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

Re: [xmca] Culture & Rationality

Peter, Martin

The question, "How teaching writing contributes over and above teaching
scientific concepts?"
leads to Cole's work in Africa or David Olson's book "World On Paper".


"How language as discourse, when objectified as writing, makes explicit
the implicit habitual processes of "living" conversation.  Conscious
awareness of conversation and dialogue*as higher* psychological functions,
and develops or  *unveils* the relational dynamics of THIS process?"

The answer to this question may require another thread. THIS process of
making implicit conscious language consciously AWARE is a process of
enculturation, as learning to write  transforms conscious awareness of the
dynamic process of conversation or dialogue. We need to return to the
Greeks, to understand the historically implicated transformation
[development] of THIS neoformation of conscious awareness *as* HIGHER
psychological functions.
The infant is *thrown* into THIS GIVEN  historically formed *way* of
EXPLICIT conscious awareness within literate cultures.  Today, we are
*unveiling* deeper understanding of this form of enculturation developed
historically as  writing. THIS understanding, when aquired through
schooling, develops PARTICULAR types of higher mental functions MEDIATED
cultural-historically  by adult  *models* who enculturateTHIS particular
type of EXPLICIT conscious awareness of language processes which were
previously implicit habitual forms of consciousness.

Writing as technology,

by objectifying and unveiling the implicit consciousness within language

 transforms our relation to languaging. THIS  historically developing form
of higher mental functioning.
 is NOT merely a process of ontogenesis. The neoformation is *given* at
birth as adults  model and mediate aquiring THIS writing process which
leads to higher reflective psychological functioning as langauge develps as
conscious awareness. THIS developmental process is ESSENTIALLY
a dynamic  process and is essentially a cultual historically formed
The specific neuroanatomy may have to biologically develop [in adolescence]
 before THIS transformative process is aquired. [May require developing
capacities within the frontal cortex]

 THIS developmental process of historically emerging neoformations OF
reflective conscious awareness *as* higher mental functions is GIVEN to the
new born infant as models. Without the invention of writing [unveiling
language processes through objectifying THIS process] habitual language as
conscious would not have transformed to *higher* mental functions where
language comes under volitional direction.  However, the infant is thrown
into a life world where this capacity [as higher mental functions IS GIVEN]
and through mediation  and enculturation learns THIS PARTICULAR *way* of
understanding languaging as *higher* mental functions.



On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> Just one thought that occurred to me while reading these posts, and
> offered from an old English teacher and on-and-off writing researcher:
> Martin says, "Or how teaching writing contributes over and above teaching
> scientific concepts."
> I should note that not all writing instruction is the same. In fact, one
> thing that occurs to me is that one type is oriented to academic writing
> with formal, genre-based conventions. Another (and not "the" other) is
> really based on personal exploration of life experiences. This approach was
> very popular in the 80s, and perhaps even dominant in many circles, and
> remains around, although the Common Core Standards, etc., will surely
> diminish its availability. Anyhow, one seems dedicated to teaching academic
> (scientific) conceptions of formal expression--although in fact, it tended
> to be so form-oriented that conceptions would seem to have a hard time
> emerging from the writing process. The other seems dedicated to providing
> an environment for exploring everyday (spontaneous) concepts, with "direct"
> or explicit instruction not only eschewed, but viewed as  violent to the
> students' personal development.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:17 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Culture & Rationality
>  Hi Larry,
> Good questions - the first is one of the main motivations for me trying to
> figure out the details of LSV's argument. One starts to wonder, how
> specific is this to cultures in which there is schooling? Would some other
> kind of deliberate instruction be equally effective? What about cultural
> circumstances in which no deliberate instruction by adults take place
> (Peter F. brought this up)?
> And then, what counts as a scientific concept? Can different cultures have
> different kinds of scientific concepts, equally adequate to grasping the
> necessities of reality? Could the Chinese - to go back to Nisbett's work
> for a moment - have concepts that are different from those in the West, but
> that are equally scientific? (It's odd, come to think of that, that LSV
> never wrote - to my knowledge - of Oriental culture, given that the Soviet
> Union stretched all the way to the East.)
> And then your second question comes to mind. We tend to think of
> scientific inquiry as an unfinished process; perhaps as one that never
> finishes. But if so, in what sense do current scientific concepts grasp
> necessities? And could the process that LSV is describing continue, to
> achieve higher forms of consciousness and higher kinds of knowledge? Or
> does the history of ontogenesis have an endpoint?
> But I think to be able to take a shot at answering these questions we need
> to get clearer on the details of the argument. I'm still not clear on how
> the 'intellectualizing' takes place in adolescence. Or how teaching writing
> contributes over and above teaching scientific concepts. And much more!
> Martin
> On Jun 30, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> > Is THIS hierarchical movement of developing  scientific concepts as
> > conscious awareness a universal human potential or is this form of
> > conscious awareness  a historically and culturally situated phenomena?
> > If awareness is a reflective phenomena of making what was implicit
> > more explicit and more volitional [and therefore higher] is there a
> > universal human potential to *see through* or *unveil* [NOT reveal]
> > the implicit historical formation of earlier forms of consciousness,
> > including scientific consciousness?
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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