[Xmca-l] Re: Systems views [leontievactivity]

[Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>]

Hi Huw,Lubomir, Jack,
Thanks for your replies.
I find it difficult to scan the research of biologists' boundaries with
psychologists in this area, biology research is funded to find results in
areas such as diabetes etc and so goes in that direction; psychiatry seems
to pick up from research from  pharma industry funded work - anyone with
useful theoretical bridges please share them! At present the neuroscience
field  has captivated attention, but  work such as that of G. S. Berns
boundaries neuroscience with language and social context without
consideration of enzyme/endocrine regulation.

In Information Systems work discussion of phenomenological work has
explored 'mood' as an aspect, but this hasn't any life-science ground to
relate it to  Maturana's concept of autopoiesis, which has been
influential. Also there has been some exploration of auto-affection
(relating to 'collective subjectivity' not to phenomena of 'mood') -
contrasting cultural settings - questioning action-research assumptions.

What interests me is your comment, Huw,  about '

Functional views as "a priori projections" is to use them a narrow
non-genetic manner.'


It's not a case of 'general systems heuristics';  when a practitioner is
sensitive to personal sense, and begins conversations from already held
meanings within intervention settings the 'general systems' are those
brought to the conversation.  What is  'genetic manner' ? If Andy's
suggestion that unit of analysis expands to produce 'system', systems
approaches/methodology concepts have been developed over periods of decades
through research efforts. Originator practitioners have a sense of process
of development of  their concept meaning, and begin recreating milestone
shifts of meaning towards articulation. In this way they have craft skill
introducing and developing 'germ cell' thinking, not an 'a priori
projection'  ( method).
A little while ago discussing Lewin and  A-R, there was an observation that
the action-research community were not trying to define 'method' , I was
introduced to the idea that method is particular, developed 'in-situ' .

What the notion of 'genetic manner' makes me curious about is whether dual
stimulation   is more 'micro' than apprising 'given' meanings of  a nexus
of conceptual relations ( a complex 'system'); in what way dual stimulation
-as spontaneous creative actions -might contribute to a local history, and
forming of a sense of 'germ cell' ( motive of enquiry); when we mention
'genetic method' ,whether we have confused dual stimulation with 'germ
cell'.

All rather too much for a thread, as I cannot participate much at the
moment.

Christine.