Re: [xmca] Folk Psychology from a narrative perspective

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi David Ke

David
Your distinction between history and narrative is interesting.  Do you think
Bruner collapses the distinction. Hutto's framework on narratives is that
they are forms of story-telling that give "reasons for actions" in terms of
beliefs and desires which are the folk psychological frameworks that are
culturally grounded frames of reference.  He suggests this form of
explanation is socioculturally grounded.  My recollection of Bruner's work
is he suggests it is one of the two basic forms of constructing meaning.
Therefore, for Bruner, history would be a particular form of narrative.

David, if Hutto's work interests you, I would also google his edited book
"Folk Psychology Reassessed" which gives alternative theoretical approaches
which are challenging the "theory theory" model and "simulation" model of
folk psychology.  The edited volume situates Hutto's work in a larger stream
of thought.

On this topic of folk psycholgy I'm currently reading a book "Philosophy in
the Flesh" by Lakoff & Johnson that posits BASIC or PRIMARY forms of
cognition as fundamentally metaphorical. We imaginally compare a source
concept to a target concept.   The SOURCE concept of these primary cognitive
structures are ALWAYS based in our physical bodies. Lakoff & Johnson suggest
from these primary metaphors more complex metaphorical meanings develop.  If
this perspective is accurate, then language is not the SOURCE of our most
basic metaphors. The source is in the sensory-motor or somatic embodied
cognition. Language expresses these basic metaphors.  If there is some merit
in this position then education and developmental science should engage with
basic primary metaphors as foundational in the emergence of cognitive
capacity and in how these basic metaphors IMPLICITLY structure our folk
psychology.

>From this perspective of primary metaphor as embodied  it is not too big a
step  to reflect on primary intersubjectivity as a precursor to secondary
intersubjectivity.  I have a hunch these 2 constructs are intimately
related.

Larry






On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:14 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Wow--I have to get that book! Thanks, Larry.
>
> The way I understand David Kirshner's work is this: there is really only
> ONE of the three meta-discourses in education that is narrative, at least
> narrative in the sense of oriented towards the action of a hero in a problem
> space who evaluates and achieves some kind of resolution.
>
> That's his THIRD meta-discourse, the one which sees education as a process
> of becoming a participant, a member, a practioner and as mastering a
> particular set of discourses that accompany membership.
>
> It seems to me that his first meta-discourse, which sees education as a
> process of mastering skills, is not narrativist, because it focuses on
> problem solutions and pretty much ignores the hero and the evaluation of the
> problem space.
>
> His second meta-discourse, which sees education as a process of acquiring
> conceptual knowledge, is not narrativist either, because it sees this
> knowledge as being not embodied in a particular hero and because it sees the
> knowledge as being quite separable from the solution of problems.
>
> I don't think this means that DHK would consider the third meta-discourse
> the most complete. I think it's only the most complete if we view it from a
> narrativist point of view, and that is no coincidence, since it co-evolved
> with a lot of Bruner's work.
>
> I have a question about the difference between narrative and history (as in
> "cultural historical"). It seems to me that everything we say about
> narrative (its structure, it's "I-ness" and even its past-to-present
> orientation) is radically UNTRUE of history (because history is not
> structured around heroes in problem spaces, it is not "I" shaped, and it is
> oriented present-to-past). Why, then, do people of our peculiar historical
> epoch treat the two as synonymous?
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
> --- On Wed, 1/26/11, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> Subject: [xmca] Folk Psychology from a narrative perspective
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 2:38 PM
>
>
> I have attached a book review for others interested in a perspective on
> folk
> psychology that assumes a perspective inspired by Jerome Bruner's work on
> narrative practices,  Hutto is positing a 2nd person dialogical grounding
> for understanding "reasons for actions"  He suggests this mode of
> understanding is most pronounced when actions are unpredictable.  Hutto
> suggests there are other more direct embodied forms of recognition and
> engagement that are not narrative based.
>
> I see some affinity in this perspective to David Kirschner's approach to
> learning theory as narrative based genres.
>
> Larry
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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