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

Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication



Larry, you ask me how "ideal typical paths of development" relate to genres. Well, they are about different though related aspects of concepts.

"Genre" is not a concept I use, but that is just because I come from Marx and Hegel, whose writings predated the linguistic turn which popularised the idea of genre. As a writer and teacher of writing, it is natural that Chuck should use "genre." I think it is an excellent concept that conveys a whole suite of ways in which concepts are used and framed. Concepts are both aggregates of more finite meanings, and themselves units of larger entities, which can perhaps be captured with the idea of "genre," rather than "project," social formation, discourse or something, because "genre" points to the character of the discourse itself, rather than the setting or motivation.

"Ideal typical path of development" *points to* distinct settings (e.g. natural science, everyday life at home, school, etc.) which is indeed close to the idea of "genre," but "ideal typical path of development" is after all about *paths of development*, ideal ones at that, not settings, projects, theories, domains, social groups, frames, or anything else. :)

Andy

Larry Purss wrote:
Andy, Charles
As I listened in to your conversation reflecting on "ideal typical paths of development" the question of the place of *genres* was in the backgound of my reading. QUESTION: Andy, do you perceive "ideal typical paths of development as a genre" or having the potential to become a genre? Also do you perceive genres and "traditions" as having a family resemblance and having the potential to become part of the conversation exploring "ideal typical paths of development"? Andy, as your concrete example [of the practice of law], or Charles concrete example [of filling out tax forms as a practice] indicate, concepts develop within activity settings within historical events THROUGH TIME within *life worlds*. Your referencing Brandom [a student of Rorty] is fascinating.
 Your comment was:
What I am interested in is an approach at the fundamental level which can do justice to the subtlety and complexity of your discourse. Let me cite from the American Pragmatic philosopher, a student of Richard Rorty at Pittburg, Robert Brandom:

"Traditional term logics built up from below, offering first
accounts of the meanings of the concepts associated with singular
and general terms (in a nominalistic way: in terms of what they name
or stand for), then of judgments constructed by relating those
terms, and finally of properties of /inferences /relating to those
judgments. This order of explanation is still typical of
contemporary representational approaches to semantics ... Pragmatist
semantic theories typically adopt a top-down approach because they
start from the /use /of concepts, and what one does with concepts is
apply them in judgment and action." [/Articulating Reasons/,
Brandom 200, p. 13]
Andy this *Traditional* [classical?] genre known as a nominalistic "way" as the *starting* point seems to point to an approach that Taylor refers to as *strict* [sedimented] dialectics. The terms are known PRIOR to constructing the framework or theory that is built up using known products. Andy, your inviting us to consider a new starting point within praxis or *shared projects* [as anticipated projections] you are wanting to start with *ideal typical formations* It is interesting you mention Rorty. I want to attach a paper which may be tangential to this thread, but he is exploring pragmatism as grounding PARTICULAR genres in practice WITHIN effective history. Andy, it may have some relevance for exploring *ideal typical forms of development* For me this a fuzzy concept but hope with your willingness to *hear me into speech* that I will develop further. Larry Larry However, how do you understand the relationship between these concepts?

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    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 <mailto: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
        <mailto: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 <mailto: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