[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts



On 17 January 2012 11:58, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>>      I can't agree, Huw. To do justice to explaining a scientific or any
>>      actual (developed) concept would always require holding that concept
>>      in mind for a protracted period of time.
>>
>>
>> Did you mean to say that, Andy?  Hold a concept?
>> What is it that does the holding?  I would call this the thinking process.
>>
>
> It's just an expression, Huw. It means that that same cloud can go on
> raining for a long time, generating word meanings and other actions one
> after another.
>
>
>
>  Seems fine to me, apart from 'book knowledge' which needs more pinning
>> down.
>>  Huw
>>
> By "book knowledge" I mean conceptual content which orignates entirely
> independent of personal experience, received through social means via
> culturally produced artefacts. So we are talking here about an
> ideal-typical process of development which begins from a book, or from
> formal instruction, and in no way relies on personal experience.
>

That's another point of disagreement.  It seems as plain as day to me that
personal experience participates from the outset.

Bye for now,

Huw


> Andy
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca