[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
I don't know, I think LSV makes it pretty clear that word-meaning is not the concept. He criticizes Ach, who:
"identifies concept and word meaning, and thus precludes any possibility of change and development in concepts" (T&S chapter 6, para 16).
On Apr 20, 2011, at 12:57 PM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> Please explain to me how someone can "wield a concept"? I am not even
> sure about the expression "grasp a concept". When there is a word that is
> generalized to the extent of; hmmm....let's pick moon; it is not a
> decisive tool of distinction but rather, as LSV points out, "word meaning
> is the elementary cell that cannot be further analyzed. . . it is the
> unity between thought and word" We cannot say that our earth has THE
> moon. But in conversation we can state, "The moon is out and bright
> tonight." I can provide a crowd with my moon but perhaps get arrested and
> a smiling cherub of a child could display their moon of a face. IMHO
> moon's word meaning is the concept present in these thoughts and words.
> Not something weilded or grasped but perhaps active?
> what do other's think? bill blanton or bill borowy out there?
> From: Huw Lloyd <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Date: 04/20/2011 12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
> Sent by: email@example.com
> On 20 April 2011 10:43, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I appreciate all the thoughtful good will going into the attempts to
>> common grounding and explore one's own thinking in this/these
>> I fear i violated Tony's reasonable 2 cents rule because I, too, have
>> too little time to write and the intermixing of pieces of threads and
>> added to the difficulties.
>> I believe that Andy identified one problem when he pointed out that Huw,
>> coming from a somewhat different (and relevant!) tradition(s) introduced
>> concepts such as activity as he understood them from, say, Maturana or
>> Bateson. So, for example, he pointed to Jim Wertsch's *Mind as Action*
> as a
>> source for explication of the concept of activity using the pole
> Kind of. I'm saying mediation and activity go together. In, for example,
> the scheme Wertsch provides (p204, VATSFOM):
> Activity -- Motive
> Action -- Goal
> Operation -- Conditions.
> A good place, it seems, to locate the use of concepts (i.e. those things
> gained during dual stimulation experiments) is in the regulation of
> However, I'd say that the concept used influences the dynamics, as it can
> change the situation.
> Consider this simplified account. A man is queuing at a supermarket. He
> only has 10 dollars (or some other currency), yet he needs the food to
> his family. He's got a number of items, all of which he needs, though
> might tally up to more than 10 dollars. Let's say they add up to 9.99. If
> he can confidently do the math and has done so, his whole experience will
> different to the circumstances he'd be in if he found those kind of
> conceptual operations difficult. He wields these concepts in the act of
> doing the math (the concepts mediate this act). But these circumstances
> will also mediate his activity as a whole as they influence his
>> But, Jim uses this example to talk about mediated action in
>> context, his preferred unit of analysis at the time (at the end of
>> and the Social Formation of mind-*- which you can find whole on the
>> but not download- he DOES discuss notions of activity following LSV).
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list