[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff

It seems the double or triple helix is a significant way of trying to configure dynamic processes.  However, what the particular specific double helix referred to in the article is pointing to is a very specific tension BETWEEN two specific constructs "Nature" and "nurture".  The current debates raging about neuroscience on the one side and the tension with relational notions of development on the other hand (ie the self-other-object/representation triangle) suggest a dialectical tension which the article says may be INHERENT to development.  To me this is asking a question about how the mind constructs significant social representations.  What is specific about this particular double helix is the HISTORICAL salience of this SPECIFIC ANTIMONY through centuries of dialogue and theory. My question is "Is there significance to the extended duration of this specific antimony through centuries. Does this historical engagement with the specific notions of nature and nurture have relevance for CHAT discussions.  This is not to say other double or triple helix models may not have more explanatory power but that is not the specific question asked in the article. The question being asked specifically is if this specific nature/nurture antinomy is inherent to the notion of development? Other double or triple helix's could be conceptualized within the nature/nurture antinomy but the question I believe is being asked is how relevant a dialectical (or alternatively dialogically) nature/nurture antinomy is to our primary (ontological??) notions of Development as a social representation.
When I read the article, it seemed to capture the tension we are exploring about the place of neuroscience in our theories of development. For some scholars one side or the other side is in ascendence and historically one side or the other is in ascendence. What the article is asking is if we must "INTEGRATE" what is often seen as in opposition and realize nature/nurture is in a figure/ground type of relational pattern (like the ying/yang visual representation) and the movement BETWEEN the two positions is basic to development.  
Do others have thoughts on the specific question Arnie has asked in his article about the historical dynamic of the nature/nurture antinomy in developmental theories as well as in ontological and cultural historical development. This question speaks to me about the possible relevance of Moscovici's theory of social representations. 
One alternative answer is to generate other double or triple helix models which may become social representations over time as they are debated in a community of inquiry but the article as written is pointing to a very salient social representation within our Western tradition. Does that recognition of its historical roots change how we view this particular antinomy?

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:59 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> That's right, Steve, though I'm pretty sure I didn't see this 
> title until after I made the diagram. And of course Lewontin is 
> referring to different factors. And, also, of course, collagen 
> actually does have a triple-helix structure, which Francis Crick 
> thought was more interesting than the double helix of DNA, but 
> which got very little attention.
> Martin
> On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
> > On the triple helix metaphor:  Richard Lewontin used it 
> in the title of his 1998/2000 collection of essays _The Triple 
> Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment_.  His core theme 
> regarding biological development is that solely considering the 
> interaction between gene and organism makes for bad 
> biology.   The environment has decisive influence as well.
> > 
> > - Steve
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 14, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> What do others think of the double helix (and/or the other 
> visual images in the article). How central is the double helix 
> (either as an "is Like" or "IS" objectification) to your notions 
> of the human sciences?
> >>> Larry
> >>> 
> >> ...and I am pretty sure I stole, I mean appropriated, this 
> from someone; I've forgotten who...
> >> <PastedGraphic-2.pdf>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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