[xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

It can be used by anyone with enough knowledge of the sources of the
equinamity to be selective in the appropriate way.
Mike

On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Andy Blunden wrote:

> Well, I was hoping for a little more discussion about the "combined motor
> method" and "method of dual stimulation" as *models* and/or *units of
> analysis*, but those are my personal topics of interest. Also of interest
> to me is that this guy, Luria, the founder of modern neuropsychology did
> not investigate the brain by poking electrodes into the gray matter or
> using imaging machines, but directly by means available to the human senses
> investigated action, the unity of thinking and behaviour, by, as you say
> Mike, disrupting that unity, using again, methods perfectly accessible to
> ordinary understanding and perception. This is in line, for me, with his
> warning that "least of all does he attempt to deduce the laws of hiugher
> activity from simple neurodynamical processes." No, he had to intervene in
> behaviour and observe the results. The idea of temporarily disrupting a
> person's equanimity and control over their behaviour, so as to cause them
> to unwittingly betray what is on their mind is something which can be of
> use to anyone, even those without expensive electronic equipment or even
> old brass instruments.
>
> Andy
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
> I am away from home and this next week will not be a good time for serious
> responses.
>
> I clearly have lots of views on inter-disciplines and history of the
> development of those we have. Its GREAT having Charles B back in the
> discussion after a long vacation and to great effect.
>
> BUT
>
> I think the Luria book is interesting and darned if most xmca-ites did not
> jump straight on the need for CHAT folks (at least!) to focus on that
> general issue and ignore the luria book and its key ideas!
>
> Like DARN!
>
> The combined motor method, subject to abuse like all of science, is to me
> a brilliant way to delve into the problem of knowing other minds and it is
> not irrelevant that Freud and Jung were up there on ARL's reading list
> a century ago.,.. and address in the book! It was psychiatrists who were
> central to getting it published (look at a copy). It has been re-invented
> many times during my professional career with zero recognition of the
> principle involved: the selective discoordination of voluntary behavior.
>
> The idea of functional barrier?
>
> The treatment of quasi-motives and Lewin? (and were'nt we interested in
> Lewin once of twice within living memory "here""?).
>
> Mike-gone-fishing
>
> PS- For one example of a way to bring social sciences, philosophy, history,
> the anthropology, sociology, etc together check out the curriculum at
> communication.ucsd.edu. Now who would of thought up something like
> that??  :-)
>
> science as practiced by not-only-Ed these days
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Charles, Greg
> Thank you for this emerging topic and theme of interdisciplinary
> possibilities.
> Charles, has there been an *historical effect* of your writing this article
> on the journal *Psychiatry*.
>
> The emergence of *family systems therapy* was strongly influenced by the
> William Alanson White institute [for example Salvador Minuchin studied
> there.
> Psychoanalysis is also impacted through *interpersonal psychiatry*  in its
> relational turn.
>
> A central motif emerging within this tradition is the understanding of
> *anxiety* [as POSSIBLE or anticipated stress].
>
> A central question becomes, "How do I [or we] make ourselves safe?"
>
> How central is this question concerning *anxiety* as a factor that
> motivates actions? I often ask this question when exploring communicative
> praxis or pragmatic understandings. Many of the examples in the 12 issues
> of the journal explored are exploring the possibility of [or avoidance of]
> perceived anxiety.
>
> Fascinating topic.
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Charles Bazerman <
> bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks for the Group Processes reference.  I will have to wait until
>
>
> after
>
>
> travels this summer to get a hard copy, as the ecopy seems to be locked
> down.
> Peirce, I agree makes an important move by recognizing the importance of
> interpretation, but despite looking at his works a number of times on the
> recommendation of people I trust, I find he does not get us far enough.
>  This is what I have to say about him in my soon to be released volume A
> Theory of Literate Action.
> best,
> Chuck
>
> Peirce's semiotics with interpretation
>         Charles Peirce, among the founding generation of pragmatists,
> looked most directly at language and semiotics, making some first steps
> towards articulating the implications of a pragmatist view for language
>
>
> and
>
>
> language use. Most importantly, he recognized a major role for the
> interpreting speaker and interpreting hearer in the meanings conveyed by
> communication, rather than assuming meaning was immanent in an abstracted
> language system (Peirce, 1958). It is people who attach meanings to
> experienced worlds and issues of concern. This recognition of the
> importance of interpretive processes might lead to an investigation of
>
>
> how
>
>
> differences in individuals and groups of individuals might influence the
>
>