These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
To be fair, Larry, Bazerman qualifies the use of "scientific" by following the term with "(or disciplined or schooled)," and this indicates a much broader concept of concept, much closer to what I would take to be a "true" concept in Vygotsky's sense. I wonder if his use of "scientific" to "stand for" that whole category of concept was a nod to Vyvgotsky? In general though, I think what Bazerman calls "conceptual words" and "scientific (disciplined or schooled)" concepts are precisely concepts which arise from problems in a definite system of practice, or dare I say it, a project. A set of practices has to have rules in order to generate contradictions which are the source of new concepts.
But I think the problem that Bazerman has in developing this insight flows from his concept of concept. Yes, the concept of concept is circular. When you make claims about concepts, or say anything about them, you are already presuming your interlocutor shares your understanding of the subject matter, i.e. your concept of concept. ...
So Bazerman wants to categorise concepts and sets off trying to make a typology, and so we have "spontaneous" and "scientific" concepts ... which immediately leads to observations like yours about the "fuzzy boundaries" not to say "shifting boundaries" etc. Because despite it all, it seems, Bazerman still cannot get away from the concept of concept as a means of categorisation. So the first thing you have to do in talking about concepts is to set up a typology of concepts.
There are a lot of nice things about this paper, but so long as you are stuck on categorisation and typologies you will forever be tied in knots trying to understand concepts, I think.
Andy Larry Purss wrote:
Hi Mike I will attempt a commentary on Charles Bazerman's article "Writing With Concepts: Communal Internalized and Externalized" I struggled with how to enter into this genre of writing which is exploring the concept of concepts. The topic of the paper I find fascinating and the insight that concepts are embedded within genres allows reflection on the notion of *romantic science* In particular the genre's propensity to explore concepts as two *kinds* - spontaneous and scientific. Bazerman then offers a qualification that these *kinds* have fuzzy boundaries. It is this notion of the fuzzy boundaries within this particular genre that I would like to explore further. When we enter into a dialogue on the relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts and explore the functions of each are we moving away from *strict* dialectcs towards *interpretive* dialectics*? In other words is the relationship BETWEEN spontaneous and scientific concepts a *real* or an *interpretive* distinction? Do these distinctions exist in the natural world or are they aspects of a particular genre which has developed textually and intertextually through effective history? What I'm playing with is the theme of *romantic science*. I also want to share an image which this article sparked. At the AERA conference in Vancouver, I felt a sense or mood of fragmentation within the *project* of AERA. There were multiple genres with the corresponding conceptual *tools* or *artifacts*. The throngs were moving aboutt as if at a trade fair picking up and putting down the various tools, artifacts, and scientific concepts wondering if these tools would be useful for their particular projects. But where was the sense or mood of *shared purpose* within *commonly shared projects*? Charles Bazerman's article is exploring a fascinating theme of genres and concepts. I hear Andy's voice calling us to put this particular genre in a wider framework engaging with our ancestors. The topic as genre is fascinating but it does have a history within an evolving dialogue. As Andy is passionate about calling us to remember the genre exploring concepts of concepts has a romantic history. Exploring scientific and spontaneous concepts [with their FUZZY boundaries] is one way into this fascinating genre. Larry On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Colleagues-- I have been reminded of an issue that has been nagging at me for some time, that we have not had a discussion of any of the articles in the special issue of MCA called "concepts in the wild." The article selected by a plurality of voters was by Chuck Bazerman on concepts in the process of writing. But no one has commented on the article. That seems to me a shame. In fact, the entire issue, with its stellar set of authors and papers is worth discussing, and I figure there will be more articles on this general theme in the time to come, spanning as it does, the story of all those practice in which we acquire and deploy concepts in organizing our social life and experience the world. Below are two items for your consideration: The first is the abstract of Chuck's paper. The second is a stanza from a poem by T.S. Elliott which I believe is relevant to topic of the paper and in any event, worth considering in its own right. I first encountered it in Jack Goody's *Domestication of the Savage Mind, *a book about the relationship between thinking and writing in societies varying in their practices related to the concept of literacy. If the 25 people or more who led us to this article are not in a position to contribute to the discusion, perhaps this invitation will be sufficient for others, including Chuck, to do so. And if no one is interested in this discussion, we might re-visit the process by which articles for discussion taken from MCA. Or not. mike ----------------------- T. S. Elliott from “East Coker” So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years— Twenty years largely wasted, the years of *l'entre deux guerres* Trying to use words, and every attempt Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure Because one has only learnt to get the better of words For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate With shabby equipment always deteriorating In the general mess of imprecision of feeling, Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer By strength and submission, has already been discovered Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope To emulate—but there is no competition— There is only the fight to recover what has been lost And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss. For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business. The whole poem is here: http://allspirit.co.uk/coker.html __________________________________________ _____ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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