[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Ambivalence and system
- To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Ambivalence and system
- From: Larry Purss <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:42:05 -0800
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7ijKPXSmSfFXvJGkvF9BRvyXFQMS1Kga+vD/LTPfntg=; b=Wvtp/2L8j2kfeDIBcv1vVGTkr4aM/uPtrIkN12bbcTrIlOX3N5Bn5kfYn/eZI9QCnB KewYB6x0ZjUyawjiy0i3YpShQ1HvTYT8j0rcp42LlcTLrCHXBHH60xA/6gexYquq/DdO Vi8iVu6tei2zBJNWD0Ez1BJy5fLfDCPImktME=
- In-reply-to: <4EC9D146.email@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAGaCnpy3VEu4Pi3x8To7faGbxC6rh7iY6CVBSxVFfz-mK2FTbg@mail.gmail.com> <8963C5D5-2758-4550-85C5-4E33A9DBB526@gmail.com> <FB6B95550D6FA542B9A40180151A0D59017B00D0@hermit.cdu-staff.local> <4EC9D146.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
No, I haven't read Luria's comments on romantic science. I recently read
Mike's epilogue in the book on Luria recently archived at XMCA. Luria's
specific thoughts on romantic science I would like to read.
As well as reading the book on Schlegel and German Romanticism I have been
re-reading Veresov's introductory chapter in "Vygotsky Before Vygotsky".
The central themes of consciousness, monism, and objectivty, and
Vygotsky's multiple developing perspectives on the relation BETWEEN these 3
concepts. Consciousness interpreted not from a single unified system but
rather multiple perspectives or "systems of analysis". Verosov seems to be
asking, what was considered "foundational" within Vygotsky's search for
explaining consciousness. As I read Verosov's answer the "system of
relations" which included the concepts consciousness, monism, and
objectivity was interpreted differently at different periods in Vygotsky's
life. The relations between these 3 concepts [the various systems] was
answered in multiple or plural relational configurations which
historically modified what Vygotsky included in his search for
the "objective analysis of mind" at each historical moment.
My reading of Veresov suggests that Vygotsky's final version or system,
which is his cultural historical model was asking the same "questions"
about the possible relations between the 3 concepts but Vygotsky's
final answer after 1932 was radically tranformed from his earlier answers
to the same question.
Verosov also suggests that Activity theory emerged from cultural historical
in the 1930's as one POSSIBLE branching of cultural historical theory as a
particular system or CHAT but that other branches which focus more on
"meaning" and "sense" are also possible approaches. This seems to open up
a space for alternative answers or a plurality of responses to the relation
between the 3 concepts.
Schlegel as a Romantic, writing in 1800, had this to say in response to
"Our philosophy does not begin like the others with a first principle -
where the first proposition is like the center of the first ring of a comet
- with the rest a long tail of mist - we depart from a small but living
seed - our center lies in the middle"
Schlegel's perspective commits him to something like "life" as the
framework for understanding reality. Schlegel's philosophical method is
genetic or synthetic as opposed to deductive or syllogistic and underscores
the historical dimension to his approach. The focus is on coming into being
and to understanding the development or genesis of an idea. To understand
how a thing comes into being, we do well to look at its various phases of
development or its history. Schlegel's commitment is to starting in the
middle, in the midst of the dynamic flow itself. Schlegel saw the various
philosophical systems that comprise the history of philosophy as links in a
coherent chain, with the understanding of any given philosophical system
requiring understanding of the chains to which it is connected.
In the 1800's these ideas were ridiculed by the grand system builders of
German Idealism and dimissed as "merely" aesthetic or romantic.
Today I get the sense that many would continue to dismiss Schlegel as
merely romantic but within the sociocultural turn in psychology there are
frameworks that would share Schlegel's sense-ability. In particular the
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> Have you read Luria's comments on Romanic Science?
> Nektarios Alexi wrote:
>> Sounds like it:)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of mike Cole
>> Sent: Sun 11/20/2011 1:21 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Ambivalence and system
>> Romantic science, Larry?
>> On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I wanted to reflect a little more on the centrality of ambivalence as
>>> inherent in all systemic conceptual worldviews by a backward glance to
>>> tension between early German Romanticism and German Idealism.
>>> This is not an arena I know well but Andy's writings have clled me tlearn
>>> I am reading a book on Schlegel's contribution to the ideas circulating
>>> Jena at the beginning of the 1800's. A time which has been referred to as
>>> Early German Romanticism.
>>> Schlegel wrote this comment when reflecting on thinking systematically.
>>> "It is equally fatal for the spirit to have a system and to have none. It
>>> will simply have to decide to combine the two"
>>> This comment seems to share the same sensibility as Zygmunt Bauman's
>>> of "ambivalence" as ontological to all system constructions. "liquid
>>> modernity" as diachronic versus more structural notions of solid
>>> is a case in point.
>>> Every philosopher must have a system, for to make claims and construct
>>> arguments, we must assume some system, FOR WE NEED LIMITS, but this must
>>> done with the recognition that ANY particular system is a PART of a
>>> PLURALITY of other systems. This is the recognition that one must
>>> simultaneouslly be WITHIN a system and be without it.
>>> This way of thinking, which can be framed as "romantic" [no final system]
>>> is also hermeneutic.
>>> Just further reflections on the ontological necessity of ambivalence at
>>> heart of our projects.
>>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca mailing list
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list