating different notions of *interaction* and
> *activity* within
> mediated worlds.
>
> Andy, I hope others read the ISCAR newletter and join with us
> in a friendly
> CHAT.
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Strangely enough, Ron, my first contacts with Vygotskyan
> theory was with
> > academic colleagues at the University of Melbourne, with
> whom I was
> > interacting in the project of creating collaborative
> learning spaces. I
> > knew about social constructionism, which I took to be Berger and
> > post-modern critical theory (having only the vaguest
> knowledge of these
> > things) but then from my colleagues, who were van der Veer
> and Valsiner
> > types, I was surprised to find out that Vygotsky (whose name
> I knew from
> > Ilyenkov) was also a constructivist (I have never properly
> separated the
> > way those two words are used). So I then got a book out of
> the library on
> > constructivist epistemology which said that there were
> dozens of varieties
> > of constructivism, but that Vygotsky was a constructivist
> who took the
> > collaboration of carer-child dyads as the basis for the
> social construction
> > of knowledge, rather than the wider culture .... took me
> quite a while to
> > find my bearings in all that mess.
> >
> > I just think that we always have to allow a lot of latitude in
> > understanding what people actually mean when they use a word
> in a given
> > context. A word meaning is not a concept.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > Ron Lubensky wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andy,
> >>
> >> I too thought the ISCAR newsletter interview article was
> very good. I
> >> especially liked your comparison of CHAT to interactionist
> approaches,
> >> which you and I have discussed before. One area that
> continues to be messy,
> >> as you suggest, is the relationship of CHAT to social
> constructIVism and
> >> social constructIONism.
> >>
> >> Since CHAT's first home is developmental psychology, it is
> out of the
> >> work of Piaget and Papert that these terms are usually
> defined, and so
> >> closely that they are often conflated. While these theories
> acknowledge the
> >> social and perhaps cultural influences on learning and
> interpretation, they
> >> centre on a cognitivist, mental model view of knowledge.
> There is also the
> >> normative aspect of giving control to the learner to
> construct his or her
> >> individual world-view.
> >>
> >> The other social constructIONism comes out of communications and
> >> sociology (e.g. Berger and Luckmann, The Social
> Construction of Reality,
> >> 1966), that challenges the inevitability of categorisations
> that are taken
> >> for granted in common discourse, and which form the bases
> for many
> >> institutions. This post-modern constructIONism generally
> places knowledge
> >> in discourse and interaction, but in more recent
> scholarship focuses on the
> >> cultural situation of the individual. This isn't a learning
> theory but
> >> rather a critical, meta-theoretical stance. To complicate
> matters, there
> >> are different strands with various accounts of what should
> be treated as
> >> real, true, essential, scientific, etc. and how
> communication should relate
> >> to action. It also challenges academic research standards
> with advocacy for
> >> interventionist approaches to practice. For an
> interdisciplinary expansion
> >> of CHAT, I think this constructIONism offers a rich field
> for comparison.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ron Lubensky
> >> http://www.deliberations.com.**au/ <
> http://www.deliberations.com.au/>
> >> 0411 412 626
> >> Melbourne Australia
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > ------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > http://ucsd.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
> >
> > ______________________________**____________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ________________________________
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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