Re: [xmca] The Non-modular Mind

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Both/and to every one of your questions, Michael. In principle. However, as
Larry noted characterizing K&M, some people push in one direction, some in
an other (or otherS). From whence the dynamic, non-linear,
characteristics we keep noticing but being unable to give a comprehensive
account of. Irritating as hell, but, i think, its one of those cases where
you can say, non-trivially, "that's life."

mike

PS-- the very terms, iphone and droid invite a meditation on the deep
ideologies they embody, and the futures they imagine.

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:

>
> Some accounts emphasize dynamic emergence and others emphasize how we are
> implicated and constituted [and constrained] by historical traditions.*
>
> I have been thinking about this issue quite a bit lately, based on other
> issues recently on this list concerning the internet and the use of the
> internet vs. books.  I wonder if it works to say that both are part of
> development.  Are both really part of development, thhinking as dynamic
> emergence and thinking as constrained by historical traditions.  This is
> emerging as a major flash point in our society (not for the first time), but
> before dynamic emergence has often been beaten back by historical
> traditions.  I was recently talking to a colleague and she was talking about
> the two "phones" that are moving to dominate our market, the iphone and the
> Droid.  It is representative of the larger issues that I think we face
> either covertly or overtly.  Are we looking to create an open society based
> on lateral interconnectivity or a more closed society with a more
> hierarchical tree structure approach to thinking.  First you have to get rid
> of your baggage about open and closed and the idea that one somehow greater
> semantic worth than the other, because it creates a situation where people
> want to protect their systems as open - and there are plusses and minuses to
> both.  Instead maybe think of it as open information systems that move
> according to a web of trails, that follows free association of ideas, where
> information has no monetary worth but infinite value (for instance did you
> know that Wikipedia does not claim any copyright to their work.  Any person
> can take anything from Wikipedia and use it in any way that they wish - so
> be careful before you accuse a student of plagiarizing - and any time you
> use any google application any information you put up is free use).  By
> closed it sort of means that information is protected, that is has a certain
> sanctity and those who hold it should be considered as holding some type of
> commodity (the idea that there are experts whom we can turn to as the final
> arbiters).  In many ways the two largest players in this are Apple (iphone)
> which looks to create a closed system and Google (Droid) which aggressively
> promotes an open system of information.  Emergence by its nature tends to be
> based on a more open approach to information while constraints a more closed
> approach.
>
> Which was Vygotsky?
>
> Michael
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole
> Sent: Sun 6/6/2010 4:34 PM
> To: Larry Purss
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Non-modular Mind
>
>
>
> I *think* the conversation is contiguous, Larry. Tomorrow it will be at the
> archives and we can double check, or someone who has not posted in it can
> tell us.
>
> Guess I better find the Kirschner and Martin book! I was discussing a
> version of the following issue with a colleague while running errands just
> now:
> *Some accounts emphasize dynamic emergence and others emphasize how we are
> implicated and constituted [and constrained] by historical traditions.*
>
> In our conversation this issue came up in terms of the question of why
> Luria
> was so interested in Freud and the question of the role of cultural
> mediation in cultural-historical and freudian theories. Musing over this
> issue some time ago, I came to the tentative conclusion that for Freud
> culture operates as constraint/inhibition of impulses while in general the
> Russians emphasized the tool-like nature of culture and cultural mediation.
> But I think this one sided interpretation of the Russians in correct, and
> perhaps wrong in the opposite way for Freud-- perhaps you can enlighten me
> on that side.
>
> But for the Russians there are many very clear statements that mediated
> action requires the individual to subordinate themselves to the tool (the
> "freudian" side, *in order* to realize the instrumental potential of
> action.
> There are many expressions of this idea that self control and control of
> the
> environment (including others) are part of a single process. This in turn
> is
> closely linked to their ideas about "will" -- we learn to "control
> ourselves
> from the outside."
>
> Applied to the two emphases in your summary of K&M my current view is that
> the two positions are only emphases, not difference in principle, but two
> sides of the same coin. Withoutout the constraints of tradition (culture as
> the accumulated resources for acting in the world) humans would be
> helpless,
> but such resources, never being entirely adequate or even adequately
> understood, emergence is ineluctable, unless, of course, the social group
> is
> to die out.
>
> I associate these ideas also with Giddens and others who adopt the mantra
> that constrains are both constraining in the usual sense and enabling.
> Nicolas Bernstein, whose focus was on movement, argued strongly for the
> reduction of degrees of freedom as essential to coordinated action.
>
> Thanks for letting me know that the mandelstam translation piece got
> through.
>
> mike
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike
> > One more quick question on using gmail.
> > I'm responding to your email and I don't know if only your last message
> > plus my response is getting sent to CHAT or if all the previous threads
> > starting with David's email 24 hours ago also are trailing behind.  I'm
> > trying to be conscious of  not clogging up the listserve archives with
> > redundant emails.?
> >
> > You asked the question about our response to having read the Mandelshtam
> > post.  My personal reaction was to be fascinated with the
> > narrative structure and imaginative interpretative depth of historical
> > understanding required when "translating".  As I read the article I was
> > reminded of  the power of historical CONTEXT and Martin's reminder that
> > every time we encounter a text something NEW EMERGES.  The translation,
> from
> > a hermeneutical framework,  was adding layers of CONTEXT [especially
> > historical traditions] to the reflective process of translation.
> > Translation is more than a process of "uncovering" or "discovery".  It is
> > also a collaboration between the text [and its historical context], the
> > translator [and his/her historical context], and the reader [and the
> > reader's historical context].
> > Reading the article I was immersed in the emergence of a deeper
> > appreciation of how we are  historically implicated.  It was a wonderful
> > piece of writing.
> >
> > That leads to the question of how profoundly we are CONSTITUTED by
> > TRADITIONS [as discussed in hermeneutical accounts].  Kirschner's and
> Jack
> > Martin's edited volume point out this is one of the major debates in
> > sociocultural theory. Some accounts emphasize dynamic emergence and
> others
> > emphasize how we are implicated and constituted [and constrained] by
> > historical traditions.  In their introduction to their book [excerpted at
> > google books] they point out the various sociocultural accounts take
> > different positions on this emergence/tradition conversation.
> > How I view this tension makes a difference in how I position my self in
> > school settings.  I personally take the view that the more I can reflect
> on
> > how determined and constituted I am by traditions, the more I can take a
> > perspective on these real constraints and in the process of becoming more
> > reflective I actually become more agentive in my capacity to be somewhat
> > more self-determined and free to imagine alternative futures.  It is this
> > developing capacity to be reflective on how we are constituted within
> > sociocultural traditions that creates an opening to be other than I am
> > now.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:34 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Combining Mead and Vygotsky makes a lot of sense, Larry. See the Edwards
> >> article in Cambridge Companion to LSV. (I have got the Reddy and Stern
> >> books
> >> now-- I would love to see a discussion of the very opening of Stern and
> of
> >> course we all are interested in the early infancy/sociality issue). I
> also
> >> REALLY would like to see a discussion of the Zinchenko article on Word
> and
> >> Meaning in the Companion. Lots of key issues raised there.
> >>
> >> David-- I wanted to call *Cultural Psychology*, "culture in mind" but
> >> Brad's book came out about two months before CP went to press and the
> >> marketer at Harvard called me on the phone and told me, on the spot, to
> >> come
> >> up with a new title. So I took an old title with a question mark at the
> >> end,
> >> put a period in its place, and the rest is the rest. I have not really
> >> interacted with him around the substance of his ideas.
> >>
> >> I do not think I have gotten a copy of the Kirschner and Martin edited
> >> volume, Larry. But maybe I have and it is on the periously high stack of
> >> must reads. My problem is that i feel a strong compulsion to re-re-read
> >> ch6
> >> of T&S right now and contibute to Andy's electronic symposium project.
> And
> >> I
> >> spent last evening with Zinchenko, thinking (actually, truth be old,
> Zinky
> >> had to share time with Moll Flanders -- now there is an interesting
> >> couple!).
> >>
> >> Did anyone get that article about translating Mandelshtam? I thought it
> >> worth discussion but maybe that because I have spent so much time with
> >> Fernando Rey struggling to find a way to navigate
> Russian-Spanish-English
> >> quotations in a way that did not bog the reader down in all the
> >> complexities, which would detract attention from the point he is trying
> to
> >> make. Still, Mandelshtam is a major inspiration for LSV and Zinchenko,
> and
> >> the multi-lingual travails of translation.
> >>
> >> mike
> >> PS-- I will add the Zinchenko article to the list of "to scans" although
> >> the
> >> entire Companion turned out to have several interesting articles in it.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Andy
> >> > Your little shift with the term "My only objection" is what I've
> learned
> >> > ......
> >> >
> >> > is actually the core issue of evaluating the "common good" or "common
> >> > dread"
> >> > of this powerful tool.
> >> >
> >> > I also struggle between the power of the internet as a forum of
> EMERGING
> >> > DYNAMIC IMAGINARIES  [emerging traditions]  that challenge any
> >> > presuppositions I have [what I at the moment take to be "normal"] and
> >> the
> >> > power of a book to consolidate and anchor these emerging ideas.  My
> >> hunch
> >> > is
> >> > that the emerging "tradition" of CONSTITUTIVE sociocultural psychology
> >> is
> >> > partially emerging as a developmental consequence of the internet
> [which
> >> I
> >> > believe has the power to radically change our notions of "education"
> and
> >> > "psychology" and also has the power to develop new psychological
> >> accounts
> >> > and new KINDS OF PERSONS]
> >> >
> >> > Michael mentioned he is trying to get a PDF of the Sluencko and Hengl
> >> > article from the "handbook of  Sociocultural Psychology"
> >> > In the spirit in which that book was written, I want to recommend a
> new
> >> > book
> >> > which I believe will draw us away from the internet to consolidate
> these
> >> > emerging ideas. The book "The Sociocultural Turn in Psychology" by
> >> SUZANNE
> >> > KIRSCHNER and JACK MARTIN" seems to bring together in one volume most
> of
> >> > the
> >> > various theories in the new CONSTITUTIVE sociocultural psychology.
> >> > If you go to goggle books and read the EXCERPT of the book published
> on
> >> > line
> >> > it gives an excellent summary of the last two decades of work in this
> >> > tradition.
> >> > The book suggests their are 4 theoretical accounts that are
> >> interconnecting
> >> > in this developing tradition.
> >> >
> >> > 1]  Discursive and social constructionism
> >> > 2]  Hermeneutic realism
> >> > 3]  Dialogical
> >> > 4] neo-Vygotskian CHAT
> >> >
> >> > Its interesting that they discussed social relational psychoanalysis
> as
> >> a
> >> > tradition within this tradition but left it out of this book because
> >> this
> >> > account is being developed outside of university settings.
> >> >
> >> > Michael Cole has a chapter in this book as a representative of the 4th
> >> > tradition.
> >> >
> >> > A brief comment on JACK MARTIN, one of the editors of this volume.  He
> >> has
> >> > recently co-published an article with Alex Gillespie and both these
> >> authors
> >> > are ELABORATING a NEO-MEADIAN account of development that I personally
> >> > believe is a coherent account of how "agency" and "self" emerge
> through
> >> > levels of social participation {MEAD'S SOCIAL ACTS}.  I have not seen
> >> > Mead's
> >> > CONSTITUTIVE SOCIAL RELATIONAL account of development throughout the
> >> > lifespan [as articulated by Jack Martin and Alex Gillespie} discussed
> on
> >> > CHAT. Having their chapter in this book will bring this particular
> >> > developmental account into wider discussion within the developmental
> >> > community. It is written withiin a historiogenetic as well as
> >> ontogenetic
> >> > account.
> >> >
> >> > The book that Jack Martin and Suzanne Kirschner have written seems to
> >> have
> >> > promise to make more coherent the various themes and threads that are
> >> > currently developing a taprestry called "constitutive sociocultural
> >> > psychology"
> >> >
> >> > I'm curious how others view these competing notions of development and
> >> what
> >> > are common themes and where they need further analysis. I was excited
> to
> >> > learn about this book as I see the many ideas that often keep me up
> >> nights,
> >> > collected in one anthology.
> >> >
> >> > Have any of you already got a copy of the book?
> >> > Both the authors have previously been the president of the "Theory and
> >> > Philosophy" section of the APA so have the recognition of their peers.
> >> >
> >> > I'm hoping to track down this book and try to remember how to read for
> >> > hours
> >> > at a time or is my mind now an "internet mind?"
> >> > As a personal evaluation, this format leads be to books such as Jack
> >> > Martin's which I would be ignorant of without this tool.
> >> >
> >> > Larry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Enjoyed the "Google is rotting your brain" article. There is no
> doubt
> >> > that
> >> > > I suffer from this syndrome. The only way I can get through a decent
> >> book
> >> > > nowadays is by taking myself right away from the screen. And I then
> >> miss
> >> > it.
> >> > > My only objection would be that if it weren't for everything that
> I've
> >> > > learnt via the internet (like with xmca) then I wouldn't be able to,
> >> or
> >> > even
> >> > > want to, read these good books in any case.
> >> > >
> >> > > Andy
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > mike cole wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I heard the book written about below discussed on NPR earlier this
> >> week,
> >> > >> and
> >> > >> your note induced me to dig out and send along. Seems relevant to
> >> your
> >> > >> comments.
> >> > >> mike
> >> > >>
> >> > >> http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/05/09/the_shallows
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >  _______________________________________________
> >> > > 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