Andy:
Carol modestly writes to me off line to point out the mysterious fact
that when children are offered a way out of "childishness" (e.g. the
opportunity to stop playing and instead go and clean up their rooms or
help Dad with the dishes or do homework) they not infrequently and
sometimes even unceremoniously decline.
She also, even more usefully, points out that in ANY game, the starting
motivation is quite different, and even antithetical, to the motivation
which has us continue. So for example if an expert backgammon player
offers to teach you the game, you do not accept with the expectation
that you will win, but winning is a possiblity which emerges as you
continue to play.
So too with abstract rules and imaginary situations; that is, with
gratuitous difficulty and with guile-less deceit. Last night in my
seminar we explored a large number of games (chess, rock-paper-scissors,
snakes and ladders, etc.) which not only BEGIN with some kind of war
or struggle or epic journey scenario but are STILL actually presented
that way (by casting roles and alternating turns and so on).
One of my grads tried to find the point at which a story definitively
passes over into a game, and I said it was a little like trying to find
the point where talk definitively passes over into talk. It is there,
but we always find texts in talk, and talk in texts, no matter which
side of the divide we may find ourselves on.
Wittgenstein claimed that there is no overt over-arching and external
trait between games (e.g. a common functional "motive" or a
"goal"). When we read Vygotsky's play lectures, we find TWO common
points: viz. gratuitous difficulty and guile-less deceit, the abstract
rule and the imaginary situation.
But one is always hidden when the other is abroad. After
all, Wittgenstein's argument was only that there is no CLEARLY VISIBLE
over-arching trait. And Vygotsky's reply is that if the essence of
things were visible on the surface, as overt motive, or aim, or goal,
why then no scientific explanation would ever be required for anything.
His explanation of play is not an empiricist-functionalist but
a historical, genetically, deterministic one, and the owl of Minerva
flies only at nightfall.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
--- On *Mon, 3/15/10, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net>/* wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 5:33 PM
Way out of my depth in discussing play, but here is my take
on "what is the motivation for play?"
I don't think we can or want to ascribe a motivation for
participating in play *in general*. I.e., the question of
"why does a child play?" cannot sensibly be answered by the
child. But this still leaves the question of the motivation
for any particular play activity: what is it that is
motivating a child when they play?
It seems to me that every action a child takes can be
explicable in terms of its being part of a project, and the
"Why are you doing that?" question gets the same kind of
answer as it would for an adult at work.
A different kind of explanation is required for why a child
is drawn to participate in what is after all an "imaginary"
project, then gun does not fire bullets, the money is not
coin of the realm, etc. I think in answering the question at
that level we look at problems the child faces in being
exlcuded from the real world and their attempts to overcome
that. I don't know. But from the beginning a child it trying
to extricate themselves from the trap of childishness.
Andy
mike cole wrote:
> 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
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca