Yes, tracing where an idea has come from and the transformations it has
undergone along the way is one of my preoccupations. It always tells me
something important when I find out where an idea has come from (whilst
avoiding the genetic fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy).
So yes, Hegel did not absolutely originate this idea. But he certainly
did give the concept of abstract-and-concrete a huge development, and
his work marks a qualitative break in the evolution of this semantic
relation. That's the thing: concepts and words evolve, and can be
traced back to times before words were written down, but that does not
deny the fact that there are evolutionary "leaps", just as in
puncutated evolution. Hegel himself for example included the idea of
what we call :puntuated evolution in his idea of abstract and concrete,
but did not accept the idea of evolution of species, far less puntuated
evolution.
Andy
Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
Thanks Andy, I really am not a philosopher so it's always interesting to learn of the chain of influence.
What I'm wondering is, given the notion of intertextuality and likelihood that each of us builds on the shoulders of giants so to speak, whether an idea really originates in any individual? That would defy everything I understand about how people think.
Peter Smagorinsky
Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
Department of Language and Literacy Education
The University of Georgia
309 Aderhold Hall
Athens, GA 30602
Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:06 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] "Rising to the concrete"
Peter, this conception of 'concrete' originates from Hegel, and was further developed by Marx, embraced by Vygotsky and has ever since had its place in the CHAT tradition. Evald Ilyenkov wrote an entire book on
it: http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/
Andy
Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
I've also found something similar in Scribner:
The novice enters the workplace with a stock of knowledge, some
school-based and some experience-based, and with certain general
problem-solving skills (e.g., mental rehearsal, means-end analysis).
An important aspect of learning at work involves adapting this prior
knowledge and these general skills to the accomplishment of the task
at hand. Such adaptation proceeds by the individual's assimilation of
specific knowledge about the objects and symbols the setting affords,
and the actions (including cognitive actions) that work tasks require.
Domain-specific knowledge reveals relationships that can be used to
shortcut those stipulated in all-purpose algorithms; with
domain-specific knowledge workers have greater opportunity to free
themselves from algorithms and to invent flexible solution procedures.
What emerges through this process is a qualitatively different
organization of problem-solving procedures from that initially brought
to the job. Problem-solving skill in this model implies not only
knowledge and know-how but creativity-an attribute of the work group
as a social entity if not of each individual within it. . . . Without
minimizing the abstract processes involved, it seems appropriate to
describe the primary course of attainment of problem-solving skills at
work as a process of "concretization." Because of the relative neglect
of this process in theory and research, and its educational
implications, it warrants emphasis here. (p. 381)
The p# refers to the version of this paper in the Selected Writings of SS volume.
Peter Smagorinsky
Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department of
Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia
309 Aderhold Hall
Athens, GA 30602
Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Greg Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:23 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] "Rising to the concrete"
Still in between boxes but came across this quote from Lenin today:
'In order to understand it is necessary empirically to begin
understanding, study, to rise, from empiricism to the universal. In
order to learn to swim it is necessary to get into the
water<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03
.htm#LCW38_205>
'.
(found at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling3.htm)
and it reminded me of one of mike's favorite statements "rising to the concrete." Yet Mike's phrase appears quite different. So Mike, if you're out there, does your "rising to the concrete" bear any significant relation to Lenin's rising to the universal? They seem like very different concepts, no?
-greg
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar Laboratory of Comparative
Human Cognition Department of Communication University of California,
San Diego http://ucsd.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
__________________________________________
_____
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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
|