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

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
>