These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)



Huw:

Thank you for the dialogue.  I am having a difficult time understanding 
what you mean by a "system of action".  It is not a part of CHAT and 
doesn't fit into what LSV was describing in T& S when he discusses the 
development of concepts.  Perhaps if you gave me a background of how you 
use this in your daily practice I could understand.  For me I utilize 
LSV's writing in my work with adolescents with sever mental health issues.

eric



From:   Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date:   04/21/2011 06:57 PM
Subject:        Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu



> On 21 April 2011 18:18, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Huw:
>>>
>>>
> Hi, Eric.  I'm a bit fresher now, so I thought I'd give this a go.
>
>
>>  I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words.  I can 
appreciate
>>> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
>>> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
>>> reality.  6" of snow in april is what it is, right?  So, if one were 
to
>>> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera 
and
>>> media time is that a tool or a concept?  Methinks a concept is neutral
>>> and
>>> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april.  Thanks to Martin I 
have
>>> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
>>> discussing the merger of thinking and speech;  being that word meaning
>>> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
>>> speaking the word.  However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
>>> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept: 
Snow
>>> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts 
but
>>> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.
>>>
>>
> If you're using quality as mentioned in your more recent post, then I'm 
in
> agreement here that it is the concept (or seed of the concept to be
> subjectively discovered).
>
>
>>   Tool use is an
>>> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea 
onto
>>> another but it is merely a quantity.  No?
>>>
>>
> No.  A scientific concept is a system of relations, as is a quality.
>
> Regarding use, my employment of a hammer is a system.  As is my 
employment
> of a concept.  We could talk about a quantitative change to this system 
of
> action, increasing the mass of the hammer for instance, but the action
> itself comprises a system.
>
> The concept of mass refers to a system of relations.  The measurement of
> mass comprises a quantity.
>
>
Measurement as in the product of measuring.  Measuring is a system of
action.


> There is a nice bit in Bateson's "Mind and Nature" when he talks about 
the
> interaction between Form and Process that he stumbled across whilst out
> doing field work of Iatmul culture (page 210 in my copy) where he 
describes
> the interaction of systems of process (action) and systems of type
> (qualities, concepts).  This might help you to get your head around the
> system of action and the system of a concept.
>
>
>>   Going back to the example of
>>> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it 
that
>>> qualifies poverty?
>>>
>>
> If there is an agreed concept of poverty  then it will be based on an
> implied set of relations, this is the agreed qualification (e.g. income 
less
> than the cost of rent + food for a given area).
>
>
>>   I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
>>> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is
>>> not
>>> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>>
> Still fuzzy on your meaning for this bit.  The word does not _need_ to
> denote a systemic concept in this sense.  Typically, noun phrases are 
used
> for this purpose, though someone can say a word without thinking its
> meaning, or think up their own meaning, if that's your point?
>
> I hope this helps for you,  Eric.
>
> Of course concept formations are only going to come about through
> particular kinds of social interaction.  So if this is all seems really
> crazy, I'd wait till your fresh and then hang on with some 
determination.
>
> Huw
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
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