[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication

A rather bewildering array of frames here, Vandy. What *is* a concept in your approach? 
Andy

vwilk wrote:
Good afternoon. I'll start at the top here. I am stepping outside of this interesting conceptual loop for a moment to a "serene" space which can be defined by General System Theory. It is academic, graduate level, abstract, about the methodology (praxis) and access to information resources, how to set up a research topic IN ANY FIELD WHATSOEVER and be able to proceed "creating your own system" (Blake) while acting in community, even if across disciplines, with those who speak to and challenge your system. 
Bateson offered us "set theory" via Whitehead and Russell and if we 
look back into the depths of time, we can find Plato offering us the 
abstract ladder via Diatima/Socrates in Symposium.

Then I want to turn back to Bateson immediately for his work in DOUBLE 
BIND theory, which involves Bateson's theory of learning.  Learning 
One is learning.  Learning Two is learning how to learn. Learning 
Three takes us to the level where the tertiary academic world meets 
the world in the wild and they discuss "how are we going to talk about 
this".  Then, though not so simple, the "languages of the conceptual 
worlds" begin to match terms for equivalences.

Conspicuous in Andy's jury example, we have "a case" and all types, 
presumably including the scientific and the spontaneous.  Well, that 
is a dialectic, a pretty clear one.  We can call on the language of 
mental processing, right brain for spontaneous, creative, innovative, 
integrative and the left brain for categories, descriptions, criteria, 
atomizing.

I'm going to round off this quick duck out to the stratosphere by 
quoting Einstein:
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used 
when we created them. 
<http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_can-t_solve_problems_by_using_the_same_kind_of/15633.html>”

The shipwreck of interdisciplinarity comes from the war of preferences 
in which conceptual tools we are going to use, but a proper duel needs 
to have a conference, a choice of tools and rules of engagement to be 
productive.   We have found at the academy that writer's and teachers 
of writing need every kind of thought and language tool to assist in 
the creation of new research and writing about new research.  Well, 
enough for now.  I'm always going back to Bateson.

Vandy

(2012/11/13 9:30), Andy Blunden wrote:

Nice to meet you, Chuck. I read your original submission and the 
revised ms twice, but that is some time ago now. I will re-read it 
later today so I can be properly prepared for this multilogue. In the 
meantime let me make just one point, because my point about the drive 
to make aconcept into a typology has nothing to do with the 
distinction between dichotomous typologies and typologies that point 
to a continuous spectrum. The latter is always the refuge of a failed 
dichotomy.



Let's suppose you are on a jury. You are hearing a case of murder. 
You know what murder is, and I am assuming that everyone on this list 
knows and I won't try to define it. The case however turns out to be 
challenging, even though the facts are not in dispute. You hear about 
provocation and blind rage and fear, and about blows whose effect far 
exceeds intention, and the victim's heart condition. Before you 
retire to consider your verdict, the judge gives you a list of 
criteria against which you have to judge the facts.

My question is this: is the list of criteria which define a typology 
of homicide according to the various contingent circumatances of the 
act the *real, scientific* definition of "murder", and the vague 
ill-defined concept of murder that you arrived with a "spontaneous 
concept"? Or is it the fact that you had a better concept to start 
with, and the judge's criteria were the best approximation the law 
could make to that concept for teh purpose of categorisation?

Let us go further. You find the defendant guilty of murder and they 
go to prison, but there is a public outcry and a massive campaign to 
have her acquitted. The campaign is successful, the defendant appeals 
and is acquitted after which the government amends the law so that in 
future judges will give new directions to juries ensuring not-guilty 
findings in such cases in future.

My next question is this: which is the "real concept" of murder? Or 
did it change? Or are there in fact multiple concepts of murder in 
competition with one another? Was everyone previously mistaken about 
the definition of murder? What typology of concepts do you use to 
distinguish them.

Now I float this hypothetical NOT to prove how complicated is real 
life, so that we can all shrug our shoulders and say "Goodness! What 
can you do?" But it is targeted specifically at the concept of 
concept which reads Vygotsky, like everyone else (almost), as taking 
the concept of concept to be a typology of contingent attributes with 
nothing underneath. And of course, Chuck, it is a question for 
everyone else as much as for you.

Andy
https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/35819238


Charles Bazerman wrote:

Mike Forwarded the current string, and I have now rejoined the list. 
An earlier message I sent about T.S. Eliot's poem got lost, and I 
may repost it later.  Right now, however, let me respond to these 
Andy and Larry's thoughtful comments.  I think Andy has got my 
intentions and situation right.  I was certainly invoking my 
understanding of Vygotsky's ideas of scientific and spontaneous 
concepts, and was interpreting scientific to include organized sets 
of practices where there were stronger degrees of public criticism 
and social accountability, particularly with respect to coherence 
among concepts and collected evidence gathered according to communal 
standards in pursuit of communal projects. And thus I would indeed 
associate concepts with use and practice within social groupings.  
(I am using the term social groupings rather than the more common 
term community in order to emphasize the varieties among groupings 
and the differentiation of roles, positions, and objects within 
those groupings, although collective objects may bind those groups 
together.)

To some degree any publicly articulated ideas are accountable to 
communal expectations, practices, and rules of accountability, even 
if such rules are of the sorts such as "let it pass, because it is 
not important for immediate action" or "let's accept everyone's 
ideas, although we may not understand them or agree with them, in 
the name of goodwill or mutual support." Each of these do provide 
climates in which we formulate our ideas.  So in this way the 
spectrum of spontaneous to disciplined/scientific concepts is 
continuous and does not provide bright lines, except as we 
historically construct them.  However, we have historically created 
more robust social groupings devoted to particular lines of practice 
and projects, with more explicit and detailed sets of expectations 
and criteria of judgment for the consequentiality of proposed 
ideas--and these groupings have as well been associated with 
emergent institutions associate with the objects of these groupings. 
These might include 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 and communal thinking.  These may not 
all have occurred to Vygotsky as scientific, as attached as he was 
to the emergence of "scientific socialism" (though his connection 
with the arts, especially literature drama and the early film, may 
have led him to include them in his view of an increasingly 
scientific social order). Thus I may be drawing the fuzzy line 
between spontaneous and scientific concepts nearer to the 
spontaneous end than Vygotsky, who might as well have been drawing a 
somewhat brighter line.  However, since Vygotsky did not elaborate 
extended visions of society or history, especially after he 
articulated his view of concepts, we may not ever know what he 
thought or even if he thought very much about this issue.  His 
earlier writings about the arts, however, did indicate that he did 
treat them as capable of disciplined evocation of internal states to 
create shared experiences.

This discussion still leaves me with the dilemma that both Andy and 
Larry point toward, that my own articulation of concepts is within 
the intellectual project and practices of historically emerged 
disciplines and projects. Guilty. I do not claim to escape social 
time or social space, but only speak to them.  It is in fact Yrjo's 
call for the special issue that drew together my various ruminations 
about concepts  in other contexts to a new articulation, directed 
towards the inter/multi-disciplinary world of MCA, situated within 
the wider social intellectual projects that have drawn on activity 
theory.  I found this context gave fresh wind to my sails to push my 
thinking further.   Additionally, it was the review processes and 
dialog around publication that further helped me articulate my 
thought for this particular social formation and occasion. 
Accordingly and obviously, I draw on the conceptual world and 
intellectual practices that come with the activity theory projects. I
 have cast my bets with this particular lot and the fate of my text 
depends on the usefulness for people engaged with this evolving 
project or with future projects that might find a useful resource in 
this set of concepts.
My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last 
sentence of my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's 
ideas and accounts to new moments, and how that provides new 
refining disciplines.  What strikes me most about Eliot's poem, 
which I commented on in my lost message, is how urgent he feels the 
need to continually rearticulate himself, despite what others may 
have said more powerfully or even himself in better times.  Of 
course, Eliot was caught up in both religious and artic stic 
disciplines which seemed to call for this constant rearticulation to 
measure the quality of his soul and his path in the world. To what 
extent, more generally all of us are driven to rearticulate the self 
in those disciplines important to the self, is a question I am now 
thinking about.  Is this a characteristic of participation in 
particular social worlds or is a consequence of the organization of 
the human brain and consciousness, in the manner Ramachandran proposes.

Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:11 am
Subject: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
To: Chuck Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>


 

Chuck-

There are some comments on your xmca paper. You might want to join
xmca for a bit or I will just forward for your comments.
mike

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>



I appreciated Bazerman's deployment of the conceptr of "genre" and 
I also

liked his use of "gist".


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: ______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu





        

______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu






      

--

------------------------------**------------------------------**------------ 


*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts



______________________________**____________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu


    

__________________________________________
_____
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