Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Martin & Mike
My "reading" of the article was to put emphasis on  the constuct "dialectical" and the notion of a tension between two polarities in a particular type of opposition (ie the figure ground configuration) and that historically this tension has oscillated with first one side and then the other in the ascendency but in reality BOTH are required and "development" cannot exist unless their is a "tension" between these polarities.
Now the mention of "culture" as a construct or social representation "integrating" these two antinomy's does fit with the article's notion of a dialectical relation of nature/nurture tension being integrated (interweaved) through culture.
I was reading the article as viewing the concept of development as a "construction" but not any old construction but rather a social representation of particular salience in Western civilization. However the yin/yang symbol points to Eastern dialectical notions as also being implicated in their constructions of development.
My reading of the article was Arnie's question if our historical  narratives of development and our notions of ontological development follow a similar dialectical trajectory of nature/nurture antinomy and oscillation through historical time. From this framework CHAT perspectives could be seen as collecting both sides of the antinomy into a new synthesis or integration.  
Andy, with your background in dialectical theory, how do you read the question Arnie is presenting in his article?
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Your helixes/helices seemed appropriate to the discussion, Martin.
> XXX-history is cultural-historical genesis. And, as Steve suggested,
> the twisted rope of many strands may be at the end of the 
> rainbow of
> promises.
> 
> I have been pondering David Ke's question about the
> object/objective/motivation for play. It came together in my 
> thinking with
> Yrjo's metaphor of being always "just over the horizon" and its dual
> material and ideal nature, most recently mentioned by Wolf-
> Michael. Might it
> be the dream of being coordinated with a world entirely 
> consistent with
> one's own dreams? A world, extending, as Leslie White put it, 
> that extends
> from infinity to infinity, in both directions?
> 
> probably not, just wondering.
> mike
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Martin Packer 
> <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Larry,
> >
> > I didn't mean to detract from the discussion with my playful 
> helices. I
> > haven't found time yet to read Sameroff's article, so I don't 
> know if he is
> > proposing that there is an antimony between nature and nurture 
> in human
> > development, or in our *conceptions* of development. I took 
> Mike to be
> > suggesting, in his recent message, that when we pay attention 
> to culture we
> > can transcend that antimony, since culture is a 'second 
> nature' that
> > provides nurture, and since culture is the medium in which 
> human brains and
> > bodies grow, and since all nurture offered to the growing 
> child is mediated
> > by culture, and since culture has been transforming human 
> nature throughout
> > anthropogenesis through its selective evolutionary pressures.
> >
> > Eric, yes, I should have added phylogenesis, not just 
> biological evolution.
> > What then is the "XX-genesis" term for history?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > > ----- 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
> > > 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
> 
developmental
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca