I think your pictured genealogy is interesting, Andy. I thought Arne's
was too, and I a sure others can make interesting modifications. If
anyone could do this in three D it could get really fascinating.
Part of what makes for the partiality of any such attempt is the
position of the creator. Arne was a radical cultural historical
cognitive scientist of the
70's-90's (roughly), an importatant odd hybrid and unusually nice guy.
Maturana, who is on his list, with Varela, were central figures on bringing
dynamic systems into the discussion but you do not know about him just
as many of us do not know some of the figures you name, and the
connections such as Dilthey-Wundt or Mead-Dilthey-American pragmatism
are poorly known altogether, but fascinating (to me!) in their implications.
And, of course, the historical events that various of us might highlight as
most relevant are going to vary as well.
Thanks for the new tool to think with. I'll try to get Arne's genealogy put
up where yours is and perhaps others will contribute from their
perspectives.
mike
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Well, here's my shot at it:
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Genealogy-CHAT.pdf
I have tried to deal with your very valid point, Martin, that it is
more the milieux than individuals, but I have also just omitted a
billion possible arrows so it is readable. It needs more than one
person to do this.
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:
My question about the map is what the links represent. After
all, one scientist or philosopher may accept the ideas or
another, or react against them, or modify them, or misunderstand
them. Seems to me each of these is a different link. Also, a
family tree indicates two parents for every progeny, where
Arne's genealogy seemingly shows spontaneous generation - one
figure alone can produce another. And wouldn't we want to have a
way to map the milieus within which people were working? Perhaps
something along the lines of the social fields that Bourdieu was
fond of sketching, but with an added historical dimension.
Martin
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
To tell the truth Louise, there are a couple of names I
don't know and half a dozen I know so little about I don't
know why they're included ... or not. Two of the three
"outcomes" are people who think humans are a type of
computer, so I am not surpised that this genealogy is odd to
me. But there is sooooo much out there. So much to read. :(
Up till a few weeks ago I thought that starting with
Descartes was not justified, but I take that back now. But
somehow, Rene's nemesis, Aristotle, needs to be included as
well.
I don't know anything about Vico, but I find Locke, Berkeley
and Leibniz to be rather peripheral to *our* story.
Kant certainly deserves an important place, but I think his
nemesis, Goethe, may be more important for us.
Fichte is actually the inventor of Activity as a
philosophical concept (I just learnt that Hegel asked to be
buried next to Fichte; like Goethe, very under recognized in
the Anglophone world).
Hegel is the inventor of Cultural Psychology, so agreed there.
I think Stirner and Mach are total diversions from our
tradition. But maybe someone can explain to me their role.
Wundt and Dilthey are important, though I don't know them well.
Feuerbach is a bit of a footnote, but if you're going to
have Feuerbach, you've gotta have Moses Hess, author of
"Philosophy of the Deed", and inspiration for "Theses on
Feuerbach". Of course if you think Frege, Russell and Turing
are important to the genealogy of CHAT, then you wouldn't
want Hess.
MARX, obviously, in CAPS.
And I would have lines from a whole bunch of people going to
Dewey, as well as Peirce and Mead, but even though Peirce
was the elder, I don't think you can give him such priority.
Dewey surely was the leader. Arguable.
And where are the Gestaltists? Again, not for computer
cognition, but there needs to be lines between Goethe and
Kant and then to von Ehrenfels, and on to Koehler and Co.
Russian linguists like Potebnya, but I don't know where they
came from.
And these threads are all tied together with LS Vygotsky, yes?
Freud has to be mentioned (I forget his sources), with
arrows to Luria. And after Vygotsky and Luria you have ANL
and thus to present day people,
I guess, you can't leave out Piaget, and I don't know
Piaget's sources.
I know some people rate Merleau-Ponty, but if you're going
to give Merleau-Pony a seat, you have to put in Lukacs and
Horkheimer. I guess Habermas for discourse ethics, etc.
I have no idea why Husserl and Heidegger get a mention. I my
humble opinion, as clever as they might be, their impact on
Activity Theory has only been negative.
I have no idea why Bergson is mentioned: was he a source for
Piaget? Don't know why Nietzsche is there. Interesting guy,
but so are many others. Why von Uexhill?
I agree that Wittgenstein rates a mention, though I don't
know how much of a source he has been for us. He is some
kind of version of Activity Theory.
Frege, Russell and Turing are nothing to do with CHAT. What
about anthropologists??
Never heard of Maturana.
That's my reaction,
Andy
Louise Hawkins wrote:
Andy,
I remember seeing this diagram a number of years ago,
and I found it useful as a big picture diagram to get my
head around the significant theorist.
Regards
Louise Hawkins
Lecturer - School of Management & Information Systems
Faculty Business & Informatics
Building 19/Room 3.38
Rockhampton Campus
CQUniversity
Ph: +617 4923 2768
Fax: +617 4930 9729
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>] Sent: Wednesday, 4 November
2009 01:05 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Theoretical%20connections.jpg
I never found this map very useful to be honest.
Andy
mike cole wrote:
Have you found Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" of
cultural-historical, activity theory thinkers from
several years back. I am sure it is somewhere at
lchc.ucsd.edu <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
<http://lchc.ucsd.edu>. Perhaps you (and Andy,
and.....) could update it with
more detail. Hegel generated so much that has been
"laundered" by subsequent "original" thinkers its
totally amazing, and ditto Mead (whose writings i
know far better, although very inadequately).
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca