[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
Martin:
Although the article on health related decision making does lean in the
positivist mode of object-subject dualism when discussing heuristic problem
solving I believe it is at least unambiguous in explaining problem solving.
Something the dialectic does not do, in fact the ambiguity of the dialectic
and the ethereal value leaves little explanatory powers. Perhaps the next
great step that could occur in CHAT is for theorists to posit how the
dialectic can be THE unit of analysis. Impossible? A question left to
greater minds then myself. I agree people are not information processors
but if one takes a look at heuristic affect in the process of decision
making I believe the article steps beyond defining people as information
processors and places them into the cultural milieu. Must admit I have
never been a fan of flow charts but once again they have explanatory
powers. I am left thinking how could the question of taking medication or
seeking medical care be approached via the functional method of double
stimulation?
eric
Martin Packer
<packer@duq.edu> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent by: cc:
xmca-bounces@web Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
er.ucsd.edu
01/20/2009 08:50
PM
Please respond
to "eXtended
Mind, Culture,
Activity"
Eric, this certainly is a perfect example of reducing a person to an
information processor, which I assume is why you've pointed it out. Notice
that the microgenetic model doesn't even work as a heuristic device. At the
very start it posits a loop: the person will apparently sit all day asking
themselves, Am I okay? until the answer is No. Very realistic.
Then the next decision is, Why no? (Why not okay?). There are three
possible
answers - I know, I don't know, and I am not sure. All lead to the same
next
step! A pointless question.
This next step is to ask: What can I do to make me feel better? There are
no
less than twelve possible options that can be selected from here - and not
a
single criterion is proposed upon which to make the choice! In the text we
learn that "past experience" makes a difference, but the model has no place
for that. So following this model apparently one randomly decides to make
some tea (option 4) or go to the hospital (option 12). If the choice
happens
to work, the model returns to the first step, and the person once again
sits
all day asking themselves Am I okay?
Lots of insight about personal health-care choices here!
Martin
p.s. Andy, I'm mulling over objects and objectivity... Been distracted
reading about the debates in the 30s between Max Eastman and Sidney Hook
over Marx and Hegel
On 1/20/09 2:08 PM, "ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org" <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>
> Hello All:
>
> I have been enjoying this thread and at times have attempted a post but
> then find myself unsatisfied with what I am trying to say. The following
> article I believe dovetails nicely into this topic.
>
> http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/653/1415
>
> I particularly like the part about hemeneutics of decision making in
> irreversible time.
>
> Hope people enjoy.
>
> eric
>
>
>
> Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.n To: "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> et> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Re:
Kant
> and the Strange Situation
> xmca-bounces@web
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
> 01/19/2009 05:44
> PM
> Please respond
> to ablunden;
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin, surely we two (of the many) meanings of "objectify"
> here.
>
> (1) In "objectifying action has its dangers, such as
> treating it as the output of a decision-making system" you
> are using the word in the meaning it took on I think in the
> 1970s as "treating a subject as an object" following the
> idea of Kant that one ought to treat all people as ends not
> means.
>
> (2) In "action is fleeting it must be fixed in some manner,
> and although objectifying action transforms it" you are
> using the word in its Hegelian sense of making a thought
> into a material thing for others, a meaning which carries no
> implication of being unethical.
>
> But Derek uses the word in yet a third sense, i.e., of being
> "objective" which inheres in the action of the recipient of
> action not the actor, i.e., objectify means (3) to regard
> the thing as something objective, independently of one's own
> subjectivity.
>
> Isn't this so?
>
> Andy
>
> Martin Packer wrote:
>> Derek,
>>
>> This is indeed such a huge topic that I hesitate to take it up. But
> equally
>> important; so here goes.
>>
>> Techniques of objectifying are certainly part of any science, but surely
> not
>> the whole story. And I don't see that objectifying people reduces them
to
>> biological phenomena, and their action to biological processes, any more
>> than objectifying biological entities reduces them to physical
phenomena,
>> and their processes to physical ones. Certainly objectifying action has
> its
>> dangers, such as treating it as the output of a decision-making system,
> or
>> as a collection of factual events which can described without
>> interpretation. But Paul Ricoeur (below) has argued convincingly that
> since
>> action is fleeting it must be fixed in some manner, and although
>> objectifying action transforms it, these transformations can serve
> important
>> functions. The analysis of conversational action took steps forward when
>> recording technology became widely available (without treating
> conversation
>> as a biological phenomenon.
>>
>> This is not to say that figuring out an appropriate science of action is
>> easy. But surely it's easier to study action scientifically than it is
to
>> study a personal, private, inner mind to which by definition one can
only
>> have first-person access!
>>
>> Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of the text: Meaningful action considered
> as a
>> text. Social Research, 38(3), 529-562.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 1/17/09 6:09 PM, "Derek Melser" <derek.melser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin, Steve:
>>>
>>> This is a big issue. I have written a bit about it. Chapter 11 ('Our
>>> knowledge of actions') in *The Act of Thinking* is about it. And so are
> the
>>> last three paragraphs of the essay at
>>> http://www.derekmelser.org/essays/essayverbal.html
>>>
>>> The primary interpersonal attitude is the side-by-side one, the
attitude
> of
>>> fellow-participants in some shared activity. Our perception of others'
>>> actions occurs under the aegis of this fellow-participant (or would-be
>>> fellow-participant, empathic) attitude; it is the light in which we see
>>> actions. Now and then we defect into an objective (distancing,
reifying,
>>> alienating) attitude towards others. Rigorously maintained, this
> objective
>>> attitude reduces a person to a biological phenomenon. But biological
>>> phenomena don't perform *actions*, they merely exhibit derivative
> biological
>>> phenomena.
>>>
>>> Science is the rigorous maintenance of objective attitudes and
> observation
>>> methods. My paradigm examples of 'science' are the physical sciences:
>>> chemistry, physics, biology... There are disciplined academic studies
> of
>>> history, law, fine arts, literature, education in which the topic is
>>> people's actions and in which objectivity and empathy alternate, in
> roughly
>>> equal measure. But these disciplined academic studies are not normally
>>> thought of as sciences. The thing about sciences is that they stick
>>> rigorously to objective methods. Why would you want to put psychology
>>> alongside biology, rather than alongside, say, history or education? Of
>>> course, you could call any disciplined academic investigation a
> 'science'.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it is impossible to write briefly on such a large topic without
>>> pontificating, so I'll stop here.
>>>
>>> Derek
>>>
>>> *http://www.derekmelser.org*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/1/16 Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
>>>
>>>> Derek, I have been wanting to ask you about your thoughts about how
> aspects
>>>> of human behavior that can only be comprehended through empathy are
>>>> therefore inaccessible to science. Assuming, for the sake of
> discussion,
>>>> that you are right, that empathy is a necessary component of accurate
>>>> observation and understanding, why does employing empathy exclude
doing
>>>> science? Marx said (something like) "nothing human is alien to me."
> That
>>>> attitude isn't "empathy," strictly speaking, but it is certainly on
the
> way.
>>>> Not that it is an easy or automatic thing to do, but why do you seem
> to
>>>> feel that we **can't** learn how to use our powers of empathy in
social
>>>> science?
>>>>
>>>> - Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Derek,
>>>>> It depends of course on what one means by empathy. I've been arguing
> for
>>>>> years that all the social sciences draw implicitly on our human
> capacity
>>>>> for
>>>>> *understanding* the actions of others (Einfühlung?), and that our
>>>>> investigations can and should be interpretive, hermeneutic. Of course
> many
>>>>> others have made similar points. To say that genuine science is not
>>>>> interpretive would be in my mind simply a false claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/09 4:20 PM, "Derek Melser" <derek.melser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, if
mind/consciousness/thinking
> is
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> action, then, because our perception of others' actions always
> requires
>>>>>> empathy, and because empathy is not an acceptable observation method
> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> sciences, there will never be a genuine science of
>>>>>> mind/consciousness/thinking. But at least we'll no longer be
> bamboozled
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the mind/body problem...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
> Skype andy.blunden
> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca