Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

That is from my memory of lsv, not my idea.
mike

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM, monica.hansen <
monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:

> Describing meaning as a "the most stable pole" is that your metaphor for
> your interpretation of LSV as a whole or does that come from a particular
> contextual instantiation?
>
> When you put it that way, Mike, it does seem daunting! It is amazing we
> ever thought to study psychological processes, especially using science ;).
> There are so many factors that can't be isololated--the nature of the
> relationships in question is not easily defined by the types of
> relationships we are used to establishing in science. So, all I can come up
> with is that we continue to work at our understandings.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf
> of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:35 AM
> To: Larry Purss
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
>
> Parsing the multi-phased, overlapping, seemingly cyclical processes
> involved in joint mediated action in real time seems like a task that must
> be specified in the particulars of the case, Larry. Avoiding the pothole
> that opens up when we murder to dissect seems essential, but rendering
> accessible the process in flight also seems essential.
>
> We have to make sense at the same time that we are making meaning, seems to
> me. If, a la lsv, meaning is thought of as "the most stable pole" of
> externalized sense making, materialized in language, perhaps it can be
> thought of the sedimented (relatively stable) product of joint activity.
>
> How to obtain empirical evidence of these multi-temporal, simultaneous, two
> way processes at multiple time scales seems a question worth asking.
> Especially in micro time (relative to ordinary experience) getting
> access to observation of the processes at work seems a daunting challenge.
> mike
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike
> >
> > You wrote,
> >
> >
> >  from this perspective, meaning is retrospectively
> > constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
> > activity as a unit of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss
> >
> > The queston that comes to mind is, Do  we grant the backward glance the
> > royal road *to* meaning?
> > Where do we locate the *dialogical* notion of mediation that posits
> > meaning as located *in* the answering of the other?  Until our playful
> > encounter *in* the conversation [conversation as having its own living
> > experience or being] is answered meaning continues in transition to
> > becoming. This notion of meaning points more to the centrality of
> > *translation* within the dance rather than locating meaning in the
> > completed actuality of our anticipated projection, as determinative.  At
> > least within the conversation I'm having with myself.
> >
> > Mike, as Martin is expressing, what is the relation BETWEEN *the backward
> > glance* as completing the arc AND the *answering of the other* as the
> > completion of the arc?
> >
> > Are these alternative ways of *forming* meaning? The backward glance as a
> > particular TYPE of consciousness and the *answering other* as another
> > TYPE?  The centrality of the permeable relational boundary between inner
> > and outer and the reciprocity and movement back and forth between these
> > forms of meaning?  Or does one type subsume the other?
> >
> > Both point to *joint mediation* but one seems to privilege *cognition* as
> > located in subjectivity [MY backward glance] while the other form of
> > mediation seems to privilege the *play* as having its own being *in*
> which
> > *we* [not *I*] participate.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To me what stands out is the fact that from this perspective, meaning is
> >> retrospectively
> >> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
> >> activity as a unit
> >> of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss, teaching/learning
> >> processes for example.
> >> I am not so sure about the "reflective attitude" part being necessary.
> >> mike
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On page 4 of  the article on multiple realities Schultz writes,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > it makes us - in our language - either live within our present
> >> experiences,
> >> > directed toward their objects, or turn back in a reflective attitude
> to
> >> our
> >> > past experiences and ask for their meaning.*[7]*
> >>  >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In the same spirit as Martin was reflecting on the *relation between*
> >> > realization and instantiation [*play* in Gadamer's language] the
> >> either/or
> >> > language in the above quote [directed toward objects OR turning back]
> >> may
> >> > be interpreted *as*  a reciprocal hermeneutical relation of continuous
> >> > moving back and forth and interpenetrating with more permeable
> >> boundaries
> >> > and more dynamic flow [in other words *fusing* of the horizons of
> >>  present
> >> > experiences and reflective attitude]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As I understand Gadamer, he would suggest Schultz is operating from a
> >> > particular prejudice-structure of  understanding reflective conduct
> >> > [subject-object reflection] whereas Gadamer is pointing to an
> >> alternative
> >> > form of what he terms *effective* reflection.  I acknowledge I may
> have
> >> be
> >> > *mis*-understanding Gadamer, and what I'm suggesting is tentative, but
> >> I am
> >> > hearing a particular type of reflection being articulated as I read
> the
> >> > article.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Larry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Andy, Mike, Martin
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for this lead.  I have been reading Gadamer's response to
> >> Habermas
> >> > > and the interplay between his notion of *traditions* and Habermas
> >> notion
> >> > of
> >> > > *emancipation* within social theory.
> >> > >
> >> > > The two chapter's of Martin's book will help further the
> >> conversations on
> >> > > these themes.
> >> > >
> >> > > Martin, your conversation with David on the interplay of realization
> >> and
> >> > > instantiation and the centrality of the *relation between* these
> >> concepts
> >> > > seems central to this discussion.
> >> > >
> >> > > I also wonder about the interplay between realization and reflection
> >> and
> >> > > Gadamer's notion of multiple TYPES of reflection. Assertive
> >> reflection,
> >> > > thematic reflection, and what Gadamer names as  *effective
> reflection*
> >> > > where one engages with developing the skills to enter and
> participate
> >> > > effectively in playing the games without holding back and *merely*
> >> > playing
> >> > > at playing the game.  Effective playing as having its *own* being
> and
> >> > *we*
> >> > > enter this play and get *taken up* and *carried* along within the
> >> play.
> >> > Not
> >> > > privleging either *subjective* consciousness or *objective*
> >> consciousness
> >> > > but rather privileging the play in which subjectivity and
> objectivity
> >> > have
> >> > > their *ground* [metaphorically]
> >> > >
> >> > > Martin, I'm not sure if this was the direction you were taking
> >> > > theconversation, but it what I interpreted you saying.
> >> > >
> >> > > Larry
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Hi Andy et al -
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Martin's book, the science of qualitative research has a chapter
> that
> >> > >> traces Kant-Husserl-
> >> > >> Schutz - BergerLuckman that we r reading at Lchc. It helped me a
> lot
> >> to
> >> > >> sort out this branch
> >> > >> of thought. It is followed by a chapter that traces Heidegger -
> >> Merleau
> >> > >> Ponty- garfinkle.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I have heard there is an electronic version, but do not know how to
> >> get
> >> > >> it. Working from actual hard copy!
> >> > >> Mike
> >> > >>  On Apr 28, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Babson <ababson@umich.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > He was very influential to Garfinkel, and so from an intellectual
> >> > >> > historical perspective, the development of ethnomethodology,
> >> > >> > conversation analysis and modern sociolinguistics.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On 4/28/12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >> I'd just like to share the attached article, written in 1945 by
> >> > Alfred
> >> > >> >> Schuetz, a refugee from the Frankfurt School living in New York,
> >> like
> >> > >> so
> >> > >> >> many others. In the article he appropriates Wm James, GH Mead
> and
> >> J
> >> > >> >> Dewey, whilst coming from the Pheneomenology of Husserl, to
> adapt
> >> the
> >> > >> >> concepts of Pheneomenology to social theory. It is quite
> >> interesting.
> >> > >> He
> >> > >> >> remains, in my view within the orbit of Phenomenology, but
> readers
> >> > will
> >> > >> >> recognise significant points of agreement with AN Leontyev's
> >> Activity
> >> > >> >> Theory. What he calls "Conduct" comes close to "Activity," and
> he
> >> > >> >> introduces the concept of Action which is certainly the same as
> >> it is
> >> > >> >> for CHAT, and instead of "an activity" (the 3rd level in ANL's
> >> > system)
> >> > >> >> he has "Project." But although this project has the same
> relation
> >> to
> >> > >> >> Action, it is a subjectively derived project posited on the
> world,
> >> > >> >> rather than project discovered in the world, and having a
> >> basically
> >> > >> >> societal origin. This is the point at which I think he confines
> >> > himself
> >> > >> >> to Phenomenology, and fails to reach a real social theory. The
> >> whole
> >> > >> >> business about "multiple realities" which gives the article its
> >> title
> >> > >> is
> >> > >> >> very tedious, but actually is valid in its basics I think.
> >> > >> >> Some of us on this list may appreciate him. He's a recent
> >> discovery
> >> > >> for me.
> >> > >> >> Andy
> >> > >> >> --
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> >> *Andy Blunden*
> >> > >> >> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
> >> > >> >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >> > >> >> Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> > __________________________________________
> >> > >> > _____
> >> > >> > 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
> >> > 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
> 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