These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Dear Larry, I was interested in the chapter you downloaded on values. Do you perhaps have a link or a pdf somewhere. Regards. Jaki On 12 July 2010 07:40, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin and Mike > > I'm away from the internet on the "gulf Islands" off of Vancouver. I have > to go to the library in the village to get on the web. > However, yesterday I downloaded the chapter on human sciences and learning > and I want to say how powerfully the article speaks to me. > > It puts at the forefront the fundamental need to explicitly discuss values > and explaining how we ought to proceed. It then speaks to agency but more > explicitly MORAL agency and says it is a very slippery concept. I agree it > is slippery but also fundamental to notions of learning. Learning in > schools > is about developing moral agency and I welcome the explicit call to examine > various accounts of moral agency. The 3rd framework asking us to > be explicit about our teleological assumptions is also a fundamental point > of discussion when we explore where we believe we are headed in the future. > Finally, the question, Who gets to decide? is of central importance to > notions of mutuality in learning. > It is my hope that others on CHAT see these as central questions to > explore. Kevin, you mentioned human sciences embrace the "interpretive > turn" and there is also discussions of the "relational turn" and the > "sociocultural turn" which I see as challenging "the linquistic turn" and > "postmodernism" and returning the focus to values and "traditions" and > "forms of life". Activity and mediation are central concepts in the human > sciences as you outlined but it is moral activity and questioning how we > ought to proceed that is central to activity. > > Kevin, you mention that history as a discipline is a core area of inquiry > in the human sciences and learning. From this perspective "thinking" [how > we conceptualize the processes of conceptualizing] is a historical process. > >From this perspective the history of philosophy is the history of > thinking. > Thinking develops historically as documented in the history of philosophy. > Therefore thinking as a human science can gain insights by exploring how we > have historically conceptualized conceptualizing. > For example is the metaphor of thinking "as reading text" the dominant > metaphor or is the metaphor of speech "as dialogue" a better metaphor of > thinking or the more recent metaphor of thinking as "information > processing" > the dominant metaphor? By historical inquiry into the history of > philosophy > learning as a human science can be enriched and our horizons of > understanding expanded. > > Larry > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > -- Patrick Jaki Forced Migration Studies Programme University of The Witwatersrand. Work: 27 11 717 3166 P. O Box 505 Wits 2050 Johannesburg _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca