[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion

[Martin John Packer]

Did Dmitry simply not recognize the dualism in the theory he was presenting, Andy?

Martin

On Oct 10, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> You are quite right Martin, that it was my report of Dmitry's speech that was being referred to and also correct to chide me for irony. Irony is really out of place in discussing such complex questions. However,  Dmitry was not criticising his grandfather's theory; he was continuing it. When I said that I didn't think that such a stark dualism was a fruitful place from which to begin a discussion of meaning, he didn't really see the point of my remark, simply agreeing that there could be local or regional meanings which departed from the norm. So the irony, I admit, was all mine, and I apologise for inappropriate use of irony in this instance.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> 
> 
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>> Just to reduce confusion, I want to point out that it was Andy who provided this account of  Dmitry Leontiev's presentation at ISCAR, not me.  And I think Andy was rejecting the argument. In fact, if I understood correctly (there was a lot of irony in Andy's message!), D. Leontiev was both summarizing and criticizing a position that his father (A. N. Leontiev) had made. 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:35 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> I would challenge Martin's  account of Dmitry Leontiev's  argument that meaning is objectively fixed to 'what is' -  'irrespective of one's personal relation to it' - yes, znachenie - common sense or agreed meaning is more 'objective' than smysl but it is still socially constructed - meanings are agreed by dint of their common use (what people do 'as a rule') rather than because they reflect an absolute objectivity.
>>>    
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>