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

[Andy Blunden]

Paul, I really don't care if Willard Quine has problems.
My reply was in the tradition of Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, not American 
analytical philosophy. Quine's difficulties shed no light on A N 
Leontyev's criticisms of Vygotsky.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> But Andy, the genetic argument, the unity of consciousness and 
> behavior, sounds like Willard van Orman quine ' s behaviorism and 
> structurationism in sociology, neither adequately resolve the old 
> conundrum of behaviorism?  Watch quine as he struggles to resolve the 
> conundrum....
>
> Watch "On the Ideas of Quine: Section 1" on YouTube
> On the Ideas of Quine: Section 1: http://youtu.be/1iZvycU3I9w  
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com 
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com 
> www.paulcmocombe.info 
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andy Blunden
> Date:10/11/2014 8:22 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
>
> Mike, in my view, your observations below, that your "private"
> reflections were connected to a future action is exactly the sense in
> which CHAT bases itself on *action* as the unity of consciousness and
> behaviour, i.e., genetically. When we simply confront the product
> (private thoughts) insoluble conundrums are presented. CHAT understands
> the relation of thinking and acting genetically.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
> > ...
> > I might characterize what I was doing in the car as preparing for, and
> > simulating a next turn in an ongoing discussion with a number of
> > colleagues, unsure of what my own conclusions regarding the issue of
> > thought/action/semiosis are. In light of the discussion, I began to 
> wonder
> > about that term, articulation, in Martin's note. I take articulation to
> > mean roughly "to say out loud to another as part of a conversation 
> (text?).
> > But, I have been asking myself, and ask you all for your thoughts, 
> when I
> > am engaged in verbal thinking aren't I engaged in a conversation with
> > another, with an audience or my sense of an audience, as part of the
> > process that generates what I say? It is often said that one does 
> not stop
> > being a sociocultural organism simply by virtue of being physically
> > separate from others. Is there, in such "conversations with oneself" 
> a form
> > of articulation?
> >
> > And/or, might the fact that these thoughts were incorporated in my next
> > communication as part of this conversation, not be considered a form of
> > asychronous, semiotic, action?
> >
> > Thanks again for your concise answer. Sorry I cannot follow 
> adequately some
> > of the points you are making.
> > mike
> >  
> >
>
>