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

[Ed Wall]

It might be interesting to think about what the illumination corresponds to (although one can push metaphor top far).

> On Jul 16, 2016, at  8:59 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OK — from Andy’s link:
> 
> "When we know the thing and the laws of reflection of light, we can always explain, predict, elicit, and change the phantom.”
> 
> How about this: the thing is what the teacher wants the student to learn. By understanding how people learn (the laws of reflection of light), the teacher can explain, predict, elicit and change what the student learns (the phantom).
> 
> I like thinking of what the learner learns as a phantom. It certainly feels like a phantom at the beginning of a class and gets more flesh on it as the weeks go by, but is still a phantom at the end of the semester, although hopefully a different-looking phantom.
> 
> Helena
> 
>> On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm#p1387
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 
>> On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
>>> M...
>>> 
>>> 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> 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> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>