Gregg:

We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us -- John Culkin (1967)

This famous dictum is frequently, incorrectly, attributed to Marshall  
McLuhan.  Instead, it comes from an essay by Culkin (then a Jesuit at  
Fordham) titled "A Schoolman's Guide to McLuhan," published in  
Saturday Review and meant to introduce Marshall to a wider audience.   
Culkin had succeeded in bringing McLuhan to Fordham for a the 1967-68  
year as the Albert Schweitzer Professor -- from which many important  
developments ensued.

When you go to my Center's website, this dictum is superimposed on a  
Yin/Yang symbol -- after which you're well on your way to visit Alice  
in Wonderland . . . <g>

We call ourselves "technological contructivists" to deliberately  
contrast what we are doing from "technological determinists" -- which  
is the most common slander against McLuhan today.  And, yes, there's a  
whole lot going on there.

If it's okay with you, I'd like to hold-off on a full-blown discussion  
of McLuhan until you return but, as a teaser, the primary topic is  
understanding how "forms" develop (or what Joe might call "social  
geometry") and what *effects* they have on society and persons --  
which is the mission of my Center.

Yes, I'd like to make as many distinctions as needed here -- so, by  
all means, let's discuss that along with the rest.  But I suspect  
that, overall, the various "stances" being taken are by people who 1)  
haven't really thought things through and 2) are playing the typical  
game of trying to be "different" from everyone else (who are actually  
just saying the same thing).

Btw, I don't see any of this as "vacuous" in the sense that they are  
products of the environments in which people live and, therefore,  
shape them to come-up with these ideas.  Since there is no "universal"  
environment, people will promote different ideas at different times.   
For me, the question is which of these ideas is likely to be important  
in the *new* environment in which we already live (while most of what  
people talk about is already obsolete) . . . !!

Mark

Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark,
>
>   Let me first say that Joe is indeed a fascinating fellow.
>
>   Since you brought up constructivism, I would be interested to hear  
> your description of technological constructivism, given that is how  
> the approach at the Center for Digital Life is framed.
>
>   Also, do you differentiate constructivism from constructionism?  
> (In my world, the former is more Piaget/Michael Mahoney, whereas the  
> latter is more on social justification systems defining our  
> reality—I can’t really send links on my iPad, but I appreciate that  
> you do). And do you differentiate strong and weak versions? Do you  
> see them all as vacuous or just the strong versions? Is  
> technological constructivism a completely different ball of wax?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 8, 2018, at 5:54 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Joe:
>>
>> Yes, I couldn't help myself.  I went looking for your CV . . . <g>
>>
>> And I found this (among many other interesting things) --
>>
>> 'In his critique of Donald Black's work and the "pure sociology"  
>> framework, Douglas Marshall (2008) raises issues that are primarily  
>> philosophical in nature and hence not amenable to scientific  
>> investigation. Paradigmatic preferences have long been debated and,  
>> in many instances, resolved among sociological practitioners  
>> accordingly: they largely ignore each other (if possible), pursue  
>> different lines of inquiry, and communicate mainly with others who  
>> share their assumptions. Marshall has opted for a different path.  
>> Rather than ignore the pure sociology paradigm, his comments are  
>> aimed at trying
>> to discredit the perspective altogether. In a discipline that  
>> endorses an unbridled degree of intellectual pluralism (Michalski  
>> 2005a; Turner 2006a), one might imagine that the pursuit of the  
>> pure sociology program would be a source of inspiration or at least  
>> reassurance. For Marshall (2008), however, pure sociology poses  
>> real "dangers" by ignor ing what he believes to be the key  
>> explanatory features of social life: "the psychological  properties  
>> of . . . persons"' [The Social Life of Pure Sociology, first  
>> paragraph, 2008]
>>
>> If "sociology" is the study of *society*, then it makes sense that  
>> this is not the same as "psychology" (for the reasons you detail.)   
>> But, as you know, that would imply that, in some sense, "social  
>> life" *constructs* the individual -- not the other way around.  No  
>> wonder that causes major heartburn in some quarters . . . !!
>>
>> "Social Constructivism" -- which I would characterize as the mental  
>> disorder based on imagining the world to be whatever you'd like it  
>> to be (as-if life was a bed-time story) -- has been rampant in the  
>> social sciences at least since the 1980s (if not longer).  It is  
>> bankrupt and has already shot-itself-in-the-head (and, yes, its  
>> causes still need to be understood) . . . !!
>>
>> Most people point to Peter Berger's 1967 "Social Construction of  
>> Reality" and Leo Marx's 1994 "Does Technology Drive History?" as  
>> among the basic texts for this approach.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Social-2DConstruction-2DReality-2DSociology-2DKnowledge_dp_0385058985&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=6Gv2LRtSMHOVw94cly2s7JDPqTdbH57NCus1GIXeJUo&e=
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Technology-2DHistory-2DDilemma-2DTechnological-2DDeterminism_dp_0262691671&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=2hZne6Bd8olBnDqzWxruEHXrxUPP7qfiRgPx_WjA-_8&e=
>>
>> My best guess is that all this is a product of the "politicization"  
>> of the social sciences starting in earnest in the 1960s.   
>> Sociologists were often in the front of that parade.  C. Wright  
>> Mills got a lot of air-time, as he turned Max Weber into a study of  
>> "power elites" (by-passing Pareto), as later continued in spades by  
>> Michael Mann at UCLA in his 4-volume "Sources of Social Power"  
>> (which, btw, I find useful). Yes, for these guys, this is all about  
>> "power"(or the lack of it, in their cases.)
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Sources-2DSocial-2DPower-2DHistory-2DBeginning_dp_1107635977&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=FfTjDsxLXsKxJKNmcE6pnQnvL4SYFaJNEva3jTIRvFc&e=
>>
>> Today, if you're not a "social constructivist," then you are not  
>> "politically correct" (as you know very well).  "Identity politics"  
>> (i.e. today's version of the "left") depends on it.  Academia has  
>> largely been rendered irrelevant by it.  Otherwise intelligent  
>> people have been turned into blathering idiots by it.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Social-5Fconstructivism&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=WJT60Hb64Q6vWMGhX1RDcPHo-dyM_6HcapGErPNFKa8&e=
>>
>> John's work is all about how "conscious" cellular-life is  
>> *constructed* by its environment.  However, the cellular  
>> environment (or ecology) is only a part of a nested series of  
>> environments (no, not a "network"), ultimately rising to the level  
>> of culture and civilization for humans (alone among all the  
>> species).  And, no, it's not "turtles all the way down" . . . <g>
>>
>> And Gregg's work is about repairing the "dis-joints" between Matter  
>> (i.e. conventional "complexity science"), Life (i.e. what John  
>> studies), Mind (i.e. Psychology) and Culture (i.e. Sociology) with  
>> a Tree of Knowledge that attempts to "unify" all this via a stack  
>> of "dimensions of behavioral complexity" (once again, reminding us  
>> of the work of Georg Cantor on Transfinites in the 19th century).
>>
>> With Sociology at the "top" of that stack (or is it?), I'll be  
>> really interested to see how all this sorts out in this group.  My  
>> guess is that you will as well.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. Gregg's TOK (not to be confused with his ToK) is related to  
>> "Big History," which is an educational program started by  
>> astro-physicists (and funded by Bill Gates).  From what I can tell,  
>> this approach -- along with "complexity science" as expressed at  
>> Santa Fe Institute &c -- has failed to actually "explain" anything  
>> beyond how Matter "behaves" in a nuclear furnace (i.e. stars and  
>> nuclear bombs).  All this appears to be based on the false-notion  
>> that whatever the "building-blocks" do can then be extrapolated to  
>> the final "construction," as-if sub-atomic particles can tell us  
>> what we are going to eat for breakfast.  Wouldn't it be nice if the  
>> world was so simple (or maybe not) . . . <g>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1