Re: [xmca] Al Andalus as a model for *{ }*

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

As a serendipitous footnote. I was looking for a book on my shelves and came
across
Manicus a history and philosophy of the social sciences. Where had I seen
this before?

xmca I thought.

I googled Manicus on lchc and sure enough, came up with the following
fragment from an earlier discussion:

An interesting tip from a colleague.
mike
-------------------

"...a kind of historically oriented unified social science with overlapping,
non-discrete, connected concerns."

In: Peter T. Manicas, "A", page 214.


Spelling that out a little more vis a vis inter-tradition-mashups it comes
in a chapter on the americanization of social sciences and the way in which
its founders selectively appropriated what they had learned.


"They were German.... in thinking of *Geisteswissenschaft *as a kind of
historically oriented unified social science with overlapping, non-discrete,
connected concerns.:

A rhyzhome, a fungle entanglement....??

Certainly descriptive of the situation that we find ourselves in, although I
believe we are witnessing a variety of reinventions of the humane sciences
of the 19th century.

mike
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Both Larry and Christine.
>
> I have continued thinking about ways to make clearer affinities across
> traditions/
> discourse communities. I have thought of two ideas with respect to the
> recent interchanges.
>
> 1. Do you think that it is possible to write up a journal-length paper that
> summarizes
> your takes on the synergisms among traditions that you see? Quite apart
> from
> interest in MCA, this sort of topic should fit with the new Valsiner
> journal on integrative psychological and behavioral sciences. Two potential
> places to get it out.
>
> and/or
>
> 2. Might it be possible to put together a "distributed, virtual course
> syllabus" of the sort that we did a few years ago on Vygotsky & Co. on xmca?
>
> Either could be very helpful.
>
> And while you are at it, what does it take to get serious discussion going
> with the
> social representation folks out there in xmca-land? (I am reminded because
> I am
> using some materials by Sandra Jovchelovich in my current grad seminar)?
>
> Thanks for passing along Rene's intro, Larry. The integration of art into
> our conversations in recent years, along with performance and play,
> certainly are
> important and Rene's thoughts are always interesting to read.
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:51 AM, christine schweighart <
> schweighartgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Mike,
>> I am just encountering Borgerson's 'witnessing' and 'irreplacibility etc -
>> and I am finding that F. Gonzalez Rey's Chapter helps untangle some sticking
>> points  sympathetic to Borgerson who does still use  'inter-subjective' and
>> some key terms in a way that coud be brought out differently.
>>
>> And yes - fungal mycelium - as Alan has researched them- is much more
>> relational than a previous  rhizome metaphor.  Alan brings out  a different
>> ontology,  and not only metaphoric  contrasts in his work, he does extend
>> implications from his empirical scientific and uses metaphor to convey his
>> thinking in his work and art too.
>> Yes Ingold already thought so - thanks for that observation.  Curiously he
>> is aware of Alan's work too.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S3GakE5OT-kC&lpg=PA426&ots=ViCvqWkJ5A&dq=ingold%20rhizome&pg=PA426#v=onepage&q=ingold%20rhizome&f=false
>>
>>
>> Christine.
>>
>>  __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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