Dear Domenico,

As per my understanding, perception and cognition are action at the covert level. For example, I am now thinking of your question, and this my thinking is a covert or mental action. however, generally, when we speak of action we are thinking of action as an overt behavior.

As for your question -- What teachers should do: teach knowledge or develop action? -- I do not see it as an either/or qustion. First, to teach knowledge to students is to entitle them with a certain way of behaving, Second, teachers may also develop action, this being mainly true in professional teaching. Note, however, that to teach to develop action implies a conceptualized, not, say, a blind action. These two points show that that when teachers knowledge they are teaching, say, covert action, When the develop action they are teaching overt conceptualized behavior, not blind overt behavior.

I hope I has got your question, and that this helps,

Best wishes,

Orlando

Dear Domenico Masciotra

" cognition ...without action" is possible, but a developing organism would have had some similar cognition with action FIRST (before some related representation becomes covert), sometime in ontogeny -- this is a necessary assumption of an empiricist, and is most likely (biologically). (Also, though, do not discount the possibilities that come with our Memories -- all development is in the context of that as well as in the context of environmental factors.)

But, I must note: much of this ontogeny (stage/level shifts in cognition during child development) occurs by the action of the organism itself; most teaching should be active (indeed), but start with where the Subject IS and do not try to advance major stages/levels of thinking (trying such stage-advancement teaching is inefficient and often facile, plus there is plenty else to do). This is the prevalent view among neo-Piagetians.

Thanks for your answer Orlando,

There are many ways of understanding a question, and that's great for exchanging.

Would agree that any action may have a covert and overt aspects?

Orlando, see my comments to Brad Jesness.

Thanks for your answer Brad,

If I understand your point, the evolution goes from action to representation. If you referring to Piaget's theory, there is an interesting interpretation of the notion of representation: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1968-08385-001

here is the summary of the article: (Orlando, this might interests you).

Presents a short historical survey of the notion of representation in philosophical theories of knowledge. It is pointed out that the manner in which contemporary scientific theorizing typically uses the concept of mediating representation has deep and often unanalyzed philosophical roots. For Piaget the operative process by which we construct reality-as-known and the symbolic process by which we re-present known reality are functionally different and possess a different reality status. A corresponding distinction is proposed for Piaget's term "interioriser": while symbols derive from a real internalization of accommodated external actions, the functional interiorization of operations refers to the increasing dissociation between general form and particular content, not to something that was 1st overt and then becomes covert. In contrast to current representational theories of knowledge, Piaget's model is unique in incorporating the 3 competing and often confused meanings attached to the word representation. (psycinfo database record (c) 2017 apa, all rights reserved)

The first part of your question is a fantastic bar conversation topic! Like you say, it is subject to interpretation and so you can quickly get lost in semantics. Personally, I don't subscribe to the conventional perceptual process, but I also don't feel comfortable with the argument that all cognition is action.

For instance, I don't know how abstract concepts like justice can entirely be construed in action terms. Perhaps, if you consider speaking and writing (or communicating more broadly) as the covert action being performed when justice is cognized.

On teaching how to do vs. what to know...it's almost always more effective to teach actionable skills. Even if those skills are just talking about the subject matter.

Cheers,

Brandon

Dear Brandon,

I agree with you that it might be seen a fantastic bar conversation topic. All action is not cognition, at least sometimes it is poorly cognitive, as reflexes. But Merleau-Ponty would see some cognition also in reflexes.

I don't have a fix answer or even opinion to my question, otherwise I would not have asked it. So I will just react as in a conversation on the spot.

Isn't justice a result of some active experience? Can we experience anything (fairness, unfairness, and the like) without doing something? Thinking about justice, isn't that already doing something. Let's say I have the concept of justice. Then how do I show that I have this concept? Maybe by writing something like you did or talking about it, reflecting, reasoning, explaining, exchanging, etc. Isn't that acting. What would be "Justice" by itself? Would it be like the balls of the juggler when he is not juggling. My point is: justice has to be enacted to be a concept alive and I don't know what is the concept of justice when stored in memory. I believe in living, active, embodied, and situated cognition (or action). That's why it is so difficult for me to separate action and cognition.

Thanks for helping me reflecting on this topic, Brandon

Dominico,

I have a question about ENACTION.

Eastern gurus seem to cleave to the concept that the more you "do" the less you really "know." That knowing is internal and subjective while doing is but an external distraction. They preach that through meditation we can shut out the external and focus on what really matters, the internal.

The lyrics to a famous song describes this:

Without going out of my door I can know all things of earth Without looking out of my window I could know the ways of heaven The farther one travels The less one knows The less one really knows

Arrive without traveling See all without looking Do all without doing

How does this eastern idea fit into the concept of ENACTION?

Is there a "mystical" element in Enaction or is Enaction antithetical to all mysticism?