Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Thanks Charles. The example I gave was intended to challenge the idea 
that concepts can be understood in terms of a typology or system of 
classification. Rather I think the approach should utilise "ideal 
typical paths of development." And this is what I see Vygotsky doing.

That said, your further explanation of how you understand "scientific" 
as what I would call an ideal typical case of "not only the secular 
institutions and disciplines of the academy and professions, but also 
those of the spiritual domain, the performing and graphic arts, commerce 
games and sports, politics, criminal culture, and other domains that 
have a robust alignment of practice..." I think that small qualification 
goes a long way to giving people cause to think when they read Vygotsky.


Andy

Charles Bazerman wrote:
> I look forward to your elaborations and will view your video.
> Chuck
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27 pm
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
>   
> > I'm sorry for being so obscure, Chuck. I am still working on how to 
> > explain my position. But all I am proposing is my reading of Vygotsky 
> > on Concepts as set out in "Thinking and Speech." Nothing more. I 
> > certainly do not think concepts are "philosophic phantasms," although this is 
> > the most common response to discovery of the kind of points I am raising: 
> >
> > "Well, if concepts are not like this, then they must be philosophic 
> > phantasms and not worth chasing after."
> >
> > I am fine with locating yourself in this world in a pragmatist way, 
> > etc., etc. I do nothing different. Though I am not sure what you mean 
> > by "communal" and other allusions to "community." Maybe my video
> >
> > https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/35819238
> >
> > explains it better. Yes, I think there is a "more grounded approach," 
> >
> > though those are not words of mine. I am certainly not trying to "deal with concepts in an abstract way," in fact that is a fair definition of what I am opposing.
> >
> > Andy
> > Charles Bazerman wrote:
> >     
> > > Andy, I am not sure I see what you are driving at, and thus I do not know how to continue the discussion.  I know you have written and just published a book on concepts, but I have not read it. 
> > >       
> > > Are you suggesting that there is a more grounded approach to concepts or that concepts dissolve and that we should not chase after them as philosophic phantasms?  
> > >       
> > > I am trying to deal with concepts not in an abstract philosophic way 
> > >       
> > but in a pragmatist way based on the social circulation of terms and 
> > their use in communal practices and then on what evidence we can glean 
> > about internal phenomena--and as I say in the essay, my primary 
> > activity system and project as a teacher of writing has to do with 
> > helping people engage with public circulation of words which people 
> > find of value in their endeavors and in their personal understanding 
> > of the world which they act within.  To that task I bring the 
> > resources of Vygotsky and activity theory.  I do not claim an 
> > epistemic position outside those realms of practice.  So what are you 
> > trying to persuade me and others of, or what difficulty in my pursuit 
> > of my practices within my activity systems do you want me to attend to?
> >     
> > > Once I have better bearings of the intersection of our interests, I may be able to say something more useful.
> > >       
> > > Chuck
> > >       


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