[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

[Andy Blunden]

That is quite right, Mike.

Herder's place in the genealogy of a whole number of ideas 
which are crucial to our current of thinking is broadly 
overlooked. When I submitted a German translation of my 
paper on Goethe and Hegel to a journal in Berlin, I found 
such hostility to the place I gave Herder, that I had to 
remove him in order to get published. It was good to see 
that Stanford Encyclopedia entry gave him his due.

Here is his archive on maxists.org: 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/herder/index.htm

and his FaceBook page: 
https://www.facebook.com/Johann-Gottfried-Herder-278589731820/

Vygotsky people would perhaps be interested to know that the 
very first appearance of the idea of "unit of analysis" in 
the Vygotskyan sense, we owe to Herder. He called it 
/Schwerpunkt/, which is usually translated as "centre of 
gravity," but I think that in the social context, it is best 
translated as "strong point."

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 4/07/2016 1:59 AM, mike cole wrote:
> Interesting sequence, Andy.
> Reading your beginning of an a cultureS concept and 
> ontologIES put me quickly in mind of Herder who died in 
> 1803, but whose ideas seemed to be part of the 
> intellectual background that is connected to
> Hegel. Or so I discovered when I looked up Herder to 
> refresh my memory of dates and came upon this useful entry 
> from the Stanford Encyclopedia.
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/herder/
>
> mike
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden 
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     I checked, and was surprised to find that the date at
>     which "ontology" was first used in the plural was
>     1855. I would have thought it much later. "Culture"
>     was first used as a count noun in 1860 (all acc. to
>     the OED) , so Franz Boas was not actually the first to
>     use "culture" in the plural. "Epistemologies," the OED
>     has no information on.
>
>     Andy
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     Andy Blunden
>     http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
>     http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
>     On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>     <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         Martin,
>         So, ontologies writ large can be plural, but an
>         ontology of scientific psychology is singular (and
>         contradicts at least some of the plural
>         ontologies, which, for example posit things like
>         "mind," "spirit", "God", etc.).
>         Do horizons somehow account for this apparent
>         contradiction? The simultaneous truth and untruth
>         of these entities?
>
>         And can you remind us of the candle in the mirror
>         metaphor?
>
>         Greg
>
>         Sent from my iPhone
>
>             On Jul 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Martin John
>             Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>             <mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>> wrote:
>
>             I think that’s a fair comment, Larry. It must
>             appear that I’m being inconsistent introducing
>             gods after being so hard on Michael for
>             invoking intelligent design. But, while I want
>             to follow Latour (and Viveiros de Castro) in
>             arguing that there are multiple ontologies,
>             many ways of existing, in which case mind can
>             be said to exist in the ontology of Western
>             folk psychology, I also want to insist that
>             the ontology of a scientific psychology has to
>             be consistent and non-contradictory, which
>             means it must be non-dualist. No mind in a
>             scientific psychology (except as an appearance
>             to be explained, like a candle seemingly
>             ‘behind’ a mirror), and no god either.
>
>             Martin
>
>                 On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Lplarry
>                 <lpscholar2@gmail.com
>                 <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Greg,
>                 This shift in the relationship between
>                 (mind) and (meaning)  towards meaning
>                 being primordial or primary and mind
>                 arising as one particular way of imagining
>                 meaning seems to be a radical shift in
>                 ways of approaching or orienting towards
>                 (mind) as an object.
>                 Mind becomes one way of imaging and
>                 diagramming, and symbolizing (meaning
>                 potential) in other words -mind as object.
>                 As Martin says, this may be *fictional*
>                 but is *real* in a way similar to God
>                 being *real* in particular traditions.
>
>
>                 Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>                 From: Greg Thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural 
> science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>