Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

That is indubitably a high standard for science, David.
It seems incompatible with how I understand what
bio-cultural-social-historical activity/practice/situated
theories of human nature could aspire to, and not sure even that they
should.
mike

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> 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