Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

Plus, from a child's point of view who would want to grow up and play such a game? Andy, isn't "refusing to do some real work" what  every manager accuses the union of? Isn't autonomy another word for alienation?

M

On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:43 PM, mike cole wrote:

> Martin's point is that it IS like the 15 year old, and the 50 year old, but
> the mixture of constituents shifts, depending, of course, on a multitude of
> co-incident factors.
> 
> And watch out when you play checkers with a 5 year old. Winning IS the game,
> just like, ugh, professional sports.
> 
> Interesting to have Korea, Australia, Columbia and the US literally
> conversing in something very close to "real" (e.g., virtual!) time.
> mike
> 
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> 
>> Fascinating Carol/David.
>> 
>> Could we look a little further into this business of the child refusing the
>> offer to do some real work instead of childishness. Isn't this like the
>> 15-year-old who is told to grow up and be sensible and listen to sense, who
>> continues their unreasonable rejectionism, because in fact they are not
>> adults and do not have grounds of their own on which to determine they
>> actions and opinions? Autonomy is surely a part of growing up, and that is
>> always out of reach for kids in an adult world.
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> David Kellogg wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20
>> ea
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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