These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Hi Mike Your suggestion to re-submit postings I'm following up on. Larry On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > Larry, you are probably right, and I mis-remembered what I read about > Luria and Romantic science. It was probably Mike Cole writing on Luria > that I remembered. > > Re Veresov. I don't know his writing, but I certainly welcome the idea > that there might be multiple equally valid routes to development of > Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. > > Re Schlegel. I have never read him. I did read Pinkard's "German > Philosophy 1769-1860" and I recall that I was intrigued by Schegel then. > But I have forgotten it all, except that, as you note, Hegel treated > Schlegel with contempt. The Schlegel women are a story waiting to be > told though! Dorothea and Caroline, the wives of the two Schlegel > brothers. Two amazing Renaissance women. > > Andy > > Larry Purss wrote: > >> Hi Andy >> 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 >> Fichte. >> "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 >> hermeneutical framework. >> Larry >> >> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto: >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> Larry, >> Have you read Luria's comments on Romanic Science? >> Andy >> >> >> Nektarios Alexi wrote: >> >> Sounds like it:) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu >> <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.**ucsd.edu<xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>> >> 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? >> :-) >> Mike >> >> On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Larry Purss >> <lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.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 the >> tension between early German Romanticism and German Idealism. >> This is not an arena I know well but Andy's writings have >> clled me tlearn >> more. >> I am reading a book on Schlegel's contribution to the >> ideas circulating in >> 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 notion >> of "ambivalence" as ontological to all system >> constructions. "liquid >> modernity" as diachronic versus more structural notions of >> solid modernity >> 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 be >> 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 the >> heart of our projects. >> >> Larry >> ______________________________**____________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> >> >> ______________________________**____________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> >> >> ______________________________**____________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> >> >> >> >> >> -- ------------------------------**------------------------------* >> *------------ >> *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/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<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> >> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857> >> > >> >> ______________________________**____________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> >> >> >> > -- > ------------------------------**------------------------------** > ------------ > *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@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca