Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc

[David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>]

Well, the following propositions seem pretty clear to me, but I think at least some of them are things that Mike would dispute, and since Mike has a way of seeing stuff that goes right under my nose, I would really like to know which ones.
 
a) Percepts are constructions (of course, socioculturally generated) that individual minds put on perception. They are therefore representational generalizations and not abstractions of ideal relationships.
 
b) Concepts are constructions (of course, stored and used by individual minds) that sociocultural groups put on idealized relationships. They are therefore abstractions and not simply generalizations of percepts.
 
c) Everyday concepts, therefore, are not percepts. The word "family" and the word "furniture" are certainly indicative of meaning-meaning relationships; they are not labels for perceived objects in the visual field. They are, therefore, not percepts, but concepts, and they are true concepts. 
 
d) Everyday concepts are not science concepts. They differ from science concepts genetically (because they are generated through everyday experience rather than in laboratories and classrooms) functionally (because they are designed to facilitate everyday life and not academic gatekeeping or the pursuit of scientific knowledge) and structurally (because they are less volitional, less controllable, less decontextualizeable and less susceptible to analysis and recombination as part of a system). 
 
e) However, because science concepts can be analyzed and recombined, they can be used to refer to percepts. Names of stars and planets are examples. It is in this sense that the system of science concepts is both more powerful and more precise than that of everyday concepts. On the one hand, the system of science concepts can reveal hidden truths through abstraction,and on the other it can also do what everyday concepts and percepts do with even greater differentiation, selectivity, and precision.
 
The power and precision of science concepts It is like a language that can refer to and differentiate the concept of spiciness in food both lexically and grammatically (as well as in extended discourse) vs. a more primitive language like English which can refer to spicy food grammatically ("This food tastes hot like Mexican food, not hot like hot cocoa") but not lexically (there is no specific word for spiciness in food in English). 
 
But the greater power and precision of science concepts is not in any important sense social, racial or cultural superiority. To say that is to mix up the gate-keeping function that academia has with its truth-seeking function. Vygotsky of all people on earth was probably the least inclined to do this. (Part of being Jewish is learning that you can be really good at school and still treated like a schlump.)
 
When we read the first paragraph of the first section of Chapter Two of Thinking in Speech in Russian, we find a section, omitted in 1956 and 1982 and consequently missing from all English translations of the work, which says that the work of Piaget is comparable to that of Freud, Blondel, and Levy-Bruhl in historical importance, but ALSO in its idealism and its misguided methodology. Vygotsky returns to this general criticism, and specifically to his criticism of Levy-Bruhl's ideas about participation, in several places.
 
One beef he has with all three is precisely the association between the thinking of the child and the thinking of the so-called  "primitive". He reminds us of Rousseau's words: the child is not a small adult and his mind is not a small adult mind.  He shows that the famous example of the Bororo who call themselves parrots is based on a hypothetical connection with a larger unseen group (which is a complex rather than a concept only because it does not involve an objective scientific law) and there is no "participation" involved. Hutchins' work on the land dispute in the Trobriand Islands works in essentially the same way.
 
So why is it so often believed that Vygotsky believed that Vygotsky places children, primitives, and apes in a single unseen group of primitive thinkers? David Bakhurst tackles this question beautifully (for me, definitively) in his essay on Vygotsky's demons in the Cambridge Companion. He points out that like many places in Vygotsky's thinking there IS an ambiguity to exploit here. 
 
There IS a tendency to put percepts, spontaneous concepts, and everyday concepts in one undifferentiated heap and concepts, true concepts and science concepts in another. It even extends to the translation of the word, which Prout renders as "academic" or "taught" or "instructed" concept rather than "science concept". 
 
It seems to me that one possible explanation is that Luria himself, as a result of his experience in Uzbekistan ("The Uzbek's have no illusions!") and his general openess to Freudian influences (NOT shared by Vygotsky, as we know) might have been responsible for some of this ambiguity. I know that I sometimes find myself putting my name to things that I don't entirely believe for the sake of dear and trusted colleagues who believe them, and I can easily imagine Vygotsky doing the same.
 
But that does not really explain why this ambiguity was so ruthlessly exploited by Vygotsky's enemies to suppress his work. I think here the answer might lie in the circumstance that I pointed to before; the pressure on Vygotsky to abjure his former work on complexes and to introduce the scientific concept earlier and earlier in education. It is, I believe, this untimely pressure that ultimately led him to formulate the zone of proximal development. 
 
However, it also had the unfortunate effect of introducing a differentiation between the science concept and the everyday concept that is too strict, too firm, too rigorous and too impermeable: in other words, a differentiation that was too similar to that between concepts and percepts. And it would be just like the Stalinist s to pressure Vygotsky to go down that path and then to condemn him for what they thought he must have been thinking because it was precisely what they were thinking. 
  
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education.

--- On Thu, 7/8/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:


From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc
To: 
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 9:49 AM


David-- Your note raises the interesting question of what percepts are or
could be, David. Thanks for helping me think about relation of those images
to each other and chapters5-6 of T&S.
I am uncertain of the categorization of true concepts and how to
differentiate from scientific concepts a la LSV, Andy. Your suggestion that
scientific concepts are a subclass of true concepts sounds reasonable, but
not sure if LSV made the distinction. David? Paula? Natalia?

Glad you found the Hutchins interesting, Eric. I think I think that true
concepts in LSV's sense of the term are found in that example, sans
schooling. But perhaps not scientific one's unless we want to claim that
there is a theoretical jurisprudence involved, which there may well be.
Gotta read the full book to get to that I suppose.
mike

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

> Mike:
>
> Thank you for the Hutchins piece.  It is definitely a fine example of how
> researchers/observers can be confined by their cultural biases.  The land
> dispute example that is illustrated in the piece provides an example of a
> formal setting required to 'flesh' out the disagreement.  The 'everyday
> concept' of land us does not suffice for settling the land dispute and
> therefore a formal "scientific concept" of land use needed to be applied by
> a council to settle the dispute.
>
> Now, to add another inquiry;  would it make more sense to
> discuss/compare/contrast "everyday perceptions" with "scientific concepts"?
>
> For example, similar to the Hutchins piece, I may have land that is not
> divided from my neighbors by a fence and to access a portion of my land
> because of a natural barrier I have to drive onto my neighbors land for a
> stretch.  My perception may be that this is o.k. because no dispute has ever
> arisen due to my trespassing.  However a sale of the neighbor's land may
> bring into question my practice due to the new owner not liking my
> trespassing.  The "everyday perception" would be formally settled via the
> "scientific concepts" of law.
>
>
> Finally the humidity has broken and all we have in minnesota is sunshine
> and daisies (well. . . maybe a few mosquitoes)
>
> eric
>
>
> From:        mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> To:        "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date:        07/07/2010 02:20 PM
> Subject:        [xmca] perception/conception etc
> Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi All-- I have changed the heading which has "chained" a good deal from
> the
> topic
> of the header.
>
> I did not "see" the concepts in either image, Andy, until I went back to
> them and somewhere
> in both cases were conversations with my wife. Everyone is temporarily
> abled
> and simultaneously disabled, all that changes in the mix.
>
> Those interested in pursuing the line of inquiry opened by eric might enjoy
> this early article by Ed Hutchins from his work in Trobriand a while back.
>
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/fe79v1n2.PDF
> mike
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:38 AM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael:
> >
> > thanks for the example
> >
> > Laurie Anderson is an experimental performance artist that began with
> > spoken word pieces performed to violin and electronic effects.  As she
> > progressed in her artistic career she put recording "on hold" in order to
> > take singing and voice lessons. Had her artistic conceptions outgrown her
> > physical abilities?  I don't believe so because since that time she has
> > recorded numerous albums with exceptional voice quality.   The formal
> > training provided the "scientific concepts" that moved her beyond being a
> > spoken word artist to an exceptional musician.  Scientific concepts do
> > indeed appear to be born of formal academia.
> >
> > eric
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > "Michael Glassman" <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
> > To:
> > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Date:
> > 07/07/2010 12:01 PM
> > Subject:
> > RE: [xmca] comparing NewYorker images
> > Sent by:
> > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Actually been thinking about this in another context.  Here is my view,
> >
> > A pipe blower teaches and apprentice to build a pipe, teaches him to
> build
> > the pipe in a step by step method, the apprentice memorizes each step,
> and
> > then recreates it in building his own pipe.  But that is all the
> > apprentice can do, build that one single pipe following the exact same
> > process.  I am thinking this would be at the level of a pseudo-concept.
> >
> > A pipe blower teachers an apprentice how to blow a pipe.  The pipe blower
> > goes through the steps but explains the intricacies of what each step
> > means and why it works towards the final product.  The apprentice is able
> > to understand (appropriate?) each of these steps and use it to create a
> > pipe, but also when the pipe blower wants to blow a different type of
> pipe
> > does not have to go through the same step by step process but move
> quickly
> > through the variations on the different steps.  The apprentice
> > understanding the meaning of the steps in the process understands quickly
> > and gets better and more efficient at making different types of pipes.  I
> > am thinking this would be everyday concepts.
> >
> > A pipe blower is teaching an apprentice how to blow a pipe.  The pipe
> > blower teaches the properties of how the material reacts to the flame,
> and
> > what a material like glass can and cannot do at different temperatures.
> > The pipe blower actually concentrates on the properties of materials more
> > than making a pipe, believing the making of the pipe may take a much
> > longer time, but the apprentice now has the freedom to experiment with
> not
> > only glass, but materials and heat and can branch off to make things in
> > different ways.  I am thinking this would be scientific concepts.
> >
> > The problem is, with the pipe blower take the time to engage in the
> third,
> > even though in the long run it is better for the community.  Probably
> not,
> > and may even think of it as being detrimetal.  That is why this type of
> > education needs to occur in formal schooling.
> >
> > Of course once formally schooled the apprentice actually needs to go back
> > and learn how to make an actualy pipe - actually go back to the concrete
> -
> > and that is what allows him to go forward in the context of this new,
> > abstract information.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
> > Sent: Wed 7/7/2010 11:52 AM
> > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] comparing NewYorker images
> >
> >
> >
> > perhaps this can be clarified perhaps not.
> >
> > When a tribal elder teaches an apprentice to build a blow pipe is that
> > conveying scientific concepts or is it conveying everyday concepts?
> >
> > In other words do scientific concepts only happen in a formal academic
> > setting?
> >
> > I can accept that everyday concepts grow out of perceptions rather than
> > abstractions of thought.
> >
> > Perhaps that is my own muddled perception on things.  For if one views
> > life as being perfect than one can live a perfect life.
> >
> > eric
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > To:
> > ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Date:
> > 07/07/2010 09:22 AM
> > Subject:
> > Re: [xmca] comparing NewYorker images
> > Sent by:
> > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes indeed, beware empty abstractions, Andy!
> > And rise to the concrete if we can.
> > My major point in that note was that in moving between "levels" of
> > abstraction contained with the image, our perception, how we
> > "see" the constituents changes. Might this be akin to the dynamics
> between
> > scientific and everyday concepts, and/or between differently configures
> > systems of higher psychological functions?
> > mike
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, we're all hanging out for the next issue of The New Yorker now! I
> > > feel really "exposed" by this exercise. :) In both cases I failed to
> see
> > the
> > > cultural reference. I picked up the abstract-theoretical reference,
> > indeed
> > > I'd even already used No. 2 to illustrate "Gestalt", but still failed
> to
> > see
> > > the real-world, cultural meaning. :( Once an abstract-thinker, always
> an
> > > abstract thinker, no matter how many books you read.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > White, Phillip wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, certainly, Mike, I thing that knowing the song "Love and
> > marriage,
> > >> love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage. Dad would
> say
> > to
> > >> Mother, "You can't have one without the other."
> > >>
> > >> So, yes, two peas in a pod, a pair of shoes, and a pair of eyes.
> > >>
> > >> Phillip
> > >> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > >> Sender: "xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu" <xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:57:24 To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity<
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> Reply-To: "lchcmike@gmail.com" <lchcmike@gmail.com>, "eXtended Mind,
> > >> Culture,
> > >>        Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> Subject: [xmca] comparing NewYorker images
> > >>
> > >> I want to use the occasion of martin coming late to the second of two
> > new
> > >> yorker covers we have
> > >> been disscussing, to talk about some interesting properties of each
> and
> > >> different approaches to their
> > >> interpretation (I have still to deal with local microgenises).
> > >>
> > >> What both images seem to have in common is that an overall concept
> > covers
> > >> all the examples. One you see the overall concept, you
> > >> perception/interpretation of the constituents changes. And, if you are
> > >> working upward from the constituents, but still have not got "IT" the
> > >> little
> > >> its do not "add up."
> > >>
> > >> So someone sees the two eyeball shaped almost green things as "two
> > green
> > >> dots." But after one takes
> > >> in the heart *near* the top, and then the two bells with what look
> like
> > >> ribbons, on may think (June=prominent
> > >> month for getting married, weddding bells...... and from there on,
> > there
> > >> are
> > >> functional relations among the parts and those functions have changed
> > in
> > >> some cases where the function is difficult to discern, like those
> > >> two partly green eye shaped things. Now they become "two peas i a pod"
> > and
> > >> you might notice that it is
> > >> kind of strange that they are only partly green.
> > >>
> > >> I am pretty sure this is what Paula and David were writing about in a
> > more
> > >> consistent way.
> > >>
> > >> One thing I am pretty certain of. Getting "it" requires voobrazhenie,
> > >> into-image-making, and the process of
> > >> voobrazhenie is path dependent.
> > >>
> > >> What would LSV think?
> > >> mike
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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*
> > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
> > http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
> 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
> > 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
> >
> >
> > [attachment "winmail.dat" deleted by ERIC RAMBERG/spps]
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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