These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Ivan, Phillip, et al., Perhaps helpful? Martin
Attachment:
Bird‐David 1999 “Animism” Revisited Personhood, E.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Ivan Rosero wrote: > Seems the other thread arrived here, and now needs its own heading. This > is especially directed to any among you who find it difficult-to-impossible > to articulate what the "science" of CHAT might be absent specific > questions, intentions, and projects. I know we've got our "Romantic > Science", but that's a luxury of the inner speech of this community. > Outside the fuzzy embrace of our shared discourse --like, e.g., in > applying for grants and begging for jobs-- we're asked to "design", > "implement", "deliver", "measure", "account", and "asses". I share Andy's > distaste for critiques of current Vygotsky-inspired research that rely on > totalizations that few of us, if any, make. Instead, as the other post > helps us to understand, we're riddled with misgivings about the value(s) of > our research, rather than comfortably confident in the "results" we arrive > at. At least this is true for me (apologies if I've offended anyone so > far). > > Our starting point is socially formed, culturally-constituted, > multi-historically dependent consciousness. To me, there is no "prying" > this open (that's scientistic talk). Many of our forefathers (or perhaps > this is just an effect of translation into English) unfortunately speak of > "penetrating" this amalgam (where one might stand to carry out this > tactical maneuver eludes me). I think we have no choice but to "enter and > dwell" into this view of human consciousness, slowly and with an animist > spirit, but not from outside --rather moving from one inside to another > inside in the very same process of working/walking with others. To do > what? To create the value(s) of research --because these don't exist > beforehand (that's a luxury of established scientism). > > So I'll end with a worry I've had for a while. Along with romantic > science, I think many of us harbor a, perhaps implicit, notion of "romantic > research". Is the latter really viable in the bean-counting milieu of what > dominant academia understands as "scientific" research? > > Ivan > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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