Thanks for opening up this thread, Mike.I suppose my reservation about 'transdisciplinary' was mainly that it is (for me at least) a neolog. But I understand your point now. But I still feel that a claim for a concept which transcends disciplines, tends to suggest an idea that is independent of specifc modes of activity/enquiry. This cannot of course be the case.
I actually do think that different sciences need to be stitched together two or three at a time, as every dialogue throws up distinct problems. This would lead me to hang on to the notion of 'interdisciplinary'.
Also, I am in agreement with anyone who resists the idea of a 'single unit of analysis'. To me that is equivalent to saying we only need one word. But I remain of the view that a shared concept of activity would facilitate integration of sciences. And you can share the idea of 'project' without giving up the concept (unit of analysis) which may constitute the foundation of a specific science.
I don't know. The common language is full of transdisciplinary words and concepts and without them we couldn't even talk to one another, which is after all what it's about!
Andy Mike Cole wrote:
I think it is pretty widely stated that cultural historical activity theory or socio-cultural historical practice theory or .......... is what is ordinarily conceived of as an inter-disciplinary undertaking that spans at least social sciences and humanities, with some arts and evolutionary biology thrown in from time to time (and even, gulp, some math). Andy has been using the term interdisciplinary in trying to get us to think of projects as a basic unit of analysis while some resist the idea of *A SINGLE* unit of analysis that spans all concerns of this ryzhomic enterprise. And despite the talk of interdisciplinarity, we seem to be pretty heavily centered in psychology and education, with only some attention to work. Might we need to think seriously about a TRANS-discipline where integration across levels of time and syncrhonic variation are included? Or must we always be piecemeal, able to cope with 2-3 dimensions/aspects of our problematic, but unable to move to the integrative level that our own theories tell us we need? Last thought/question of the evening. mike _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden: From Erythrós Press and Media <http://www.erythrospress.com/>. _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca