[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] 1982 paper on schooling

That article connects to several ongoing threads, Andy. But lets see if
others are interested before I directly comment.

Instead, I think that the cover of the current issue of the New Yorker
magazine provides interesting food for thought one concepts and their
representations. It is accessible from www.newyorker.com.  Try to click on
the cover and than use control+ (on a pc) to get a larger and larger imaged.
The different layers of meaning appear to move between the syntagmatic and
paradigmatic dimensions of meaning making. Besides,
its clever.

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I just had a read of Mike's 1982 paper with Roy D'Andrade on the influence
> of schooling on concept formation:
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/ap82v4n2.PDF
> Great paper!
> It occurred to me that Luria is in agreement with many others that a
> hierarchical system of categories,  a taxonomy, is the archetype of the
> "abstract" concept. Luria's conception of how this relates to prior forms of
> concept (affective and concrete) is the main point of interest in the
> article, but I would like to question whether this taxonomical idea is valid
> as the archetype of the "true" concept. The article claims that taxonomical
> practices ("true" or not) are archetypal school practices, and this is an
> interesting and different question.
> An interesting counterpoint to this is Hegel's classification of 3
> different components which he thinks must *all* be present in the formation
> of a true concept:
> The subject is (a) ascribed certain qualities; (b) seen as having having a
> certain place in a system of social practice; and (c) taken under its genus,
> as belonging to a certain living whole.
> Further, I think (c) does not actually amount to the kind of Linnaean
> hierarchical family tree, but could also be interpreted like genre and
> archetype without the implied underlying totality. Also, there is all too
> much room for subsuming (c) under (a) as almost all of present-day
> philosophy and natural science are wont to do.
> Mike, you have done a lot of work on the role of this "taxonomical
> activity" in and out of school. Davydov on the other hand, emphasises (b) as
> opposed to (a). It would be interesting to investigate concept-formation on
> this wider frame.
> Andy
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list