Re: [xmca] Re: Understanding of Symbolic Play as a hermeneutic activity of PROJECTION

["Goncu, Artin" <goncu@uic.edu>]

Hi Larry and All,

This is to let you know that I am in Istanbul now during my Spring break. 
I just happened to see your post.  I will try to read and catch up with
the discussion, and also respond as best as I can, definitely upon my
return to Chicago but possibly from here.  Best, Artin





On Mon, March 22, 2010 5:43 pm, Larry Purss wrote:
> Hi Artin
> I just want to say a big apology for spelling your name incorrectly in my
> previous post.
> What I do want to emphasize is my appreciation of your and Suzanne Gaskins
> work on elaborating the INTERSUBJECTIVE nature of development and how we
> have to be so careful in our assumptions of Eurocentric notions of
> developmental paths as being generalizable across cultures.
> Suzanne's work in Mexico and the patterns of Japanese mothers indulging
> their infants which creates unique patterns of dependency (see Takeo Doi's
> work) are examples of cultural mother/infant interactions which lead to
> unique developmental outcomes.
> Artin, your elaborating the similarities and differences between Vygotsky
> and Piaget and their different emphasis on the time scale was very
> helpful.
> Also your elaboration of their "blind spot" is definitely the issue this
> thread is discussing
> Larry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
> Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:58 am
> Subject: [xmca] Re: Understanding of Symbolic Play as a hermeneutic
> activity of PROJECTION
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
>> Hi Anton Goncu (and Suzanne Gaskins) and also Martin, Andy, and
>> all the others engaging in symbolic play/projection.
>>
>> Awhile ago Anton posted a response on our discussion of the
>> playworld and mentioned he and Suzanne had a chapter in the book
>> "Oxford Handbook  of the Development of Play" (in press)
>> that could help as a leading source of furthering our
>> discussion. He asked for requests from people who wanted a
>> copy.  I asked for a copy and I think this article should
>> be read by everyone who is interested in Piaget, Vygotsky,
>> playworlds, and intersubjectivity.
>>
>> Martin, my posting Ingrid Josephs work on the as-is/as-if
>> antinomy and your response that this way of framing the
>> discourse  can be viewed through a hermeneutic lens and in
>> particular the notion of "projection" left me with a promise to
>> myself to read more on this particular notion of hermeneutic
>> projection.
>> Now, I want to suggest that Ingrid Joseph's notion of as-is/as-
>> if antinomy, and hermeneutic projection, can also be engaged
>> with Anton's and Suzanne's chapter "Comparing and extending
>> Piaget's and Vygotsky's Understanding of Play: Symbolic play as
>> Individual, Sociocultural and Educational Interpretation. (I
>> also see Mead's theory as interpreted by Gillespie as sharing
>> similar notions and is sociocultural not simply interactional.)
>>
>> All the people mentioned above and all the various theories see
>> play/experience in social acts as an activity of INTERPRETATION.
>> Anton & Suzanne suggest Piaget was more focused on the as-was
>> developmental origins of play, whereas Vygotsky's focus was more
>> on play's being a LEADING as-if activity. Piaget's notion
>> emphasized that symbolic play empowers children by enabling them
>> to CONSOLIDATE PAST EXPERIENCE (as-was) whereas Vygotsky focuses
>> on play as creating a ZPD where the child ANTICIPATES
>> functioning BEYOND her actual development (as-IF)
>>
>> Vygotsky also pointed out that play allows children to SEPARATE
>> MEANING from objects and actions. (for example mounting a stick
>> and acting AS-IF riding a horse.  This is the activity
>> which leads to the development of word meaning as children use
>> one object to represent the meaning of another object and use
>> symbols like words to represent the meaning. (Mead's significant
>> intersubjective meaning) It is this process of INTERPRETING in
>> symbolic play that enables the development of
>> consciousness/reflection. (Hermeneutics & Ingrid's describing
>> activity at the grave of a deceased point out that play is only
>> one particular example of a process that is being enacted and
>> engaged throughout the life span. Looking at this process in
>> child development allows a window into this hermeneutic process
>> of projection.
>>
>> Anton and Suzanne point out both Piaget and Vygotsky had a BLIND
>> SPOT that they didn't recognize that symbolic play is
>> INTERSUBJECTIVE. (As an aside Mead's theory was explicitly
>> intersubjective as is Ingrid Joseph's theory  and
>> hermeneutics.  As Anton & Suzanne write, "Largely because
>> of this omission (blind spot) by Piaget and Vygotsky, there is a
>> prevailing tendency  among play researchers to
>> conceptualize symbolic play as primarily an intrinsically
>> motivated activity even when it is experienced as a socially
>> shared activity.....The attribution of responsibility of
>> engagement to individuals, as supposedly autonomous players, has
>> led not only to misconcepties in children's playons of Western
>> children's play, but also by extension, has precluded the
>> accurate understanding of cultural differenc (p.11)
>>
>> In summary
>>
>> I believe these various discourses mentioned above, from
>> alternative frameworks, are converging on a shared
>> INTERSUBJECTIVE notion of symbolic play that is sociocultural
>> (and I think hermeneutic from my reading of Martin's post) and
>> that this symbolic play is actually a much larger phenomena of
>> aan as-is/as-if antinomy.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
>> Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:19 pm
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> > Martin
>> > Thanks for helping  locate these themes on the centrality
>> > of  time as part of the hermeneutic discourse.
>> > "Projection" in all 3 phases is definitely a theme which
>> offers
>> > significant insights when authors such as Ingrid Josephs
>> > use it as a unit of analysis.
>> > I don't think these insights have stopped the puzzlement, but
>> it
>> > does help as a signpost to guide the journey to  ...?
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>> > Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:41 pm
>> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
>> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> >
>> > > Larry,
>> > >
>> > > This is what is called, in hermeneutic theory, the
>> > > characteristic of "projection." All understanding of an
>> > object,
>> > > event, or situation, and hence all interpretation (which is
>> > the
>> > > articulation of understanding) is its projection, in three
>> > > senses. First, in terms of a practical project. Second, as a
>> > > projectile has been thrown forward from the past into the
>> > > future. Third, it is projected onto a background (rather as
>> a
>> > > film is 'projected' in a screen), so that what shows itself
>> is
>> > > always in the terms (loosely speaking) that this background
>> > > makes possible.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know whether this will rid you of puzzlement! But
>> yes
>> > > it's better than crosswords.
>> > >
>> > > Martin
>> > >
>> > > On Mar 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Martin, Andy, Luiz
>> > > > Thank you for your reflections on tnis topic which I have
>> to
>> > > admit leaves me more puzzled than ever (but it is more
>> > > interesting than doing crossword puzzles.
>> > > > I wanted to add a few more thoughts from Ingrid Joseph's
>> > > notions on this topic and the dimension of TIME in self-
>> development.> > > She points out that polyvalent symbolic
>> networks are dynamic
>> > > and FUTURE oriented as social PERSPECTIVES and TIME are
>> > > dynamically interwoven.
>> > > > The PRESENT as-IS functions as an intersection BETWEEN as-
>> > WAS
>> > > and future as-if-could-be states. STABILITY of meaning is
>> > > provided by the fact that that the past is projected into
>> the
>> > > future, whereas CHANGE results from the TRANSFORMATION of
>> the
>> > > past by the future as-if-could-be. Ingrid states, "possible
>> > > futures are nourished by the past, but at the same time the
>> > past
>> > > is changed by the ANTICIPATED future" (Crites 1986  as
>> > > quoted by Ingrid, 1998  p. 192) Through this DOUBLE
>> > > MOVEMENT in the present AS-IS, the present moves towards its
>> > > immediate future, and becomes a NEW PRESENT. and the process
>> > > begins again.
>> > > >
>> > > > If the role of either past (as-was) or future (as-if-could
>> > be)
>> > > becomes DOMINANT in a one sided manner, sel-development
>> > becomes
>> > > blocked and movement becomes stuck (emotions also become stuck)
>> > > > Food for continuing thought
>> > > >
>> > > > Larry
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----,
>> > > > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>> > > > Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:51 am
>> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
>> > > > To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> > > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>> > > >> Big topic, Andy, and I can't afford to get distracted
>> from
>> > > >> trying to figure out LSV on concepts! But it has to be
>> said
>> > > that
>> > > >> science is hermeneutic too. There is not a single science
>> > > that
>> > > >> is not concerned with understanding traces, signs,
>> indices,
>> > > even
>> > > >> symbols. That's to say, science is all about "taking
>> > > something
>> > > >> *as* something" (as Heidegger put it) and so "saying
>> > > something
>> > > >> of something," (as Aristotle had it, in his On Interpretation).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Martin
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> A while ago I was obliged to deal with the work of Roy
>> > > >> Bhaskar. What Bhaskar does is insist on the ontology of
>> > > natural
>> > > >> science in every aspect of life, including for example,
>> > > literary
>> > > >> criticism and cultural anthropology. The editor makes a
>> > nice
>> > > >> point with an anecdote: he is at a seminar on J-P Sartre.
>> A
>> > > >> student in the audience calls out "Do you really think
>> that
>> > > >> someone called J-P Sartre existed?" Obivously an
>> > > inappropriate
>> > > >> application of relativism, which then opens the way for
>> his
>> > > own
>> > > >> dogmatism.>
>> > > >>> I was drawn to the conclusion that it is dogmatism to
>> > insist
>> > > >> on one true ontology (here I mean ontology the general,
>> > > >> classical, not the Sartrean sense) for all activities at
>> > all
>> > > >> times. Natural science is an activity which by its very
>> > > nature
>> > > >> must assume that there is a natural world out there whose
>> > > >> properties and forms can be known. This is not true of
>> any
>> > > >> activity where reality is in a significant degree formed
>> by
>> > > and
>> > > >> interconnected with, human activity and in the case of
>> the
>> > > >> natural sciences breaks down in certain circumstances at
>> > > certain
>> > > >> times.>
>> > > >>> So I don't accept that naturalistic ontology is a *myth*
>> > of
>> > > >> the natural sciences. It is an essential part of natural
>> > > >> science. But it is not universal. It is just as dogmatic
>> to
>> > > >> insist on hermeneutic relativism in natural science as it
>> > is
>> > > to
>> > > >> insist on naturalistic realism in hermeneutics, etc.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Andy
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Martin Packer wrote:
>> > > >>>> Larry,
>> > > >>>> Yes, it has for a long time been part of the myth of
>> > modern
>> > > >> science that it discloses things as they 'really are,'
>> not
>> > as
>> > > >> they 'appear' to be. LSV falls into this way of speaking
>> > (or
>> > > at
>> > > >> least his translators do). The most powerful analyses of
>> > > >> science, philosophical, historical and sociological, in
>> my
>> > > >> opinion, show that it is thoroughly enchanted. Science
>> > > involves
>> > > >> seeing (and thinking of) things 'as if.' So Kuhn
>> explained
>> > > >> paradigms in terms of 'seeing as' - a duck or a rabbit.
>> So
>> > > every
>> > > >> introduction I have seen of gravity in relativity theory
>> > uses
>> > > >> the image of space sagging like a rubber sheet around
>> > masses,
>> > > >> even though this image is inadequate once one gets deeper
>> > > into
>> > > >> the math. Seeing space 'as if' it were rubber is a
>> > necessary
>> > > >> step into this branch of science. Each science has/is its
>> > own
>> > > >> imaginary.>> Martin
>> > > >>>> On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
>> > > >>>>> Luiz
>> > > >>>>> That was an interesting thread you sent on play and
>> > games
>> > > >> and the tension between the concepts.
>> > > >>>>> It is a fascinating topic.
>> > > >>>>> I want to bring into the conversation a fascinating
>> > > >> perspective on the place of the fictional and imaginary
>> in
>> > > play
>> > > >> (and other activity).
>> > > >>>>> First for some context.
>> > > >>>>> I've always been curious about the antinomy often
>> > > reflected
>> > > >> in the tension between imagination/reality and the
>> > literature
>> > > on
>> > > >> modernity as the disenchantment of the world and the
>> > reaction
>> > > to
>> > > >> this privleging the as-IS reality over the as-IF
>> > > reality.
>> > > >> There is a counter literature on finding ways to re-
>> enchant
>> > > the world.
>> > > >>>>> Often science is seen as the villan who is responsible
>> > for
>> > > >> the loss of the as-IF reality, as children move beyond
>> > > playful
>> > > >> imagination into the real world.
>> > > >>>>> Piaget's notions of animism as indicating immature thinking.
>> > > >>>>> INGRID E. JOSEPHS takes a radically different
>> > perspective
>> > > on
>> > > >> the tension between the imaginary as-IF constructions and
>> > the
>> > > >> figure-ground type relation to as-IS reality.
>> > > >>>>> She wrote an article in HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 1198, Volume
>> > 41,
>> > > >> pages 180-195  which explains very clearly this
>> > > alternative
>> > > >> interpretation of the as-IS and as-IF dialectic and how
>> it
>> > > >> infuses meaning with e-motion and explains the process of
>> > > >> Vygotsky's internalization and Mead's I-ME dialectic.
>> > > >>>>> Following is a quick summary of Ingrid's perspective
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > >> imaginary in our devlopment.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Symbol formation implies a TRANSCENDENCE of the here-
>> and-
>> > > now
>> > > >> as-IS world by construction of the imaginary as-IF world.
>> > > >> Ingrid's standpoint is an extension of Hans Vaihinger's
>> > [1911-
>> > > >> 1986] "philosophy of the "AS-IF" as his notion of
>> > > FICTIONALISM
>> > > >> as an independent version of PRAGMATISM. (as an aside
>> > Alfred
>> > > >> Adler said this book transformed his life).
>> > > >>>>> Vaihinger believed as-If thinking was foundational for
>> > > >> scientific reasoning.
>> > > >>>>> Ingrid makes a further distinction between static
>> > > >> nondevelopmental and dynamic/developmental accounts of as-
>> > > >> IF.  "BEING as-if" is static, whereas "BEING-AS-IF-
>> > COULD-
>> > > >> BE" is dynamic. She points out this is similar to
>> > > Bretherton's
>> > > >> distinction of AS-IF and WHAT-IF. In dynamic notions, the
>> > as-
>> > > IF
>> > > >> is a step in the process of forward oriented
>> preadaptation
>> > to
>> > > >> the next MOMENTARY context. Development is based on as-IF
>> > > types
>> > > >> of apperception as each person participates in their own
>> > > >> development. Rather than being MORE adaptive or BETTER
>> > > Ingrid's
>> > > >> position is that developmental transformations cannot be
>> > > >> prejudged before the act. Whether it is better or worse
>> is
>> > an
>> > > >> evaluative question.
>> > > >>>>> In summary imagination always begins in the known
>> world
>> > of
>> > > >> present and past and then one's horizon of understanding
>> is
>> > > >> stretched into the realm of the as-IF.. Ingrid points out
>> > > this
>> > > >> notion of as-IF is close to Cole's [1992, 1995] notions
>> of
>> > > >> personal duration. Ingrid states, "In imagination, not
>> only
>> > > do
>> > > >> present, past, and future become MUTUALLY RELATED (and
>> > > >> constructed), but both the person and world are
>> > transformed." p.184
>> > > >>>>> Now to the more specific topic of SYMBOLIC PLAY that
>> is
>> > > >> being explored on this thread. Piaget understood play as
>> > pure
>> > > >> assimilation that is necessary until developmentally the
>> > > child
>> > > >> can transcend this immature level of reality and with
>> > > >> development SUBORDINATE the as-IF reality by the rational
>> > > >> logical, and DECENTERED modes of entering reality.
>> > The
>> > > as-
>> > > >> If is not ascribed any PRODUCTIVE future oriented
>> function
>> > in
>> > > >> development. In contrast the position Ingrid (and Cole,
>> > > >> Vygotsky, Mead,) are elaborating is that the AS-IF-COULD-
>> BE
>> > > >> operates throughout the lifespan.
>> > > >>>>> [Note] I'm emailing this section because my software
>> > > >> sometimes crashes
>> > > >>>>> Larry
>> > > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > > >>>>> From: Wagner Luiz Schmit <mcfion@gmail.com>
>> > > >>>>> Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:11 pm
>> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
>> > > >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> I even didn't had time to read all e-mails (lots and
>> > lots
>> > > >> of work to
>> > > >>>>>> do), but games and development is exactly what i want
>> > to
>> > > >> study in my
>> > > >>>>>> doctorship.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Do you heard about narratology David? this was used
>> to
>> > > >> study and analisegames for a while, and them other thing
>> > > called
>> > > >> ludology emerged...
>> > > >>>>>> Take a look at this article:
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> LUDOLOGY MEETS NARRATOLOGY:
>> > > >>>>>> Similitude and differences between (video)games and
>> > narrative.> >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> this is my two cents contribution to the
>> discussion...
>> > > and
>> > > >> i'm very very
>> > > >>>>>> interested too in this rational/irrational discussion
>> > > >> too... but i don't
>> > > >>>>>> have much to contribute now... Only that William
>> James
>> > > >> already was
>> > > >>>>>> debating this =P (being a teacher of history of
>> > > Psychology
>> > > >> is very
>> > > >>>>>> usefull)
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Wagner Luiz Schmit
>> > > >>>>>> INESUL - Brazil
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Em Ter, 2010-03-16 às 18:13 -0700, David Kellogg escreveu:
>> > > >>>>>>> Sorry, everybody!
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> I wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> 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.
>> > > >>>>>>> I meant to write "it's a little like trying to find
>> > the
>> > > >> point
>> > > >>>>>> where talk passes over into TEXT". Halliday remarks
>> > > >> somewhere that scientific linguistics didn't really start
>> > > until
>> > > >> the invention of the tape recorder.
>> > > >>>>>>> I was always puzzled by that remark until I realized
>> > > that
>> > > >>>>>> until the invention of the tape recorder, TEXT was
>> > > >> synonymous with writing and TALK was synonymous with
>> > speech,
>> > > and
>> > > >> only people like Bakhtin and Vygotsky knew that there was
>> a
>> > > much
>> > > >> deeper, underlying difference having to do with pastness
>> > and
>> > > >> presentness, finalizeability and unfinalizedness.
>> > > >>>>>>> (When we look at Piaget's work on conservation it is
>> > > quite
>> > > >> a
>> > > >>>>>> while before we realize how dependent on VISUALS it
>> is.
>> > > For
>> > > >> the child, sound is not conserved at all, and of course
>> > > neither
>> > > >> is time. It is only with the discovery of language that
>> the
>> > > >> child can imagine the conservation of sound at all.)
>> > > >>>>>>> I think that the distinction between text and
>> > discourse
>> > > is
>> > > >>>>>> really the fast moving line between stories and games
>> > > that
>> > > >> we want: the story is past and the game is present, the
>> > story
>> > > is
>> > > >> finalizedness and the game is unfinalized and inherently
>> > > >> unpredictable. So the story is a text, and the game is an
>> > > >> ongoing discourse.
>> > > >>>>>>> I think, Andy, that in a game the problem is not
>> > autnomy
>> > > >> per
>> > > >>>>>> se. It's autonomy for a purpose, and purposes are
>> > almost
>> > > by
>> > > >> definition not only beyond the self but even beyond the
>> > > present
>> > > >> moment (and this is why Mike is so right to point out
>> that
>> > > EVERY
>> > > >> act of culture or even private imagination has an
>> implicit
>> > > >> notion of "the good life" in it).
>> > > >>>>>>> Similarly, I don't think Vygotsky ever prizes
>> volition
>> > > for
>> > > >> its
>> > > >>>>>> own sake; it's always the freedom to produce and to
>> > > create
>> > > >> and to imagine "the good life" and to master the
>> irrational
>> > > >> forces which deprive life of that meaning, including
>> those
>> > > found
>> > > >> within the self. It is in that sense that, yes, life is a
>> > > game:
>> > > >> it is meaningful through and through and to the very end.
>> > > Not, I
>> > > >> think, what the existentialists had in mind!
>> > > >>>>>>> David Kellogg
>> > > >>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> 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
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>> any
>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> > > >>>>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


Artin Goncu, Ph.D
Professor,
Educational Psychology
College of Education M/C 147
1040 W. Harrison St.
Chicago, IL 60607
http://education.uic.edu/epsy/browseour%20faculty.cfm
(312) 996-5259

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca