[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Play and the Owl of Minerva
I forgot one detail. Each division question had only 3 as a divisor
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Play and the Owl of Minerva
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Martin
> I agree with your analysis that play is an essential part
> of the lives of all of us. Society constrains our playful
> activity by imposing abstract rules and frames our imagination
> into serious cultural pursuits as actors learn their place .
> Mead points out games is the activity where we practice taking
> these positions. What I'm wondering about is if we can
> create institutional structures where the rigid actor positions
> are more flexible and novel and game like.
>
> An example from my work to explain this. The institution is a
> school and I'm in a position to structure the frame for
> activity. I was talking to 3 grade 6 girls. My position was
> teacher and their position was student/learner. If we stayed
> within this structure then it was familiar and predictable
> (David's text) their was no TENSION, no risk no novelty,
> and predictable roles. (not playful)
> However, the girls took a risk and shared with each other that
> they did not know their multiplication tables. They felt safe
> enough to not focus on self presentation (Goffman) and risked
> trusting their vulnerability with each other (within an
> institutional frame which I helped structure)
> I explained that the reason they were struggling to learn their
> times tables was because they were trying to learn all the facts
> at once and the trick was to learn only the 3x tables before
> moving onto the 4x tables (scaffolding) [I'm still operating
> within traditional teacher/learner patterns]
> My next step was to ask each girl to learn and memorize just 3
> facts (3x3 3x4 3x5 for girl A) (3x5 3x6 3x7 for girl B)
> (3x8 3x9 for girl C) After each girl had mastered her
> facts I introduced a novel activity.
> I wrote the same math division question on the board for each
> girl to do. My explicit instructions were to ask if each girl
> would be willing to learn from the other two when she got stuck
> on a math fact. I then asked if each girl was also willing to be
> a teacher when one of the other girls got stuck. This is Mead's
> notion of play as EXCHANGING positions (like in peek a boo or
> hide-and-seek)
> Martin, this is where I share your idea that the division
> between play and work is because. of institutional structures
> and social representations and not developmental moving beyond play.
>
> The result of my re-framing the possibility for flexible
> position exchange was TRANSFORMATIVE. The process took on energy
> and fluidity as the girls started tentatively asking each other
> for help, then became more animated as they jumped into each
> others thinking and learning and teaching in a FLUID PROCESS
> where the position exchange was rapid playful,and
> INTERSUBJECTIVE. When this process was liberated I was
> reminded of the students in the playworld article.
> I'm not sure what theories to draw on to explain what happened
> but it sure made me wonder about the artificate-ticity of our
> current arrangements of work and play.
> Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:37 pmd no r
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Play and the Owl of Minerva
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > Some years ago Brian Vandenberg was writing about play not as
> > something that only children do, but as an essential part of
> the
> > lives of all of us. I'm reconstructing a memory from long ago
> > (but Google Scholar shows lots of his writing), but what I
> > recall was his observation that adult society is a system of
> > abstract rules and imaginary situations that we have all
> > forgotten are imaginary and abstract. It often takes children,
> > in fact , to enable us to recognize that 'the coin of the
> realm"
> > is not "really money," it is in fact merely a piece of metal.
> > Adult play, of course, is less gratuitous difficulty and guile-
> > less deceit than it is mandatory toil and sly chicanery, and
> > that's why we have forgotten how not to take it seriously, but
> > as any card-carrying existentialist will tell you, it's all
> just
> > a game.
> >
> > martin
> >
> > On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:22 PM, 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> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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