These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Hmmmmm, like the French revolution or world war I for example? :-) mike On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > Both Arne's and mine are listed on > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html and both are in that directory. > I too would be interested in seeing some other versions. Something might > emerge out of the crowd. > > It is interesting isn't that it is a quite small number of ... what do you > say? ... millieux? events? movements? which produced the main ideas, via a > whole mass of individual writers. > > Andy > > mike cole wrote: > >> I think your pictured genealogy is interesting, Andy. I thought Arne's was >> too, and I a sure others can make interesting modifications. If anyone could >> do this in three D it could get really fascinating. >> >> Part of what makes for the partiality of any such attempt is the position >> of the creator. Arne was a radical cultural historical cognitive scientist >> of the >> 70's-90's (roughly), an importatant odd hybrid and unusually nice guy. >> Maturana, who is on his list, with Varela, were central figures on >> bringing >> dynamic systems into the discussion but you do not know about him just >> as many of us do not know some of the figures you name, and the >> connections such as Dilthey-Wundt or Mead-Dilthey-American pragmatism are >> poorly known altogether, but fascinating (to me!) in their implications. >> >> And, of course, the historical events that various of us might highlight >> as >> most relevant are going to vary as well. >> >> Thanks for the new tool to think with. I'll try to get Arne's genealogy >> put >> up where yours is and perhaps others will contribute from their >> perspectives. >> mike >> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto: >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> Well, here's my shot at it: >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Genealogy-CHAT.pdf >> I have tried to deal with your very valid point, Martin, that it is >> more the milieux than individuals, but I have also just omitted a >> billion possible arrows so it is readable. It needs more than one >> person to do this. >> >> Andy >> Martin Packer wrote: >> >> My question about the map is what the links represent. After >> all, one scientist or philosopher may accept the ideas or >> another, or react against them, or modify them, or misunderstand >> them. Seems to me each of these is a different link. Also, a >> family tree indicates two parents for every progeny, where >> Arne's genealogy seemingly shows spontaneous generation - one >> figure alone can produce another. And wouldn't we want to have a >> way to map the milieus within which people were working? Perhaps >> something along the lines of the social fields that Bourdieu was >> fond of sketching, but with an added historical dimension. >> >> Martin >> >> On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> To tell the truth Louise, there are a couple of names I >> don't know and half a dozen I know so little about I don't >> know why they're included ... or not. Two of the three >> "outcomes" are people who think humans are a type of >> computer, so I am not surpised that this genealogy is odd to >> me. But there is sooooo much out there. So much to read. :( >> >> Up till a few weeks ago I thought that starting with >> Descartes was not justified, but I take that back now. But >> somehow, Rene's nemesis, Aristotle, needs to be included as >> well. >> >> I don't know anything about Vico, but I find Locke, Berkeley >> and Leibniz to be rather peripheral to *our* story. >> >> Kant certainly deserves an important place, but I think his >> nemesis, Goethe, may be more important for us. >> >> Fichte is actually the inventor of Activity as a >> philosophical concept (I just learnt that Hegel asked to be >> buried next to Fichte; like Goethe, very under recognized in >> the Anglophone world). >> >> Hegel is the inventor of Cultural Psychology, so agreed there. >> >> I think Stirner and Mach are total diversions from our >> tradition. But maybe someone can explain to me their role. >> >> Wundt and Dilthey are important, though I don't know them well. >> >> Feuerbach is a bit of a footnote, but if you're going to >> have Feuerbach, you've gotta have Moses Hess, author of >> "Philosophy of the Deed", and inspiration for "Theses on >> Feuerbach". Of course if you think Frege, Russell and Turing >> are important to the genealogy of CHAT, then you wouldn't >> want Hess. >> >> MARX, obviously, in CAPS. >> >> And I would have lines from a whole bunch of people going to >> Dewey, as well as Peirce and Mead, but even though Peirce >> was the elder, I don't think you can give him such priority. >> Dewey surely was the leader. Arguable. >> >> And where are the Gestaltists? Again, not for computer >> cognition, but there needs to be lines between Goethe and >> Kant and then to von Ehrenfels, and on to Koehler and Co. >> >> Russian linguists like Potebnya, but I don't know where they >> came from. >> >> And these threads are all tied together with LS Vygotsky, yes? >> >> Freud has to be mentioned (I forget his sources), with >> arrows to Luria. And after Vygotsky and Luria you have ANL >> and thus to present day people, >> >> I guess, you can't leave out Piaget, and I don't know >> Piaget's sources. >> >> I know some people rate Merleau-Ponty, but if you're going >> to give Merleau-Pony a seat, you have to put in Lukacs and >> Horkheimer. I guess Habermas for discourse ethics, etc. >> >> I have no idea why Husserl and Heidegger get a mention. I my >> humble opinion, as clever as they might be, their impact on >> Activity Theory has only been negative. >> >> I have no idea why Bergson is mentioned: was he a source for >> Piaget? Don't know why Nietzsche is there. Interesting guy, >> but so are many others. Why von Uexhill? >> >> I agree that Wittgenstein rates a mention, though I don't >> know how much of a source he has been for us. He is some >> kind of version of Activity Theory. >> >> Frege, Russell and Turing are nothing to do with CHAT. What >> about anthropologists?? >> >> Never heard of Maturana. >> >> That's my reaction, >> >> Andy >> >> Louise Hawkins wrote: >> >> Andy, >> I remember seeing this diagram a number of years ago, >> and I found it useful as a big picture diagram to get my >> head around the significant theorist. >> Regards >> Louise Hawkins >> Lecturer - School of Management & Information Systems >> Faculty Business & Informatics >> Building 19/Room 3.38 >> Rockhampton Campus >> CQUniversity >> Ph: +617 4923 2768 >> Fax: +617 4930 9729 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>] Sent: Wednesday, 4 November >> 2009 01:05 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" >> >> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Theoretical%20connections.jpg >> I never found this map very useful to be honest. >> Andy >> mike cole wrote: >> >> Have you found Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" of >> cultural-historical, activity theory thinkers from >> several years back. I am sure it is somewhere at >> lchc.ucsd.edu <http://lchc.ucsd.edu> >> <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>. Perhaps you (and Andy, >> and.....) could update it with >> more detail. Hegel generated so much that has been >> "laundered" by subsequent "original" thinkers its >> totally amazing, and ditto Mead (whose writings i >> know far better, although very inadequately). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/ >> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, >> Ilyenkov $20 ea >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/ >> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, >> Ilyenkov $20 ea >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> >> >> > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/ > Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 > ea > > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca