[xmca] agency redefined

Dear Michael,
  Before going deep into the different notions in your informative message , I would like to figure out what the place of GENERAL CYBERNETICS is within the theory you present . I mean establishing a holistic view on matters might take us to the target point more convenietly. I wouldn't have liked lurking into main discussion ; however I had to think of sort of relationship between the topic being discussed (Martin's two articles) and the other thread CYBERNETICS . Mike also recommends this . And now I have the problem of the space I could occupy . In such situations , I suppose we can offer our suggestions in consecutive or intermittent messages .
  In this respect , I think Leontyev can talk for himself more clearly : [brackets/boldings-mine]
  [A principal theoretical difficulty, however, remained; this was expressed in the IMPOSSIBILITY of bringing the level of psychological analysis to the level of physiological analysis, psychological laws, to the laws of brain activity.]
  He , then , likens another process :
  [New complex theoretical problems also appeared. One of these was presented by the development of the cybernetic approach to the study of processes of reflection. Under the influence of cybernetics, the analysis of regulating the conditions of living systems by means of information directed by them held the center of attention.]
  Then when you say "it forces you to think differently about Latour's
agency, WHICH IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT , I have to think of a reduction of one theory to another . If other researchers follow suit , there will appear kinds and types and subtypes of agencies and what will be our task in such complicated situation ? Unit of analysis is something quite acceptable in different disciplines but mutiple categories , I suppose , will not do and will not work .
  [As is known, the cybernetic approach was applicable implicitly from the very beginning to psychic activity also. Very soon it appeared indispensable in psychology itself, especially in engineering psychology, investigating “man-machine” systems, which are considered a specific instance of a system of regulation. Now concepts of the type, “reversible connection,” “regulation,” “information,” “model,” etc. are widely used even in branches of psychology that have no need to apply formal languages capable of describing processes of regulation taking place in given systems, including technological systems.]
  ...
   
  [The cybernetic approach to psychology, of course, does not consist simply of exchanging psychological terms for cybernetic terms; such an exchange would be as fruitless as the attempt made in its time to replace psychological terms with physiological terms. Incorporating the separate positions and theorems of cybernetics mechanically into psychology is even less allowable.]
  You write :
  "Think about touching, you may intend to learn about something through touching it, but at
the same time you have to open yourself up to be touched by the world, which leaves impressions in/on your body, that actually lead to sensation, the first important moment in ANL's theory of consciousness."
  My suppositions are :
  --We may NOT intend to LEARN about something through touching it . This requires RATIONALITY , PSYCHOLOGICAL , NOT , PHYSICAL perception which is far from what you believe Latour contends . You yourslef refer to perception as the threshhold (the first step/moment) of the complete process . Leontyev rules out any comparison between model/modeled phenomenon and PSYCHOLOGICAL perception . He just claims the model/modeled phenomenon is poorer , weaker even within limits of PHYSICAL perception .
  --With respect to what you mention as "you have to open yourself up" , Leontyev uses the word "efferent" as opposed to "afferent" . Sort of repeated testing by the whole man . On the retina , you have the "image" of the flame in reverse shape but the whole of your entity sees it as standing right upward .
  --"to be touched by the world" ; "world" even "contextualized" is too broad a notion here for the reverse action you mention . "Virtual World" so much the better .
  You , in your niceties and delicacies of wording and phrasing , reason well why Latour's "agency" is different from our CHAT agency . Then , the problem is if it is justifiable :
  "Latour does not talk about consciousness, which cannot be thought independent of the world, to which it stands in an irreducible and constitutive relationship. That is why his agency is different from CHAT agency, or sociological agency. :-)" This helps a lot . Thanks!
  "probe/object" "probe/perception" ; the "eye" measuring distance/knife experiencing hardness of a bullet/pencil feeling thickness of paper/a stick finding the road in the dark/ could be evaluated as "miracle" of psychological perception .
  With all respect !
  Heidi
  heidizulfai@yahoo.com
   

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Mar 17 15:48 PDT 2008