Re: SemEco - function circle in ecosystems / I-E coordAlfred,
Where does this all take things like "psychology" and "development". I
remember years ago reading Bruner and agreeing with his argument for
individual / environment being more constituted, he used the term "folk
psychology" I think, but wondered if the psychology component was reduced of
any meaning. A similar argument could be made of development with terms such
as "development in context" where development loses all meaning.
Now, it seems to me both concepts, "abstractions", hold onto the view that
there is in fact a seperation between individual and world, environment, or
context demonstrated by the need to put them "back" together. There is of
course some base for putting them back together because in the states for
one (abstraction or otherwise) the seperation is very "real".
So, is there an organism in a SemEco framework, or would it be more similar
to the notion of cyborg. Organism - however its defined individual, context,
culture, society etc - would imply a closure that would interact with other
organisms-non organisms.
Speaking personally, the lines are not as easily defined as is often
assumed. Would affinity help here in that while there maybe are not
staraight lines there are dotted ones (affinity maybe) in which certain
relationships can be explored. Actually Paul's instructional unit comes to
mind, although it is of course theorized differently, pointing toward the
relationship the instructional unit plays in the teacher and student's
activity systems. My take, Paul's maybe different of course, is that the
activity systems are open, but we need need a "concrete universal",
"affinity", "boundary object" in which to explore various relationships. I
realize correlating these three may provoke certain reactions and while
there are of course differences I find interesting similarities between
them.
Putting aside if are night time prayers are directed toward Kant, Hegel, or
Marx, for me interesting affinities emerge.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Alfred Lang [mailto:alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:06 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: SemEco - function circle in ecosystems / I-E coordination
Hi Paul and Mike,
you have chosen a very significant passage re the thoroughness people are
connected to their environment and Mike's response gives more and detailed
background.
>Living
>beings suffer and die when isolated from their environment, whether
>in terms of energy, stuff or "innovation" ("news" if you want) i.e.
>coordinated reorganization of internal and external structures.
Indeed the Montreal and many other experiments on sensory deprivation have
deep consequences that were only partially drawn then and since. Why not? I
think because the then and present basic belief is humans are machines
dependent on stimulation. So the results were mostly interpreted as
demonstrating humans need input to be functioning; otherwise they go wild.
That is an interpretation on the motivational level. This is certainly not
wrong. But much more interesting, in my view, is an interpretation that says
humans are part systems in connection with their environment. If this
connection is radically disturbed, e.g. by reduction to near zero traffic
the inner system will dysfunction. Iit is in fact more than sensory input
deprivation, acting is also blocked. Ordinarily there is two-way traffic;
only partially similar would be an overload because the system can "switch"
in filters. This view would rather suggest that the IntrA- is a subsystem
that is dependent on coordination with the ExtrA- or environmental
subsystem.
I have a passage in notes to the section quoted by Paul suppressed in my
post because it is far-reaching and maybe difficult to digest (and there is
already enough to). Since you and Mike are interested I shall add here the
gist of it.
They key point of the passage is: coordinated reorganization of internal
and external structures. That process is is usually known as sensory input
or stimulation (vs. deprivation). I called it "innovation" in my text,
sometimes in jargon "news" because it is what can introduce innovation into
the IntrA structures, as by news, i.e. structures not already formed and
stored for replication. And it can also, not to forget, innovate some
ExtrA-structures. It is of course better, as Mike has well understood, to
speak of discoordination / coordination, which also means discrepancy
between IntrA and ExtrA and thus forces to bring things into the move. In
consequence, I would conceive of this coordinating process as in essence one
of learning. For when the IntrA is reorganized as a function of the ExtrA
the former has learned about the latter. Similarly when some ExtrA structure
is reorganized in terms of existing IntrA-structures the formes has "learnt"
by the acting of the latter upon the former. We don't call this learning,
the environment does not, only individuals do learn, we say. But as a result
of the its changes the environment will behave differently; and is not that
the point in learning? Perhaps better to say: we observe an act of culture
generation, inside and outside. For often, the induced reorganization
change is mutual
It is obvious from this theory what has been found in practice and has
never found a totally satisfying explanation as far as I can see: an active
individual will also learn better, active in the sense that it has the
possibility to arrange and rearrange parts of the environment. Also an
active individual rearranging environmental organization and allowed to live
on with that can make use of it as an external memory. E.g. walking a new
city will create many bounds between internal and external memory and will
allow for much better and safer orientation than learning from a map. A
self-arranged bookshelf will allow to find almost everthing, even if other
than perfectly in order.
Perfect coordination is perhaps less of a problem than it is boring, Mike.
The random manner the IntrA-system is running with deprivation is a strong
argument against to constructivist contention that humans be isolated from
their environs.
Thanks also for reminding Ed Hutchins' book, Paul. Blurring the boundaries
between person and environment is certainly an important first step (see my
1985 paper in English: "Ecological Boundaries" on the net). More helpful is
conceiving of the intercourse as mutual or coordinated reorganisation.
Hutchins has many examples well fitting my perspective; as far as I remember
his "functional systems" could easily be reinterpreted eco-semiotically.
Alfred
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland ---
alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch
Website: http://www.psy.unibe.ch/ukp/langpapers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:56 PDT