From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 1 20:00:35 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:00:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Cognition in a box Message-ID: This seems an interesting site for those who find themselves engaged with standardized tests to psychological processes. mike http://www.nihtoolbox.org/Pages/default.aspx -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Jun 5 16:37:17 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:37:17 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Message-ID: ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sun Jun 5 17:38:29 2016 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 00:38:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My condolences, Mike. A huge loss to all of us. Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal experiences with him. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Sun Jun 5 17:56:45 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:56:45 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > My condolences, Mike. > A huge loss to all of us. > Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal experiences with him. > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Jun 5 18:33:07 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:33:07 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Would it be irreverent to say: "Bravo for a life well lived!" ? And, I'd love to hear more reflections on Bruner. The next generation of scholars desperately needs to know more about this generation. -greg On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >> My condolences, Mike. >> A huge loss to all of us. >> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal experiences >> with him. >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a >> colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >> mike >> >> > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From kplakits@gmail.com Sun Jun 5 23:53:30 2016 From: kplakits@gmail.com (Katerina Plakitsi) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:53:30 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Our condolences Mike. ???? ???????, 6 ??????? 2016, ? ??????? mike cole ??????: > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a > colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- ............................................................ Katerina Plakitsi Associate Professor of Science Education School of Education University of Ioannina University Campus Dourouti 45110 Ioannina Greece tel. +302651005771 fax. +302651005842 mobile.phone +306972898463 http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Mon Jun 6 00:10:46 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:10:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for letting us know Mike and sympathies to those who knew him, What an incredible contribution Bruner has made, writing on so many aspects of learning and what it means to be human. I, like so many, continue to discover new riches in the body of his work. Amazingly this morning when Mike?s email came through I was re-reading a piece by Bruner ?A Narrative Model of Self-Construction?. Last year I was also revisiting some of his work when I was researching the Heathcote Rolling Role book, looking at the ambition and scope of the MACOS program as a material embodiment of many progressive education and cultural-historical theoretical tenants. I would love to see a special edition of MCA and other publications revisiting his work and its impact, not only in a historical sense, but also considering key aspects of his work worth revisiting and reinterpreting anew. Kind regards Sue Dr Susan Davis Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education Division CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 On 6/06/2016 11:33 am, "Greg Thompson" wrote: >Would it be irreverent to say: >"Bravo for a life well lived!" >? > >And, I'd love to hear more reflections on Bruner. The next generation of >scholars desperately needs to know more about this generation. >-greg > > >On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >> >>> My condolences, Mike. >>> A huge loss to all of us. >>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>experiences >>> with him. >>> David >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>> >>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard >>>from a >>> colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>> mike >>> >>> >> > > >-- >Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >Assistant Professor >Department of Anthropology >880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >Brigham Young University >Provo, UT 84602 >http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Mon Jun 6 06:13:09 2016 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:13:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jerry is dear to all of us here in Neuch?tel. As a person and as a friend. As a scientist for his immense contribution. And also for all he did that allowed Piaget to fully become "Piaget" (a story still to be told). Jerry was a member of our local community as Dr honoris causa and - much more importantly - a citizen of the Planet. Thankfully, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont & Antonio Iannaccone and colleagues Former and present Directors of the Institute of Psychology and Education of the University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of mike cole R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : lundi, 6 juin 2016 01:37 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From helenaworthen@gmail.com Mon Jun 6 06:52:21 2016 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:52:21 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09F023BF-3F50-40CC-98E5-F7E933597B5A@gmail.com> I am happy to hear that he lived to be 100. He was a great, kind, brilliant man. Helena > On Jun 6, 2016, at 2:53 AM, Katerina Plakitsi wrote: > > Our condolences Mike. > > > ???? ???????, 6 ??????? 2016, ? ??????? mike cole ??????: > >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a >> colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> > > > -- > ............................................................ > Katerina Plakitsi > Associate Professor of Science Education > School of Education > University of Ioannina > University Campus Dourouti 45110 > Ioannina > Greece > tel. +302651005771 > fax. +302651005842 > mobile.phone +306972898463 > > http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits > http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr > http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp From helenaworthen@gmail.com Mon Jun 6 07:26:04 2016 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andy, thank you for finding this!!! Helena > On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >> My condolences, Mike. >> A huge loss to all of us. >> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal experiences with him. >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. >> mike >> > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Mon Jun 6 08:05:03 2016 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th Jerome Bruner w* *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about Vygot**sky and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* * starts from the bottom up.* *Robert Lake* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jerome S Bruner Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky To: Robert Lake Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Lake Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky To: jsb3@nyu.edu > Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > It really does help. > > > When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or > a personal experience? > > > Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > Robert Lake > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer > of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > volume. > > Does that help? > > All best wishes. > > Jerome Bruner > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Lake > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > > Dear Dr. Bruner, > > I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > areas > > I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > Moll, > > but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > > Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > Helena > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >> My condolences, Mike. > >> A huge loss to all of us. > >> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > experiences with him. > >> David > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > >> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from > a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > >> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > >> mike > >> > > > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From joe.glick@gmail.com Mon Jun 6 10:33:59 2016 From: joe.glick@gmail.com (JAG) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:33:59 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Same reaction here. An important part of my life history, a giant in the field. On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:37 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a > colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From vygotsky@unm.edu Mon Jun 6 14:37:44 2016 From: vygotsky@unm.edu (Vera John-Steiner) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:37:44 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005f01d1c03b$ab6e6fc0$024b4f40$@edu> A great man, a caring human being. He was the one who introduced me to Vygotsky' writings. Thanks Andy for the link, it brought back Jerry's lively ways of expressing his ideas. Vera -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of JAG Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:34 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Same reaction here. An important part of my life history, a giant in the field. On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:37 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Mon Jun 6 15:23:16 2016 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:23:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> Nice, Robert!!! Helena > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake wrote: > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th Jerome > Bruner w* > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about Vygot**sky > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* > * starts from the bottom up.* > *Robert Lake* > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jerome S Bruner > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: Robert Lake > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Lake > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >> It really does help. >> >> >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or >> a personal experience? >> >> >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >> >> >> Robert Lake >> >> > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky >> volume. >> >> Does that help? >> >> All best wishes. >> >> Jerome Bruner >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Robert Lake >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >> >> >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >> areas >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >> Moll, >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>> >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >> >> Helena >> >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >> experiences with him. >>>> David >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>> mike >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > Dewey-*Democracy > and Education*,1916, p. 139 From j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca Mon Jun 6 15:59:24 2016 From: j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca (Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 22:59:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sue, Your idea of a special issue of MInd, Culture, and Activity is a perfect way to make a small contribution to honouring a person who has been such a good friend to so many and a brilliant mentor and scholar for even more. Thank you for this. He will be missed, jen On 2016-06-06, at 12:10 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > Thanks for letting us know Mike and sympathies to those who knew him, > > What an incredible contribution Bruner has made, writing on so many > aspects of learning and what it means to be human. > > I, like so many, continue to discover new riches in the body of his work. > Amazingly this morning when Mike?s email came through I was re-reading a > piece by Bruner ?A Narrative Model of Self-Construction?. Last year I was > also revisiting some of his work when I was researching the Heathcote > Rolling Role book, looking at the ambition and scope of the MACOS program > as a material embodiment of many progressive education and > cultural-historical theoretical tenants. > > I would love to see a special edition of MCA and other publications > revisiting his work and its impact, not only in a historical sense, but > also considering key aspects of his work worth revisiting and > reinterpreting anew. > > Kind regards > Sue > > > > Dr Susan Davis > Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher Education > Division > CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 418 763 428 > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/06/2016 11:33 am, "Greg Thompson" wrote: > >> Would it be irreverent to say: >> "Bravo for a life well lived!" >> ? >> >> And, I'd love to hear more reflections on Bruner. The next generation of >> scholars desperately needs to know more about this generation. >> -greg >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>> >>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>> experiences >>>> with him. >>>> David >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard >>>> from a >>>> colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>> mike >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jun 6 17:54:31 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:54:31 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <005f01d1c03b$ab6e6fc0$024b4f40$@edu> References: <005f01d1c03b$ab6e6fc0$024b4f40$@edu> Message-ID: Here's a speech by Bruner: https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/29517713 Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 7/06/2016 7:37 AM, Vera John-Steiner wrote: > A great man, a caring human being. He was the one who introduced me to Vygotsky' writings. Thanks Andy for the link, it brought back Jerry's lively ways of expressing his ideas. > Vera > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of JAG > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:34 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Same reaction here. An important part of my life history, a giant in the field. > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:37 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard >> from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 6 18:30:08 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:30:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <005f01d1c03b$ab6e6fc0$024b4f40$@edu> Message-ID: Can you glean more information about the video, Andy. It is four years old and he was 96(?!!). It is absolutely vintage Bruner. The fact that he is speaking to an audience that only "sort of" understands English (some a lot, some not at all) means that he has to speak slowly. But those are long stories he tells and heaven help the person present who depend solely upon the translation. It must have lasted hours for the audience or that poor translator lacked oratorical virtuosity A lot like Russian-American communications! :-) (speaking pesonally) mike On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Here's a speech by Bruner: https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/29517713 > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 7/06/2016 7:37 AM, Vera John-Steiner wrote: > >> A great man, a caring human being. He was the one who introduced me to >> Vygotsky' writings. Thanks Andy for the link, it brought back Jerry's >> lively ways of expressing his ideas. >> Vera >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of JAG >> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:34 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> Same reaction here. An important part of my life history, a giant in the >> field. >> >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:37 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard >>> from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>> mike >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>> >> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jun 6 18:50:06 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:50:06 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <005f01d1c03b$ab6e6fc0$024b4f40$@edu> Message-ID: <7d67a8d2-9f90-46ca-b168-3547f5142bcd@mira.net> Some years ago I found the full video on the internet, and I went through excising the Spanish to produce this speech in English. Alas, I don't seem to have a copy of the full video and I can't see it on the internet anyway, so I have no further information on it, Mike. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 7/06/2016 11:30 AM, mike cole wrote: > Can you glean more information about the video, Andy. It > is four years old and he was 96(?!!). > It is absolutely vintage Bruner. The fact that he is > speaking to an audience that only "sort of" understands > English (some a lot, some not at all) means that he has to > speak slowly. But those are long stories he > tells and heaven help the person present who depend solely > upon the translation. It must have lasted hours for the > audience or that poor translator lacked oratorical virtuosity > > A lot like Russian-American communications! :-) > (speaking pesonally) > > mike > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Here's a speech by Bruner: > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/29517713 > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 7/06/2016 7:37 AM, Vera John-Steiner wrote: > > A great man, a caring human being. He was the one > who introduced me to Vygotsky' writings. Thanks > Andy for the link, it brought back Jerry's lively > ways of expressing his ideas. > Vera > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On > Behalf Of JAG > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:34 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Same reaction here. An important part of my life > history, a giant in the field. > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:37 PM, mike cole > > wrote: > > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, > but I have just heard > from a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend > who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From preiss.xmca@gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:04:04 2016 From: preiss.xmca@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 00:04:04 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mike, Dear Xmca-ers, I was very sad when I heard this today. Bruner's thinking gave me hope and lighted my soul when I was doing my PhD fifteen years ago. I saw my discipline of choice evolving to such anti-culturalist and anti-humanistic stance that I felt psychology was not the place where I wanted to be. And yet his writings kept me company during those years of my graduate education. They drove me, in part, to work in education and to shift my dissertation to the issue of folk pedagogy, which he had raised with David Olson a few years before. I remember searching for and perusing his books at the Strand bookstore in New York, then getting them as special gems. Later on my commute back to New Haven, I kept reading Bruner in the train. I loved his ability to write essays that established a bridge between psychology and the literary world. So, here there was someone who could make these two areas to talk about the same because they were about the same. At some point I decided I might try to contact him. He was about 85 years old, and I was just in my early thirties. Who knows, he might respond. And yes he did. He was very kind. I had the opportunity to invite him as a grad student to give a talk at Yale and he kindly accepted to come, although I had never been in contact with him before. He was such a figure in the field and he still took the time to attend and engage in conversation with young and unknown grad students. Later, I had the opportunity to visit him with a friend in New York one time or two and those one or two meetings remain as treasured memories in my heart. He was very gentle when I asked him to sign, well, all of the books that I have gotten in Strand during the years. He handled my admiration for him in a lovely manner. His work is a fundamental reference for us psychologists in a time when our discipline has moved far away from those issues that mattered to him. Those of us who remain here, struggling during these apocalyptic and disgraceful times, have a responsibility, however our limitations, to take the torch and keep reminding that culture is the essential niche of human development and an everlasting source of psychological, educational and literary meaning. Fond regards, David On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:37 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a > colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com Tue Jun 7 02:53:17 2016 From: leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com (Leif Strandberg) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:53:17 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bruner appeared to me in the late sixties. I read psychology at the University of Ume?, Sweden. It was not very funny, but one day we should read "The Course of Cogntive Growth" by J. S. Bruner. The article was in an antology from 1968 called Thinking and Reasoning. When I look at that Bruner-article today, I can see that I had underlined every word in it - yes, every word! He was (and still is) so important to me. And I of coruse remember his great speech at Iscrat in Denmark 1998. Thanks for everything. Leif, Sweden 7 jun 2016 kl. 05:04 skrev David Preiss : > Dear Mike, Dear Xmca-ers, > > > > I was very sad when I heard this today. Bruner's thinking gave me hope and > lighted my soul when I was doing my PhD fifteen years ago. I saw my > discipline of choice evolving to such anti-culturalist and anti-humanistic > stance that I felt psychology was not the place where I wanted to be. And > yet his writings kept me company during those years of my graduate > education. They drove me, in part, to work in education and to shift my > dissertation to the issue of folk pedagogy, which he had raised with David > Olson a few years before. > > > > I remember searching for and perusing his books at the Strand bookstore in > New York, then getting them as special gems. Later on my commute back to > New Haven, I kept reading Bruner in the train. I loved his ability to write > essays that established a bridge between psychology and the literary world. > So, here there was someone who could make these two areas to talk about the > same because they were about the same. > > > > At some point I decided I might try to contact him. He was about 85 years > old, and I was just in my early thirties. Who knows, he might respond. And > yes he did. He was very kind. I had the opportunity to invite him as a grad > student to give a talk at Yale and he kindly accepted to come, although I > had never been in contact with him before. He was such a figure in the > field and he still took the time to attend and engage in conversation with > young and unknown grad students. Later, I had the opportunity to visit him > with a friend in New York one time or two and those one or two meetings > remain as treasured memories in my heart. He was very gentle when I asked > him to sign, well, all of the books that I have gotten in Strand during the > years. He handled my admiration for him in a lovely manner. > > > > His work is a fundamental reference for us psychologists in a time when our > discipline has moved far away from those issues that mattered to him. Those > of us who remain here, struggling during these apocalyptic and disgraceful > times, have a responsibility, however our limitations, to take the torch > and keep reminding that culture is the essential niche of human development > and an everlasting source of psychological, educational and literary > meaning. > > > > Fond regards, > > > > David > > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:37 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a >> colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 7 06:44:02 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:44:02 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course. The first one is Mike's actually. I just copied it. The second one is effectively in the public domain. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 7/06/2016 11:40 PM, Malcolm Reed wrote: > Hi Andy > > I would like to put a brief commemorative notice up on > iscar.org for Jerry Bruner. I have also > asked Mike if he would like to write a short note. > > I was going to put up a notice saying simply: Let's mourn > the passing and celebrate the extraordinary life of Jerome > Bruner. > > Would it be OK to use the video link that you sent as well? > > All the best > Malcolm > > On 6 June 2016 at 01:56, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > My condolences, Mike. > A huge loss to all of us. > Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of > your personal experiences with him. > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On > Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I > have just heard from a colleague that Jerry > Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who > had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > > > > > -- > MSc Educational Research programme director > Doctorate in Education, Narrative Research director > President of International Society for Cultural-historical > Activity Research (ISCAR) From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Tue Jun 7 08:45:05 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those of us not smart enough to avoid AERA would anyone be willing to think about putting in a structured poster session taking some kind of "Bruner" lens on our work? On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:46 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Of course. The first one is Mike's actually. I just copied > it. The second one is effectively in the public domain. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 7/06/2016 11:40 PM, Malcolm Reed wrote: > > Hi Andy > > > > I would like to put a brief commemorative notice up on > > iscar.org for Jerry Bruner. I have also > > asked Mike if he would like to write a short note. > > > > I was going to put up a notice saying simply: Let's mourn > > the passing and celebrate the extraordinary life of Jerome > > Bruner. > > > > Would it be OK to use the video link that you sent as well? > > > > All the best > > Malcolm > > > > On 6 June 2016 at 01:56, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > > My condolences, Mike. > > A huge loss to all of us. > > Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of > > your personal experiences with him. > > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > ] On > > Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I > > have just heard from a colleague that Jerry > > Bruner? has died. > > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who > > had a fundamental influence on my own life trajectory. > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > MSc Educational Research programme director > > Doctorate in Education, Narrative Research director > > President of International Society for Cultural-historical > > Activity Research (ISCAR) > > From nataliag@sfu.ca Wed Jun 8 12:06:18 2016 From: nataliag@sfu.ca (Natalia Gajdamaschko) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 In-Reply-To: <638010956.5288642.1463022394141.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> References: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> <1208215432.115367075.1461702675266.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <638010956.5288642.1463022394141.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: <98005521.36537661.1465412778699.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Hi Dear All, On behalf of Cultural-Historical Research SIG, we would like to invite your submissions. When AERA was founded a century ago, Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work that led to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and reshape how learning, development, culture, and language, and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky?s theory (and those of his colleagues) is now one of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky?s original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and postmodern approaches. It is utilized across educational disciplines including the learning sciences, literacy, language education, mathematics, technology, youth and community development, and early childhood, all of which are represented in the Cultural-Historical SIG. The Cultural Historical Research SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represents the breadth and relevance of Vygotsky, Socio-Cultural, and Activity theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: ? The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of sociocultural theories, including Activity Theory, socio-cultural, Marxist, arts-based, critical, and postmodern approaches. ? The relevance of Vygotsky for innovation in education and offer creative responses to the ongoing education crisis in the US and around the world ? The range of methodologies that utilize sociocultural and cultural historical approaches including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. ? The diversity of fields and settings in which sociocultural theory is used and applicable to (i.e. learning sciences, early childhood, outside of school, technology learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL) ? Proposals that explore the past, present and future of cultural historical research approaches. We are seeking proposals from experienced and new scholars (including graduate students) who are working to incorporate Vygotsky, socio-cultural, and activity theory into their work. We are also eager to support practitioner researchers who are utilizing cultural historical approaches in their settings. SIG Officers, Carrie Lobman, Aria Razfar, Natalia Gajdamaschko. From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Wed Jun 8 12:29:29 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:29:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 In-Reply-To: <98005521.36537661.1465412778699.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> References: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> <1208215432.115367075.1461702675266.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <638010956.5288642.1463022394141.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca>, <98005521.36537661.1465412778699.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: Dear Natalia, Can you tell me the deadline for submission please. Than you. James _____________________________________________ James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). "Good packaging can be misleading": A semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Wiley. PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Natalia Gajdamaschko Sent: 08 June 2016 20:06 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 Hi Dear All, On behalf of Cultural-Historical Research SIG, we would like to invite your submissions. When AERA was founded a century ago, Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work that led to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and reshape how learning, development, culture, and language, and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky's theory (and those of his colleagues) is now one of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky's original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and postmodern approaches. It is utilized across educational disciplines including the learning sciences, literacy, language education, mathematics, technology, youth and community development, and early childhood, all of which are represented in the Cultural-Historical SIG. The Cultural Historical Research SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represents the breadth and relevance of Vygotsky, Socio-Cultural, and Activity theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: * The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of sociocultural theories, including Activity Theory, socio-cultural, Marxist, arts-based, critical, and postmodern approaches. * The relevance of Vygotsky for innovation in education and offer creative responses to the ongoing education crisis in the US and around the world * The range of methodologies that utilize sociocultural and cultural historical approaches including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. * The diversity of fields and settings in which sociocultural theory is used and applicable to (i.e. learning sciences, early childhood, outside of school, technology learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL) * Proposals that explore the past, present and future of cultural historical research approaches. We are seeking proposals from experienced and new scholars (including graduate students) who are working to incorporate Vygotsky, socio-cultural, and activity theory into their work. We are also eager to support practitioner researchers who are utilizing cultural historical approaches in their settings. SIG Officers, Carrie Lobman, Aria Razfar, Natalia Gajdamaschko. From nataliag@sfu.ca Wed Jun 8 12:39:55 2016 From: nataliag@sfu.ca (Natalia Gajdamaschko) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> <1208215432.115367075.1461702675266.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <638010956.5288642.1463022394141.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <98005521.36537661.1465412778699.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1915470960.36592137.1465414795558.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Hi James, Submission accepted till July 22. Please, see AERA website for more info about it: http://www.aera.net/EventsMeetings/AnnualMeeting/2017AnnualMeetingCallforSubmissions/tabid/16328/Default.aspx Best wishes, Natalia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Ma (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)" To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 12:29:29 PM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 Dear Natalia, Can you tell me the deadline for submission please. Than you. James _____________________________________________ James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). "Good packaging can be misleading": A semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Wiley. PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Natalia Gajdamaschko Sent: 08 June 2016 20:06 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 Hi Dear All, On behalf of Cultural-Historical Research SIG, we would like to invite your submissions. When AERA was founded a century ago, Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work that led to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and reshape how learning, development, culture, and language, and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky's theory (and those of his colleagues) is now one of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky's original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and postmodern approaches. It is utilized across educational disciplines including the learning sciences, literacy, language education, mathematics, technology, youth and community development, and early childhood, all of which are represented in the Cultural-Historical SIG. The Cultural Historical Research SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represents the breadth and relevance of Vygotsky, Socio-Cultural, and Activity theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: * The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of sociocultural theories, including Activity Theory, socio-cultural, Marxist, arts-based, critical, and postmodern approaches. * The relevance of Vygotsky for innovation in education and offer creative responses to the ongoing education crisis in the US and around the world * The range of methodologies that utilize sociocultural and cultural historical approaches including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. * The diversity of fields and settings in which sociocultural theory is used and applicable to (i.e. learning sciences, early childhood, outside of school, technology learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL) * Proposals that explore the past, present and future of cultural historical research approaches. We are seeking proposals from experienced and new scholars (including graduate students) who are working to incorporate Vygotsky, socio-cultural, and activity theory into their work. We are also eager to support practitioner researchers who are utilizing cultural historical approaches in their settings. SIG Officers, Carrie Lobman, Aria Razfar, Natalia Gajdamaschko. From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Wed Jun 8 13:29:47 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 20:29:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 In-Reply-To: <1915470960.36592137.1465414795558.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> References: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> <1208215432.115367075.1461702675266.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <638010956.5288642.1463022394141.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <98005521.36537661.1465412778699.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> , <1915470960.36592137.1465414795558.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: Many thanks, Natalia. All the best, James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Natalia Gajdamaschko Sent: 08 June 2016 20:39:55 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 Hi James, Submission accepted till July 22. Please, see AERA website for more info about it: http://www.aera.net/EventsMeetings/AnnualMeeting/2017AnnualMeetingCallforSubmissions/tabid/16328/Default.aspx Best wishes, Natalia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Ma (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)" To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 12:29:29 PM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 Dear Natalia, Can you tell me the deadline for submission please. Than you. James _____________________________________________ James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). "Good packaging can be misleading": A semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Wiley. PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Natalia Gajdamaschko Sent: 08 June 2016 20:06 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Submissions, AERA 2017 Hi Dear All, On behalf of Cultural-Historical Research SIG, we would like to invite your submissions. When AERA was founded a century ago, Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work that led to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and reshape how learning, development, culture, and language, and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky's theory (and those of his colleagues) is now one of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky's original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and postmodern approaches. It is utilized across educational disciplines including the learning sciences, literacy, language education, mathematics, technology, youth and community development, and early childhood, all of which are represented in the Cultural-Historical SIG. The Cultural Historical Research SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represents the breadth and relevance of Vygotsky, Socio-Cultural, and Activity theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: * The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of sociocultural theories, including Activity Theory, socio-cultural, Marxist, arts-based, critical, and postmodern approaches. * The relevance of Vygotsky for innovation in education and offer creative responses to the ongoing education crisis in the US and around the world * The range of methodologies that utilize sociocultural and cultural historical approaches including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. * The diversity of fields and settings in which sociocultural theory is used and applicable to (i.e. learning sciences, early childhood, outside of school, technology learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL) * Proposals that explore the past, present and future of cultural historical research approaches. We are seeking proposals from experienced and new scholars (including graduate students) who are working to incorporate Vygotsky, socio-cultural, and activity theory into their work. We are also eager to support practitioner researchers who are utilizing cultural historical approaches in their settings. SIG Officers, Carrie Lobman, Aria Razfar, Natalia Gajdamaschko. From jkindred@cnr.edu Wed Jun 8 20:27:48 2016 From: jkindred@cnr.edu (Kindred, Jessica Dr.) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 03:27:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> References: , <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very phrasing and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I almost wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help to account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... in any case, great thanks for sharing. And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in Arhus! Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward possible worlds. Jessie Kindred ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Nice, Robert!!! Helena > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake wrote: > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th Jerome > Bruner w* > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about Vygot**sky > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* > * starts from the bottom up.* > *Robert Lake* > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jerome S Bruner > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: Robert Lake > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Lake > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >> It really does help. >> >> >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or >> a personal experience? >> >> >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >> >> >> Robert Lake >> >> > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky >> volume. >> >> Does that help? >> >> All best wishes. >> >> Jerome Bruner >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Robert Lake >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >> >> >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >> areas >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >> Moll, >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>> >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >> >> Helena >> >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >> experiences with him. >>>> David >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>> mike >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > Dewey-*Democracy > and Education*,1916, p. 139 From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Jun 8 22:09:44 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:09:44 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Jessica, Robert, that yours is a wonderful anecdote. I can imagine an oral history of such ?encounters? with Bruner the mentor. Thank you for sharing your part of it. Henry > On Jun 8, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very phrasing and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I almost wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help to account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in Arhus! > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward possible worlds. > > Jessie Kindred > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Nice, Robert!!! > > Helena > >> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake wrote: >> >> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th Jerome >> Bruner w* >> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about Vygot**sky >> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* >> * starts from the bottom up.* >> *Robert Lake* >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Jerome S Bruner >> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> To: Robert Lake >> >> >> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Robert Lake >> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >> >> >>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>> It really does help. >>> >>> >>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or >>> a personal experience? >>> >>> >>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>> >>> >>> Robert Lake >>> >>> >> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann >>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book >>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with >>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer >>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian >>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky >>> volume. >>> >>> Does that help? >>> >>> All best wishes. >>> >>> Jerome Bruner >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Robert Lake >>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>> >>> >>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>> areas >>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>> Moll, >>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>> >>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen >> wrote: >> >>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>> >>> Helena >>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>> experiences with him. >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from >>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Robert Lake Ed.D. >> Associate Professor >> Social Foundations of Education >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >> Georgia Southern University >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >> Dewey-*Democracy >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > From carolmacdon@gmail.com Wed Jun 8 23:30:11 2016 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:11 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bruner also gave the keynote address at the ten-day meeting in Geneva in 1996 commemorating the centenary of the birth of Piaget and Vygotsky. The whole conference was magical as one sat next to the big names of the 70s and 80s, cultural and cross-cultural psychologists. Mike gave a talk in which he outlined a new developmental stage - youth I think he called it: where sons and daughters were still studying (and perhaps working) in their late 20s and living in the parental home. He raised a laugh, as I remember. For Bruner's keynote, the auditorium overflowed and so people watched from a second auditorium. As we left the auditorium we could pick up CDs of the address, which I thought was pretty nifty. Carol On 9 June 2016 at 07:09, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > I agree with Jessica, Robert, that yours is a wonderful anecdote. I can > imagine an oral history of such ?encounters? with Bruner the mentor. Thank > you for sharing your part of it. > Henry > > > > On Jun 8, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > wrote: > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very phrasing > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I almost > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help to > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > Arhus! > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > possible worlds. > > > > Jessie Kindred > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > Helena > > > >> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake > wrote: > >> > >> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > Jerome > >> Bruner w* > >> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > Vygot**sky > >> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* > >> * starts from the bottom up.* > >> *Robert Lake* > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Jerome S Bruner > >> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >> To: Robert Lake > >> > >> > >> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > jb > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Robert Lake > >> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >> > >> > >>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>> It really does help. > >>> > >>> > >>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or > >>> a personal experience? > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>> > >>> > >>> Robert Lake > >>> > >>> > >> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > >>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > >>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > >>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > >>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer > >>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > >>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > >>> volume. > >>> > >>> Does that help? > >>> > >>> All best wishes. > >>> > >>> Jerome Bruner > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Robert Lake > >>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>> > >>> > >>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >>> areas > >>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >>> Moll, > >>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > >>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > >>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>> > >>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >>> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > helenaworthen@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>> > >>> Helena > >>> > >>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>>> > >>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> Andy Blunden > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >>> experiences with him. > >>>>> David > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > from > >>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > >>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > >>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>> mike > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >> Associate Professor > >> Social Foundations of Education > >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >> Georgia Southern University > >> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > >> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > must be > >> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >> Dewey-*Democracy > >> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > -- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Jun 8 23:29:52 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:29:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: , <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> Jessica, This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question and Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming *as* a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history and culture. For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of *person* that has a continuing *existence* beyond Bruner?s physical death. This is also a labelling intuition. Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living *presence*. Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is this presence located externally, or is there a location where intuitions arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal and external presence? Others will offer different images and words to locate where intuitions originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an apt metaphor? The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our questions and answers within particular communities which some call *learning* communities. In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good faith?. The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says aligns with intellectualism. James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals that guide human participation in civilization. I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as persons. Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within this living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that guides our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. Bruner would label this a hypothesis. Larry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very phrasing and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I almost wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help to account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... in any case, great thanks for sharing. And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in Arhus! Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward possible worlds. Jessie Kindred ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Nice, Robert!!! Helena > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake wrote: > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th Jerome > Bruner w* > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about Vygot**sky > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* > * starts from the bottom up.* > *Robert Lake* > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jerome S Bruner > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: Robert Lake > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Lake > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >> It really does help. >> >> >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or >> a personal experience? >> >> >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >> >> >> Robert Lake >> >> > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky >> volume. >> >> Does that help? >> >> All best wishes. >> >> Jerome Bruner >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Robert Lake >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >> >> >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >> areas >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >> Moll, >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>> >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >> >> Helena >> >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >> experiences with him. >>>> David >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental >> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>> mike >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > Dewey-*Democracy > and Education*,1916, p. 139 From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Jun 9 08:42:24 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:42:24 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] iconic signs assist in *apprehending* subjectivities as a primer to *true meaning* and hence reaffirming a person's beliefs and values Message-ID: <57598e05.111a620a.6fa33.ffff8694@mx.google.com> I am wanting to bring to this learning community the article by James Ma that who is exploring Peirce?s concept of *word-image relation* within semiosis. Semiosis is the means of sustaining an understanding of the *Object*. Object, as I read this article refers to *true meaning*. Therefore semiosis as the sign-object *relation* can be read as the sign-true meaning *relation*. This relation is inclusive of the process-product *relation which implies process within product and product within process. This object=true meaning relation as a reasoning action is always an interpretation. James says that interpretation entails the notion that ?all reasoning is an interpretation of signs of some kind?. James is focusing on what is opaque in semiosis and clarifying [making clear] the interpretive work-image complementarity within this process-product relation. Images as iconic signs [resemblance/reference] have interpretive [ex/pository] properties that *assist* in *apprehending* person?s subjectivities. James links this apprehending subjectivities as being *a primer for* concept formation [true meaning]. The next step in James?s reasoning/interpreting is what seems to be central to his ex/position. If iconic signs assist in apprehending person?s subjectivities [as] a primer to true meaning [concept formation] this semiosis *reaffirms* the person?s *beliefs and values* of what is worthwhile *learning*. This reasoning/interpreting [as my reading of page 4] of this article may be a misunderstanding or be opaque, BUT my intuition calls me to go *deeper* into what James focuses on as worthwhile learning. Others may enjoy how Bruner?s narratology overlaps with James semiosis. larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JUNE 8 2016 MA JAMES ._2016_._Semiotising_the_student_perception of learning.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1985212 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160609/c481625f/attachment-0001.pdf From bella.kotik@gmail.com Thu Jun 9 09:53:48 2016 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:53:48 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just defended my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be blessed. On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > Jessica, > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question and > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming *as* > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history and > culture. > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living *presence*. > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > this presence located externally, or is there a location where intuitions > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal and > external presence? > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where intuitions > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an apt > metaphor? > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > *learning* communities. > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good faith?. > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > aligns with intellectualism. > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals that > guide human participation in civilization. > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as persons. > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within this > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that guides > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > Larry > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very phrasing > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I almost > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help to > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > Arhus! > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > possible worlds. > > Jessie Kindred > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Nice, Robert!!! > > Helena > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake > wrote: > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > Jerome > > Bruner w* > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > Vygot**sky > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > *Robert Lake* > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Lake > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >> It really does help. > >> > >> > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or > >> a personal experience? > >> > >> > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >> > >> > >> Robert Lake > >> > >> > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > >> volume. > >> > >> Does that help? > >> > >> All best wishes. > >> > >> Jerome Bruner > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Robert Lake > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >> > >> > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >> areas > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >> Moll, > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>> > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen > > > wrote: > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >> > >> Helena > >> > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > >>> > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >> experiences with him. > >>>> David > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike cole > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>> > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > from > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>> mike > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > Associate Professor > > Social Foundations of Education > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > Georgia Southern University > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must > be > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > Dewey-*Democracy > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > -- Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jun 9 15:08:38 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:08:38 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in humility. I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened before it became one. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut wrote: > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just defended > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > blessed. > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > Jessica, > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question and > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > *as* > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history and > > culture. > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > *presence*. > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where intuitions > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > and > > external presence? > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where intuitions > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > apt > > metaphor? > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > *learning* communities. > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > faith?. > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > aligns with intellectualism. > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > that > > guide human participation in civilization. > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as persons. > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within this > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > guides > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > phrasing > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > almost > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help > to > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > Arhus! > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > possible worlds. > > > > Jessie Kindred > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > Helena > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake > > wrote: > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > Jerome > > > Bruner w* > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > Vygot**sky > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > *It* > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > jb > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > >> It really does help. > > >> > > >> > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or > > >> a personal experience? > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > >> > > >> > > >> Robert Lake > > >> > > >> > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > >> volume. > > >> > > >> Does that help? > > >> > > >> All best wishes. > > >> > > >> Jerome Bruner > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: Robert Lake > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > >> > > >> > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > >> areas > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > >> Moll, > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > >>> > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > >> > > >> Helena > > >> > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> Andy Blunden > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > >>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > >> experiences with him. > > >>>> David > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > cole > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > >>>> > > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > from > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > >>>> mike > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > Associate Professor > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > Georgia Southern University > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > must > > be > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > From jkindred@cnr.edu Fri Jun 10 15:12:36 2016 From: jkindred@cnr.edu (Kindred, Jessica Dr.) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:12:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, too, as a tool for thinking about learning. ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in humility. I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened before it became one. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut wrote: > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just defended > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > blessed. > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > Jessica, > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question and > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > *as* > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history and > > culture. > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > *presence*. > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where intuitions > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > and > > external presence? > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where intuitions > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > apt > > metaphor? > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > *learning* communities. > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > faith?. > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > aligns with intellectualism. > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > that > > guide human participation in civilization. > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as persons. > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within this > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > guides > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > phrasing > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > almost > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help > to > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > Arhus! > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > possible worlds. > > > > Jessie Kindred > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > Helena > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake > > wrote: > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > Jerome > > > Bruner w* > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > Vygot**sky > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > *It* > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > jb > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > >> It really does help. > > >> > > >> > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or > > >> a personal experience? > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > >> > > >> > > >> Robert Lake > > >> > > >> > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > >> volume. > > >> > > >> Does that help? > > >> > > >> All best wishes. > > >> > > >> Jerome Bruner > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: Robert Lake > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > >> > > >> > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > >> areas > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > >> Moll, > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > >>> > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > >> > > >> Helena > > >> > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> Andy Blunden > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > >>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > >> experiences with him. > > >>>> David > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > cole > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > >>>> > > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > from > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > >>>> mike > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > Associate Professor > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > Georgia Southern University > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > must > > be > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jun 10 16:48:48 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:48:48 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> Message-ID: It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several counts: a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have not seen evidence of this at all. b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that the child himself is the work in progress. c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between the stimulus and the response"). As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for thinking about the zone of proximal development. I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation of a ready made solution. Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the differentiation of will from affect." What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been scaffolding. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, too, > as a tool for thinking about learning. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > humility. > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > before it became one. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > defended > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > blessed. > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Jessica, > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > and > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > > *as* > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > and > > > culture. > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > *presence*. > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > intuitions > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > > and > > > external presence? > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > intuitions > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > > apt > > > metaphor? > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > faith?. > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > that > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > persons. > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > this > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > guides > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > of > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > phrasing > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > thinking > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > influenced > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education > in > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > almost > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > help > > to > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > now... > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > > Arhus! > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > > Jerome > > > > Bruner w* > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > Vygot**sky > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > *It* > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > jb > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > >> It really does help. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > or > > > >> a personal experience? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Robert Lake > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > admirer > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > > >> volume. > > > >> > > > >> Does that help? > > > >> > > > >> All best wishes. > > > >> > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > >> areas > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > >> Moll, > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > >> > > > >> Helena > > > >> > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > > >>> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > >>> > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > >> experiences with him. > > > >>>> David > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > > from > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > >>>> mike > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > must > > > be > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > From jkindred@cnr.edu Sat Jun 11 06:41:14 2016 From: jkindred@cnr.edu (Kindred, Jessica Dr.) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 13:41:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of teaching as delivery. ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several counts: a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have not seen evidence of this at all. b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that the child himself is the work in progress. c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between the stimulus and the response"). As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for thinking about the zone of proximal development. I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation of a ready made solution. Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the differentiation of will from affect." What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been scaffolding. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, too, > as a tool for thinking about learning. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > humility. > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > before it became one. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > defended > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > blessed. > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Jessica, > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > and > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > > *as* > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > and > > > culture. > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > *presence*. > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > intuitions > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > > and > > > external presence? > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > intuitions > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > > apt > > > metaphor? > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > faith?. > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > that > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > persons. > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > this > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > guides > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > of > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > phrasing > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > thinking > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > influenced > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education > in > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > almost > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > help > > to > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > now... > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > > Arhus! > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > > Jerome > > > > Bruner w* > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > Vygot**sky > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > *It* > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > jb > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > >> It really does help. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > or > > > >> a personal experience? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Robert Lake > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > admirer > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > > >> volume. > > > >> > > > >> Does that help? > > > >> > > > >> All best wishes. > > > >> > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > >> areas > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > >> Moll, > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > >> > > > >> Helena > > > >> > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > > >>> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > >>> > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > >> experiences with him. > > > >>>> David > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > > from > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > >>>> mike > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > must > > > be > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Jun 11 08:06:33 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:06:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and actuality. In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and affordances. (see page 380). Here is a summary. Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean object is the formation of *true meaning*). James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be implied in abduction. For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel towards *multimodal* cognition. In particular word-image complimentarity. James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning *potential* as continuously generated. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of teaching as delivery. ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several counts: a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have not seen evidence of this at all. b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that the child himself is the work in progress. c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between the stimulus and the response"). As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for thinking about the zone of proximal development. I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation of a ready made solution. Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the differentiation of will from affect." What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been scaffolding. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, too, > as a tool for thinking about learning. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > humility. > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > before it became one. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > defended > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > blessed. > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Jessica, > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > and > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > > *as* > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > and > > > culture. > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > *presence*. > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > intuitions > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > > and > > > external presence? > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > intuitions > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > > apt > > > metaphor? > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > faith?. > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > that > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > persons. > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > this > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > guides > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > of > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > phrasing > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > thinking > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > influenced > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education > in > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > almost > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > help > > to > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > now... > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > > Arhus! > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > > Jerome > > > > Bruner w* > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > Vygot**sky > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > *It* > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > jb > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > >> It really does help. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > or > > > >> a personal experience? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Robert Lake > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > admirer > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > > >> volume. > > > >> > > > >> Does that help? > > > >> > > > >> All best wishes. > > > >> > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > >> areas > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > >> Moll, > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > >> > > > >> Helena > > > >> > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > > >>> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > >>> > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > >> experiences with him. > > > >>>> David > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > > from > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > >>>> mike > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > must > > > be > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > From anaguenthner@gmail.com Sat Jun 11 18:28:06 2016 From: anaguenthner@gmail.com (Ana) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 18:28:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562E7ECE-411F-477E-9661-9369DEE8EC4F@gmail.com> Sorry to hear, Mike. > On Jun 5, 2016, at 4:37 PM, mike cole wrote: > > ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard from a > colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > influence on my own life trajectory. > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Jun 12 11:20:53 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:20:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <575da82a.d40e620a.88081.75c0@mx.google.com> David, I posted an article by James Ma who focuses on confluence of multimodal approaches or ways of proceeding. In that article he is fusing micro deductive and macro abductive processes within a cyclical reciprocal modality where each mode (word) (image) *extends* the meaning potential of the other. In that spirit can the micro analysis of scaffolding be brought into play with the ZPD that is occurring over years. I find James Ma?s desire to read Vygotsky *through* Peirce and desire to read Peirce *through* Vygotsky as a compelling message for notions of *extending* through *cycling* each mode (way) through the other mode. James suggests this is an abductive and deductive cycling through each modes *potential for meaning* (meaning potential). Jerome Bruner is now intimately linked to the concept of scaffolding which you are highlighting does not offer a *true* meaning of ZPD. You say this has lead to a *wrong turn* to micro moment by moment semiotic meaning generation (micro-modality) I am gesturing towards listening to Vygotsky who said, ? the individual develops into what he/she is *through* what he/she produces for others?. James Ma suggests this echos Julia Kristeva describing the process of ?absorption and transformation of another?. Is it possible that the notion of scaffolding and the notion of ZDP are notions of micro-modes and more macro-modes that may travel each through the other within multimodal synergy and Peircean cycling? Larry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: David Kellogg Sent: June 10, 2016 4:51 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several counts: a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have not seen evidence of this at all. b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that the child himself is the work in progress. c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between the stimulus and the response"). As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for thinking about the zone of proximal development. I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation of a ready made solution. Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the differentiation of will from affect." What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been scaffolding. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, too, > as a tool for thinking about learning. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > humility. > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > before it became one. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > defended > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > blessed. > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Jessica, > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > and > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > > *as* > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > and > > > culture. > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > *presence*. > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > intuitions > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > > and > > > external presence? > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > intuitions > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > > apt > > > metaphor? > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > faith?. > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > that > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > persons. > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > this > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > guides > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > of > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > phrasing > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > thinking > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > influenced > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education > in > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > almost > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > help > > to > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > now... > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > > Arhus! > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > > Jerome > > > > Bruner w* > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > Vygot**sky > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > *It* > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > jb > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > >> It really does help. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > or > > > >> a personal experience? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Robert Lake > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > admirer > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > > >> volume. > > > >> > > > >> Does that help? > > > >> > > > >> All best wishes. > > > >> > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > >> areas > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > >> Moll, > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > >> > > > >> Helena > > > >> > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > > > >>> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > >>> > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > >> experiences with him. > > > >>>> David > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > > from > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > >>>> mike > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > must > > > be > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Sun Jun 12 11:27:31 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:27:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> , , <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of scaffolding: First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. James _____________________________________________ James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Wiley. PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Lplarry Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and actuality. In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and affordances. (see page 380). Here is a summary. Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean object is the formation of *true meaning*). James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be implied in abduction. For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel towards *multimodal* cognition. In particular word-image complimentarity. James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning *potential* as continuously generated. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of teaching as delivery. ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several counts: a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have not seen evidence of this at all. b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that the child himself is the work in progress. c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between the stimulus and the response"). As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for thinking about the zone of proximal development. I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation of a ready made solution. Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the differentiation of will from affect." What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been scaffolding. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, too, > as a tool for thinking about learning. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial issue > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > humility. > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner was > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell us > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us fictions > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" that > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become hypostatized > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source of > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a narrative. > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > before it became one. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > defended > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said " > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > blessed. > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Jessica, > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > and > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was forming > > *as* > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking where > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > and > > > culture. > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment moving > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s physical > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > *presence*. > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or is > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > intuitions > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both internal > > and > > > external presence? > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > intuitions > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming an > > apt > > > metaphor? > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > faith?. > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and activists > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James says > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > that > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > persons. > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > this > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > guides > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > of > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > phrasing > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > thinking > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > influenced > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education > in > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > almost > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > help > > to > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > now... > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > > > Arhus! > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > > > Jerome > > > > Bruner w* > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > Vygot**sky > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > *It* > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > jb > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > >> It really does help. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > or > > > >> a personal experience? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Robert Lake > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > admirer > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > > > >> volume. > > > >> > > > >> Does that help? > > > >> > > > >> All best wishes. > > > >> > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > >> areas > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > >> Moll, > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > >> > > > >> Helena > > > >> > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg] Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole vimeo.com Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where there is a better copy of this movie. > > > >>> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > >>> > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > >> experiences with him. > > > >>>> David > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > >>>> > > > >>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > > > from > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > >>>> mike > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > must > > > be > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 04:16:02 2016 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:16:02 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Does someone have 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 so I can use it in my special education classes? I still did not found it and it is not available even in BBC websites. Can someone upload it at vimeo or something like that? Thanks Wagner From smago@uga.edu Tue Jun 14 05:47:44 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:47:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Here's the best I can do on this request.....p From: Carla W Buss Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:32 AM To: Peter Smagorinsky Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 Hi, Peter. Alas, no. I searched in the Special Collections database, Films on Demand & Kanopy, in addition to GIL, but we don't have it. I did find it on WorldCat and Cleveland State Univ has it, but it appears to be a video, so maybe it can't even be played? Sorry to disappoint. BTW, appreciated your article on unisex restrooms. cwb Carla Wilson Buss, MLS Curriculum Materials & Education Librarian Curriculum Materials Library 207 Aderhold Hall University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 706.542.2996 Fax: 706.583.0764 cbuss@uga.edu ________________________________ From: Peter Smagorinsky Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:28:26 AM To: Carla W Buss Subject: FW: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 Carla, is this film in our curriculum library? Thx,p -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Wagner Luiz Schmit Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:16 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 Dear colleagues, Does someone have 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 so I can use it in my special education classes? I still did not found it and it is not available even in BBC websites. Can someone upload it at vimeo or something like that? Thanks Wagner From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 05:51:09 2016 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:51:09 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the try Peter =) Wagner On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Here's the best I can do on this request.....p > > From: Carla W Buss > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:32 AM > To: Peter Smagorinsky > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 > > > Hi, Peter. Alas, no. I searched in the Special Collections database, Films > on Demand & Kanopy, in addition to GIL, but we don't have it. I did find it > on WorldCat and Cleveland State Univ has it, but it appears to be a video, > so maybe it can't even be played? Sorry to disappoint. BTW, appreciated > your article on unisex restrooms. cwb > > > Carla Wilson Buss, MLS > Curriculum Materials & Education Librarian > Curriculum Materials Library > 207 Aderhold Hall > University of Georgia > Athens, GA 30602 > 706.542.2996 > Fax: 706.583.0764 > cbuss@uga.edu > ________________________________ > From: Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:28:26 AM > To: Carla W Buss > Subject: FW: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 > > Carla, is this film in our curriculum library? Thx,p > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > On Behalf Of Wagner Luiz Schmit > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:16 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 > > Dear colleagues, > > Does someone have 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 so I can use it > in my special education classes? I still did not found it and it is not > available even in BBC websites. > > Can someone upload it at vimeo or something like that? > > Thanks > > Wagner > From smago@uga.edu Tue Jun 14 09:54:22 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:54:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: National Youth-At-Risk Journal: New Issue & Call for Submissions/Reviewers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A relatively new journal that some might find an outlet for their work: From: czinskie@georgiasouthern.edu [mailto:czinskie@georgiasouthern.edu] On Behalf Of NYAR Journal Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:01 PM To: NYAR Journal Subject: National Youth-At-Risk Journal: New Issue & Call for Submissions/Reviewers Dear Education Faculty, You are invited to read the recently published Spring 2016 issue of the open-access online National Youth-At-Risk Journal, a publication of the College of Education at Georgia Southern University. Our second issue includes articles on the following topics: ? Overview of practitioner research including potential to empower practitioners and the youth they serve ? Origins of multicultural education and advice for White teachers teaching in a diverse setting ? Use of media products (e.g., videos, comic book) as therapy for adjudicated youth ? Risk factors for sexual violence during adolescence For more information, see http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/nyar/ We also encourage you to submit manuscripts to the journal on how to reduce harmful risk conditions and promote the well-being of all youth, especially vulnerable youth in schools, families, and communities. For our Fall, 2016 issue, we are seeking articles on all topics related to our journal mission; our Spring, 2017 issue will be a themed issue on "Helping Students and Schools in Poverty." For more information, see http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/nyar/policies.html We are also seeking additional reviewers for the journal, especially individuals with expertise in school counseling, school psychology, educational research/psychology, and physical/mental health. Please contact us at nyarjournal@georgiasouthern.edu for more information. Finally, we encourage you to submit a conference proposal for the 2017 National Youth-At-Risk Conference, March 5?8, in Savannah, Georgia. The proposal submission deadline is August 14, 2016. For more information, see http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/nyar_savannah/ Best regards, Cordelia Zinskie, Editor National Youth-At-Risk Journal [Inline image 1] -- ************************************************************************** Dr. Cordelia Zinskie, Editor National Youth-At-Risk Journal College of Education Georgia Southern University nyarjournal@georgiasouthern.edu ************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 10513 bytes Desc: image001.png Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160614/503bd076/attachment.png From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 14 09:55:16 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:55:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion: Prototyping proshetic devices and much more :-) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Please excuse the delay in "setting free" the article for discussion this month: *The Prototyping Mind: Rethinking Perception Affordances and the Mediation of Cultural Artifacts. T*he paper by Zaza Kabayadondo. The abstract reads as follows: ******** This article focuses on a prototyping session during which 6 Zimbabwean medical professionals design a prosthetic device. Prototyping helps the team determine which features must be built into the prosthetic, amplifies tensions between team members, and puts on display the kinds of futures they imagine. I use the state of disrepair of the team?s prototyping materials to tease out the distinct layers of perceptual reasoning that are instilled in cultural artifacts. An appreciation of the global flows of cultural artifacts lends complexity to the framework of ?affordances? and ?mediation? employed in the study and design of tools for learning. ********* It seems to hit upon a number of recent themes discussed among us. You can obtain your free copy at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current#.V2A0fvkrJaU ?By all means feel free to distribute that url and invite potentially interested people to join the discussion. They can do that here : ?http://lchc.ucsd.edu/xmca Summer is upon us here in the northern hemisphere, but that leaves a world of possibilities for discussion by those form whom the days have grown shorter as locally they have grown longer. Your thoughts? mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 14 10:50:22 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:50:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vygotskian Passage Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does anybody know if that really exists and if so where. Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. Michael From joe.glick@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:09:34 2016 From: joe.glick@gmail.com (JAG) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is a full length version on YouTube, but it's in Portugese. It's also offered by several (for pay) streaming services. On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Does someone have 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 so I can use it in > my special education classes? I still did not found it and it is > not available even in BBC websites. > > Can someone upload it at vimeo or something like that? > > Thanks > > Wagner > From bella.kotik@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:35:38 2016 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:35:38 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: I remember a picture from Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a > passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between villages, I > think to deliver messages. He uses some type of external symbol system, > maybe tying strings around his finger. Does anybody know if that really > exists and if so where. > > Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. > > Michael > > From bella.kotik@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 11:45:56 2016 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:45:56 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. p.301 Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a > passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between villages, I > think to deliver messages. He uses some type of external symbol system, > maybe tying strings around his finger. Does anybody know if that really > exists and if so where. > > Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. > > Michael > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: quipu.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 43669 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160614/bf2bdbf4/attachment.bin From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 14 12:32:54 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:32:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was definitely along the same lines. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. p.301 Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a > passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between > villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of external > symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does anybody > know if that really exists and if so where. > > Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. > > Michael > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 13:35:54 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:35:54 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael: I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.htm See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBszwNgSy-0GoAfM David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was definitely > along the same lines. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The development > Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. > p.301 > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > > > I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a > > passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between > > villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of external > > symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does anybody > > know if that really exists and if so where. > > > > Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. > > > > Michael > > > > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 14 13:49:19 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:49:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> David, Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. Thanks so much, Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage Michael: I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.htm See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBszwNgSy-0GoAfM David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was > definitely along the same lines. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The development > Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. > p.301 > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael > > wrote: > > > > > I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a > > passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between > > villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of > > external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does > > anybody know if that really exists and if so where. > > > > Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. > > > > Michael > > > > > > From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 15:34:53 2016 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:34:53 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Joe Wagner On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:09 AM, JAG wrote: > There is a full length version on YouTube, but it's in Portugese. It's also > offered by several (for pay) streaming services. > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit < > wagner.schmit@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Does someone have 'The Butterflies of Zagorsk' from 1990 so I can use it > in > > my special education classes? I still did not found it and it is > > not available even in BBC websites. > > > > Can someone upload it at vimeo or something like that? > > > > Thanks > > > > Wagner > > > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 14 18:36:36 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:36:36 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> This also has material about sending messages: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm (especially the last few paragraphs) Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > David, > > Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. > > Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. > > Thanks so much, > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > Michael: > > I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.htm > > See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). > > By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBszwNgSy-0GoAfM > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >> definitely along the same lines. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The development >> Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >> p.301 >> >> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>> >>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >> > From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Jun 14 23:29:24 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:29:24 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Interesting! I read paragraph 118 in David?s link to the reading where Vygotsky describes some of Arseniev?s observations of indigenous functional systems in the far reaches of Russia?s east and have watched about half an hour of the Kursowa film that David also gives a link for, Dersu the Trapper. According to Wikipedia, the film is in Russian, but the link is to the film dubbed in Spanish and subtitled in English. The dubbed voice of Dersu is in a very proper Castillian Spanish, a prestige dialect of Spanish, but the subtitles are a sort of stereotypically piginized variety of English, not unlike the speech of Tonto in epoisodes of the Lone Ranger. The subtitles were a clumsy, but effective, way to portray the speech of an indigenous person able to communicate with the Russians, just right for an English reading audience. One wonders if Spanish-speaking listeners were at least a little puzzled by Dersu sounding more like Don Quijote than Sancho Panza. We have lots of Native Americans here in New Mexico, among them the Pueblos. In 1680, the Pueblos banded staged an uprising against Spanish soldiers, settlers and priests, who had been doing their best to get rich and save souls since their arrival in the ?New World? over a century earlier. The uprising was a great success, because each of the Pueblos, often hundreds of miles from each other, began the action on exactly the same day. How did they synchronize the action?: Knots in a rope carried by Pueblo runners from Pueblo to Pueblo in advance of the uprising. The runners undid a knot each day and each Pueblo they visited would ?copy? the rope. On the day there were no knots in either the original or the copies, the attack started. The Spanish came back later and re-established their order within a hundred years, but the Pueblo rebellion was a proud moment in the history of New Mexico. Functional systems at work. Henry > On Jun 14, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > David, > > Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. > > Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. > > Thanks so much, > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > Michael: > > I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.htm > > See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). > > By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBszwNgSy-0GoAfM > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >> definitely along the same lines. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The development >> Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >> p.301 >> >> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>> >>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >> >> > From glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Jun 15 04:48:04 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:48:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Thanks Andy, Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage This also has material about sending messages: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm (especially the last few paragraphs) Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > David, > > Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. > > Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. > > Thanks so much, > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > Michael: > > I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h > tm > > See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). > > By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs > zwNgSy-0GoAfM > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael > > wrote: > >> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >> definitely along the same lines. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >> p.301 >> >> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>> >>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Wed Jun 15 04:52:38 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:52:38 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net> I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how far back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change our *conception* of memory. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Andy, > > Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > This also has material about sending messages: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm > (especially the last few paragraphs) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> David, >> >> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >> >> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. >> >> Thanks so much, >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> Michael: >> >> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >> tm >> >> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >> >> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >>> definitely along the same lines. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >>> p.301 >>> >>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> From ablunden@mira.net Wed Jun 15 05:00:28 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:00:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net> Message-ID: <9c0b5d66-4fda-7f34-f5ef-909f2d26179c@mira.net> Sorry, I meant in terms of analogous "technology". ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 9:52 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how > far back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of > analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change > our *conception* of memory. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Thanks Andy, >> >> Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev >> anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder >> if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of >> memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory >> at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and >> access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory >> is changing again. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of >> Andy Blunden >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> This also has material about sending messages: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm >> >> (especially the last few paragraphs) >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> >> On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this >>> description with the strings used for memory described >>> by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >>> >>> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I >>> wish they could all be answered so quickly. >>> >>> Thanks so much, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of >>> David Kellogg >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> Michael: >>> >>> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that >>> Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's >>> on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you >>> can read it here: >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >>> >>> tm >>> >>> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in >>> "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >>> >>> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with >>> Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa >>> made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see >>> here. >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >>> >>> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I >>>> remember, was >>>> definitely along the same lines. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella >>>> Kotik-Friedgut >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>>> >>>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical >>>> development of higher forms of memory. >>>> p.301 >>>> >>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem >>>>> to remember a >>>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person >>>>> going between >>>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some >>>>> type of >>>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his >>>>> finger. Does >>>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> > > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Wed Jun 15 09:32:30 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:32:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net> Message-ID: Just to add that memory is also unreliable. In general, the human mind is only capable of remembering the nub of something and at the same time tends to confabulate the details of that something when recalling. Semiotically speaking, each time we recall something, our memory is mediated by those already confabulated details - which leads to a further distorted interpretation. Peirce's semiosis is relevant here. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 15 June 2016 12:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how far back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change our *conception* of memory. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Andy, > > Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > This also has material about sending messages: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm > (especially the last few paragraphs) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> David, >> >> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >> >> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. >> >> Thanks so much, >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> Michael: >> >> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >> tm >> >> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >> >> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >>> definitely along the same lines. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >>> p.301 >>> >>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> From glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Jun 15 10:02:48 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:02:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net>, Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0DF23@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> But James, Is this true in light of information technologies. Information never dies on the Internet, and it is never confabulated. It is basically constant. We seem to be having trouble with this as a society because the transition has been so fast. I wonder if before external semiotic symbols memory was stored in a shaman or a story teller. Nobody could question memory because the keeper of memories was the only source. With external semiotic symbols memory started to be kept in the external narrative. But the gatekeepers became those who wrote or reported the narratives. People depended on experts and there was really no way to challenge this. Dewey has written some real interesting stuff on this. As we become more used to external symbols becoming more continuous because they are both more accessible and as I mentioned they are constant there is a growing change I think in who and or what we choose to mediate our memories. In many cases we mediate them ourselves. This is really showing up in the US election in a number of interesting and strange ways. So how does Pierce's ideas on semiosis apply when there are no mediating force and there is much less of a battle over the actual external symbols that are representative of our memories? Michael d From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) [james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:32 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage Just to add that memory is also unreliable. In general, the human mind is only capable of remembering the nub of something and at the same time tends to confabulate the details of that something when recalling. Semiotically speaking, each time we recall something, our memory is mediated by those already confabulated details - which leads to a further distorted interpretation. Peirce's semiosis is relevant here. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 15 June 2016 12:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how far back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change our *conception* of memory. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Andy, > > Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > This also has material about sending messages: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm > (especially the last few paragraphs) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> David, >> >> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >> >> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. >> >> Thanks so much, >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> Michael: >> >> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >> tm >> >> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >> >> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >>> definitely along the same lines. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >>> p.301 >>> >>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Thu Jun 16 02:03:28 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:03:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0DF23@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net>, , <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0DF23@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for your comments, Michael. This is my take on: when dealing with the outpouring of information technologies, the omnipotence of one's perception and free will cannot be discounted, however fast the "transition" may be in terms of semiotic stimuli encountered in the environment. Perception is always interpretative, tied to the social, cultural and historical situations in which an individual finds himself. Despite the "thrown-ness" of one's existence into such situations (as Heidegger would say), one's perception is always selective in virtue of free will. The human mind is by nature mediated and mediating, in which case I believe Peirce's iconicity does apply. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Glassman, Michael Sent: 15 June 2016 18:02 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage But James, Is this true in light of information technologies. Information never dies on the Internet, and it is never confabulated. It is basically constant. We seem to be having trouble with this as a society because the transition has been so fast. I wonder if before external semiotic symbols memory was stored in a shaman or a story teller. Nobody could question memory because the keeper of memories was the only source. With external semiotic symbols memory started to be kept in the external narrative. But the gatekeepers became those who wrote or reported the narratives. People depended on experts and there was really no way to challenge this. Dewey has written some real interesting stuff on this. As we become more used to external symbols becoming more continuous because they are both more accessible and as I mentioned they are constant there is a growing change I think in who and or what we choose to mediate our memories. In many cases we mediate them ourselves. This is really showing up in the US election in a number of interesting and strange ways. So how does Pierce's ideas on semiosis apply when there are no mediating force and there is much less of a battle over the actual external symbols that are representative of our memories? Michael d From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) [james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:32 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage Just to add that memory is also unreliable. In general, the human mind is only capable of remembering the nub of something and at the same time tends to confabulate the details of that something when recalling. Semiotically speaking, each time we recall something, our memory is mediated by those already confabulated details - which leads to a further distorted interpretation. Peirce's semiosis is relevant here. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 15 June 2016 12:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how far back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change our *conception* of memory. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Andy, > > Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > This also has material about sending messages: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm > (especially the last few paragraphs) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> David, >> >> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >> >> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. >> >> Thanks so much, >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> Michael: >> >> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >> tm >> >> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >> >> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >>> definitely along the same lines. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >>> p.301 >>> >>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Thu Jun 16 03:18:25 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:18:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0DF23@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0DF23@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: "Information never dies on the Internet, and it is never confabulated." A brief look at the debate about Britain leaving the EU would suggest that information is fabulously confabulated on the internet all the time. Rob On 15/06/2016 18:02, Glassman, Michael wrote: > But James, > > Is this true in light of information technologies. Information never dies on the Internet, and it is never confabulated. It is basically constant. We seem to be having trouble with this as a society because the transition has been so fast. > > I wonder if before external semiotic symbols memory was stored in a shaman or a story teller. Nobody could question memory because the keeper of memories was the only source. > > With external semiotic symbols memory started to be kept in the external narrative. But the gatekeepers became those who wrote or reported the narratives. People depended on experts and there was really no way to challenge this. Dewey has written some real interesting stuff on this. > > As we become more used to external symbols becoming more continuous because they are both more accessible and as I mentioned they are constant there is a growing change I think in who and or what we choose to mediate our memories. In many cases we mediate them ourselves. This is really showing up in the US election in a number of interesting and strange ways. > > So how does Pierce's ideas on semiosis apply when there are no mediating force and there is much less of a battle over the actual external symbols that are representative of our memories? > > Michael > > > > > > > d > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) [james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:32 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > Just to add that memory is also unreliable. In general, the human mind is only capable of remembering the nub of something and at the same time tends to confabulate the details of that something when recalling. Semiotically speaking, each time we recall something, our memory is mediated by those already confabulated details - which leads to a further distorted interpretation. Peirce's semiosis is relevant here. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 15 June 2016 12:52 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how far > back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of > analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change our > *conception* of memory. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > Andy Blunden's Home Page > home.mira.net > Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Thanks Andy, >> >> Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> This also has material about sending messages: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm >> (especially the last few paragraphs) >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >>> >>> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. >>> >>> Thanks so much, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> Michael: >>> >>> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >>> tm >>> >>> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >>> >>> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >>> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >>>> definitely along the same lines. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>>> >>>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >>>> p.301 >>>> >>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Jun 16 06:36:20 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:36:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CCC3@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD05@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CD35@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <521795b2-43bd-9046-8b32-037e98c2d742@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0CE18@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <9cb5147e-11c7-5b70-ca28-de0fbcba6b85@mira.net>, , <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C0DF23@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5762ab7b.d056620a.c90ec.33a1@mx.google.com> James, could you elaborate on the notion of (free will) in semiosis as *marking* phenomena. (the root of semiosis). In particular in relation to perception as (intentional) and perception as (attentional) processes. Michael, your comment on *shamans* who kept memory alive must include the way shamans also brought new emerging meaning to the people through abductive semiosis. As I read James Ma?s Peirce (my way of saying how James has incorporated Peirce into his personal way of perceiving/interpreting Peircean concepts as his own) I read how James is developing his *mind?s eye*. This mind?s eye is interpretive all the way down. (turtles all the way down). I am fuzzy and vague on this particular abductive intuition, but send it *out* for deeper multimodal elaboration distributed through our (mind?s eye). Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: June 16, 2016 2:06 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage Thanks for your comments, Michael. This is my take on: when dealing with the outpouring of information technologies, the omnipotence of one's perception and free will cannot be discounted, however fast the "transition" may be in terms of semiotic stimuli encountered in the environment. Perception is always interpretative, tied to the social, cultural and historical situations in which an individual finds himself. Despite the "thrown-ness" of one's existence into such situations (as Heidegger would say), one's perception is always selective in virtue of free will. The human mind is by nature mediated and mediating, in which case I believe Peirce's iconicity does apply. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Glassman, Michael Sent: 15 June 2016 18:02 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage But James, Is this true in light of information technologies. Information never dies on the Internet, and it is never confabulated. It is basically constant. We seem to be having trouble with this as a society because the transition has been so fast. I wonder if before external semiotic symbols memory was stored in a shaman or a story teller. Nobody could question memory because the keeper of memories was the only source. With external semiotic symbols memory started to be kept in the external narrative. But the gatekeepers became those who wrote or reported the narratives. People depended on experts and there was really no way to challenge this. Dewey has written some real interesting stuff on this. As we become more used to external symbols becoming more continuous because they are both more accessible and as I mentioned they are constant there is a growing change I think in who and or what we choose to mediate our memories. In many cases we mediate them ourselves. This is really showing up in the US election in a number of interesting and strange ways. So how does Pierce's ideas on semiosis apply when there are no mediating force and there is much less of a battle over the actual external symbols that are representative of our memories? Michael d From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) [james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:32 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage Just to add that memory is also unreliable. In general, the human mind is only capable of remembering the nub of something and at the same time tends to confabulate the details of that something when recalling. Semiotically speaking, each time we recall something, our memory is mediated by those already confabulated details - which leads to a further distorted interpretation. Peirce's semiosis is relevant here. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 15 June 2016 12:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage I think our *memory* would change. And I don't know how far back our way of conceiving of human powers in terms of analogous human powers goes, but I guess it would change our *conception* of memory. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 15/06/2016 9:48 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Andy, > > Interesting, maybe that's why I merged the Arseniev anecdote and the use of strings to aid memory. I wonder if when we developed semiotic mediators conception of memory changed (of course nobody thought of it as memory at the time), and if now with new types of storage of and access to semiotic mediators if our conception of memory is changing again. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:37 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage > > This also has material about sending messages: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ch04.htm > (especially the last few paragraphs) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 15/06/2016 6:49 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> David, >> >> Yes, I think that's it. I must have been merging this description with the strings used for memory described by Leontiev Bella pointed to. >> >> Thanks so much, this solves one mystery in my life. I wish they could all be answered so quickly. >> >> Thanks so much, >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:36 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >> >> Michael: >> >> I think you are actually thinking of an incident that Vygotsky describes from the work of V.K. Arsen'ev. It's on p. 50 of Vol. Four of the Collected Works, and you can read it here: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.h >> tm >> >> See paragraph 118. There's also a footnote about it in "Concrete Psychology" (see number 14). >> >> By some accounts, Vygosky was in correspondence with Arsen'ev, who wrote "Dersu the Trapper". Akira Kurasawa made this book into a wonderful movie, which you can see here. >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYxy2HkpJ0&list=PL0dYx2N3BTuRcLGyHXBs >> zwNgSy-0GoAfM >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Bella. The passage I remember, or think I remember, was >>> definitely along the same lines. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:46 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotskian Passage >>> >>> The picture attached is from the book of Leontiev A.N. The >>> development Mind of a chapter on the historical development of higher forms of memory. >>> p.301 >>> >>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Glassman, Michael >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if somebody might be able to help me. I seem to remember a >>>> passage from Vygotsky where he describes a person going between >>>> villages, I think to deliver messages. He uses some type of >>>> external symbol system, maybe tying strings around his finger. Does >>>> anybody know if that really exists and if so where. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance to anybody who might be able to help. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 16 17:12:05 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:12:05 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Prototyping in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Hello Out There in Very Busy Land I thought I would start the discussion with a question of clarification, since Zaza is participating in the discussion. She's the expert. Zaza- I am having difficulty interpreting Figures 2 and 3. I can follow the text, but cannot make the figures work for me. I know for sure I want to understand better what you are calling scaffolding. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the use of the concept particularly when scaffolding is seen as a synonym for zone of proximal development. But first, could you explain Figures 2 and 3 in a way that will allow me understand you fully. I am not sure what threads will or will not grow from the paper. It touches on a lot of concerns voiced at one time or another in the past year on xmca. c u here mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jun 17 03:34:51 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:34:51 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: James: I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > scaffolding: > > > First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > > > Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > > Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > > > James > > > > _____________________________________________ > James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > > Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > Wiley. > > > PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > > Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > actuality. > In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > affordances. (see page 380). > Here is a summary. > > Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > object is the formation of *true meaning*). > James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > > The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > implied in abduction. > For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > towards *multimodal* cognition. > In particular word-image complimentarity. > James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > > This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > *potential* as continuously generated. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > teaching as delivery. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > counts: > > a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > not seen evidence of this at all. > > b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > the child himself is the work in progress. > > c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > the stimulus and the response"). > > As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > > I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > thinking about the zone of proximal development. > > I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > of a ready made solution. > > Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > > Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > > ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > > "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > differentiation of will from affect." > > What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > scaffolding. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > wrote: > > > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > too, > > as a tool for thinking about learning. > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > issue > > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > > humility. > > > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > was > > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > us > > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > fictions > > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > that > > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > hypostatized > > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > of > > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > narrative. > > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > > before it became one. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > > defended > > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > " > > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > > blessed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > Jessica, > > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > > and > > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > forming > > > *as* > > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > where > > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > > and > > > > culture. > > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > moving > > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > physical > > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > > *presence*. > > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > is > > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > > intuitions > > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > internal > > > and > > > > external presence? > > > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > > intuitions > > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > an > > > apt > > > > metaphor? > > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > > faith?. > > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > activists > > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > says > > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > > that > > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > > persons. > > > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > > this > > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > > guides > > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > and > > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > > of > > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > > phrasing > > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > > thinking > > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > > influenced > > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > education > > in > > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > > almost > > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > > help > > > to > > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > > now... > > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > in > > > > Arhus! > > > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > wi**th > > > > Jerome > > > > > Bruner w* > > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > > Vygot**sky > > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > > *It* > > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > > jb > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > > >> It really does help. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > > or > > > > >> a personal experience? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Robert Lake > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > Hanfmann > > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > book > > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > with > > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > > admirer > > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > Vygotskian > > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > Vygotsky > > > > >> volume. > > > > >> > > > > >> Does that help? > > > > >> > > > > >> All best wishes. > > > > >> > > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > > >> > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > > >> areas > > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > > >> Moll, > > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > > >> > > > > >> Helena > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > > Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > vimeo.com > Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > there is a better copy of this movie. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > >>> > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > > >> experiences with him. > > > > >>>> David > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > > cole > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > heard > > > > from > > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > fundamental > > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > > >>>> mike > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > > Associate Professor > > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > > must > > > > be > > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 17 03:59:17 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:59:17 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] semiotics / language In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <79c20514-a395-b17b-c272-c4ce424278d0@mira.net> David, I am no fan of either Barthes nor Saussure, but I interpret this odd claim somewhat like this: Barthes asks you not to see the relationship in a formal, set-theoretic way, but rather in terms of activities and how we use and understand them. We come to reflect on Semiotics as beings already imbued with, indeed produced by language; we learn its principles through language and appropriate them as a special activity as linguistic beings. Semiotics is a specialised activity, which some linguists engage in. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 17/06/2016 8:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > ... > I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with > meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. > Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Jun 17 07:00:08 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:00:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <57640290.42e3420a.80424.3ea8@mx.google.com> David, This way of composing three (zones) The invisible zone, the transitional zone, and the visible or phenomenal zone creates a mental image that is very helpful. The transitional zone implies a medial position as a place where mediation and meaning (significance) as *potential* exists. Can this medial place be the place James Ma is elucidating using Peirce?s concept of (abduction) where hypothesis originate? I am way over my head hear, but find this response to James resonates and produces my wondering ways Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: David Kellogg Sent: June 17, 2016 3:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died James: I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > scaffolding: > > > First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > > > Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > > Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > > > James > > > > _____________________________________________ > James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > > Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > Wiley. > > > PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > > Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > actuality. > In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > affordances. (see page 380). > Here is a summary. > > Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > object is the formation of *true meaning*). > James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > > The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > implied in abduction. > For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > towards *multimodal* cognition. > In particular word-image complimentarity. > James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > > This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > *potential* as continuously generated. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > teaching as delivery. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > counts: > > a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > not seen evidence of this at all. > > b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > the child himself is the work in progress. > > c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > the stimulus and the response"). > > As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > > I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > thinking about the zone of proximal development. > > I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > of a ready made solution. > > Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > > Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > > ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > > "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > differentiation of will from affect." > > What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > scaffolding. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > wrote: > > > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > too, > > as a tool for thinking about learning. > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > issue > > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > > humility. > > > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > was > > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > us > > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > fictions > > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > that > > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > hypostatized > > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > of > > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > narrative. > > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > > before it became one. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jun 17 09:37:58 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:37:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <57640290.42e3420a.80424.3ea8@mx.google.com> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57640290.42e3420a.80424.3ea8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hard to argue with the power of three's, Larry! mike On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Lplarry wrote: > David, > This way of composing three (zones) > The invisible zone, the transitional zone, and the visible or phenomenal > zone creates a mental image that is very helpful. > The transitional zone implies a medial position as a place where mediation > and meaning (significance) as *potential* exists. > > Can this medial place be the place James Ma is elucidating using Peirce?s > concept of (abduction) where hypothesis originate? > I am way over my head hear, but find this response to James resonates and > produces my wondering ways > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: David Kellogg > Sent: June 17, 2016 3:37 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > James: > > I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as > involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as > you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the > visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth > graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large > blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming > a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading > and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher > teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long > text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then > stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections > blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing > blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell > and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids > are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not > allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is > really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but > reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to > INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from > interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes > (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of > proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature > functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of > dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. > > I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final > solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the > difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. > > I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with > meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. > Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > > scaffolding: > > > > > > First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > > resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and > of > > which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > > mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > > but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > > reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > > expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > > novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > > course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > > > > > > Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > > as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > > experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > > novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is > no > > point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > > ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > > realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding > based > > on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > > semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > > > > Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > > Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > > Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a > tour > > d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > > modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > > the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > > extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic > construction. > > In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > > language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be > cast > > into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between > linguistics > > and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > > explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > > https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > > > > NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > > > > Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > > British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > > > Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > > semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother > and > > child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > > Wiley. > > > > > > PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > > > > > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > > > > > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Lplarry > > Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > > To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > > development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > > actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > > knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > > > > Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > > human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > > of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > > actuality. > > In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > > (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > > concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints > and > > affordances. (see page 380). > > Here is a summary. > > > > Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > > The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > > process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic > action. > > That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > > PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > > object is the formation of *true meaning*). > > James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > > hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > > *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > > > > The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > > implied in abduction. > > For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated > is > > a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > > meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > > generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > > I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > > podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > > towards *multimodal* cognition. > > In particular word-image complimentarity. > > James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language > in > > cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > > language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > > James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > > language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal > semiosis. > > > > This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > > *potential* as continuously generated. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > > teaching as delivery. > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > > counts: > > > > a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear > to > > me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford > and > > Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > > not seen evidence of this at all. > > > > b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is > describing. > > This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > > that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > > the child himself is the work in progress. > > > > c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > > influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by > the > > hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > > Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > > which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > > disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > > which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > > the stimulus and the response"). > > > > As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > > Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > > aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > > > > I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I > don't > > agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > > much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > > thinking about the zone of proximal development. > > > > I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but > nobody > > else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > > assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > > and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > > of a ready made solution. > > > > Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > > at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > > material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will > be > > very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > > is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > > line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > > before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > > factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > > impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them > to > > emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > > editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > > from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > > also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied > Vienna). > > On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > > Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > > "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > > the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > > > > Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > > Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > > Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears > to > > take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > > (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > > unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > > Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But > it > > seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > > Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I > think > > we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > > the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > > ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > > appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > > actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't > really > > care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > > > > ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? > ??????? > > ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > > ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > > ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? > ?? > > ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? > ????????. > > ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > > ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > > > > "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > > behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the > volitional > > behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > > affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > > behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting > contrary > > to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical > phenomenon > > where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > > differentiation of will from affect." > > > > What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > > beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > > development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > > it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of > development > > for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > > scaffolding. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > wrote: > > > > > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > > > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > > > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > > too, > > > as a tool for thinking about learning. > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] > > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > > > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > > > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > > > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > > issue > > > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > > > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > > > humility. > > > > > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > > > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not > his > > > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think > that > > > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > > was > > > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > > us > > > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > > fictions > > > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > > that > > > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > > > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > > hypostatized > > > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > > > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > > > > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was > prone > > > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very > source > > of > > > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > > narrative. > > > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what > happened > > > before it became one. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jun 19 14:12:02 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:12:02 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: semiotics / language In-Reply-To: <79c20514-a395-b17b-c272-c4ce424278d0@mira.net> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <79c20514-a395-b17b-c272-c4ce424278d0@mira.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Andy. I am a critical fan of both men. Your interpretation of Barthes I recognize like an garrulous old friend who likes to give outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights: semiotics is an overgeneralization of linguistics that is the exclusive preserve of well-tenured linguists. Maybe if poor old Roland had simply had a formal, set-theoretic way of understanding the relationship he would have been paying more attention to iconicity on his way home from the cinema and wouldn't have gotten hit by that laundry truck. Saussure is a little different. I too have struggled with his crude, associative psychology, his war on history, and above all his concept of "l'arbitraire". But in my dotage I have made some peace with the latter. First of all, it's one of those false friends they warn you about in French class;it only means "arbitrary" in English; in French it really just means "conventional"; that is, cultural. Secondly, it's just a way of saying that a meaning can, in theory, have any sound at all in a given language, and this is what makes all languages equal in their meaning potential--so in meaning potential all cultures are intellectually equivalent, and Mike's problem of whether college professors think like children is solved. Thirdly, it it only applies at a single point--the line that separates wording from sounding, not the line that separates wording from meaning. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > David, I am no fan of either Barthes nor Saussure, but I interpret this > odd claim somewhat like this: Barthes asks you not to see the relationship > in a formal, set-theoretic way, but rather in terms of activities and how > we use and understand them. We come to reflect on Semiotics as beings > already imbued with, indeed produced by language; we learn its principles > through language and appropriate them as a special activity as linguistic > beings. Semiotics is a specialised activity, which some linguists engage in. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 17/06/2016 8:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> ... >> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Jun 19 16:09:45 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:09:45 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: semiotics / language In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <79c20514-a395-b17b-c272-c4ce424278d0@mira.net> Message-ID: David, I'm curious as to why you say l'arbitraire does not apply to the line that separates (connects?) wording and meaning? -greg On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:12 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Thanks, Andy. I am a critical fan of both men. Your interpretation of > Barthes I recognize like an garrulous old friend who likes to give > outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights: > semiotics is an overgeneralization of linguistics that is the exclusive > preserve of well-tenured linguists. Maybe if poor old Roland had simply had > a formal, set-theoretic way of understanding the relationship he would have > been paying more attention to iconicity on his way home from the cinema and > wouldn't have gotten hit by that laundry truck. > > Saussure is a little different. I too have struggled with his crude, > associative psychology, his war on history, and above all his concept of > "l'arbitraire". But in my dotage I have made some peace with the latter. > First of all, it's one of those false friends they warn you about in French > class;it only means "arbitrary" in English; in French it really just means > "conventional"; that is, cultural. Secondly, it's just a way of saying that > a meaning can, in theory, have any sound at all in a given language, and > this is what makes all languages equal in their meaning potential--so in > meaning potential all cultures are intellectually equivalent, and Mike's > problem of whether college professors think like children is solved. > Thirdly, it it only applies at a single point--the line that separates > wording from sounding, not the line that separates wording from meaning. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > David, I am no fan of either Barthes nor Saussure, but I interpret this > > odd claim somewhat like this: Barthes asks you not to see the > relationship > > in a formal, set-theoretic way, but rather in terms of activities and how > > we use and understand them. We come to reflect on Semiotics as beings > > already imbued with, indeed produced by language; we learn its principles > > through language and appropriate them as a special activity as linguistic > > beings. Semiotics is a specialised activity, which some linguists engage > in. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 17/06/2016 8:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > >> ... > >> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > >> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal > with > >> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not > linguistic. > >> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jun 19 18:20:58 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:20:58 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: semiotics / language In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <79c20514-a395-b17b-c272-c4ce424278d0@mira.net> Message-ID: It's a very good question, and like most questions, the answer is not really yes or no, but "~ish". That is, the link between wording and meaning is natural-ish, but the link between wording and sounding is conventional-ish. It seems to me that the structure of wording is to a very large degree functionally determined. So for example nouns take number but not tense, and verbs take tense (they sometimes take number too, but the fact that they don't always and the fact that they do it in such a half-hearted way, e.g. the 's' on the third person singular, suggests that number is not an essential function for verbs). Similarly, imperatives can't take the third person. Why not? There's a good functional reason (you have to talk to people when you want goods and services from them). That means that it's natural. Now, Raymond Williams used to really object to Halliday using the term natural at this point. Here's an example of one of their public confrontations on this point (and you can see, in Halliday's response, why I think he is an exceptionally nice guy). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjlS66XJ1Bs When I first met Halliday in Japan I made a very similar mistake, but now I think Halliday is right. I think that the wording/meaning interface is natural in the sense that for example legs are naturally evolved for walking and not for flying, and swim bladders in fish are naturally evolved for surfacing and diving and not for breathing oxygen. Sure, we've got some conventional aspects, but these are largely exceptions that prove the rule:, e.g. when we use statements or questions to give commands and commands to ask questions (Tell me about...). The fact that these are grammatical metaphors, non-canonical uses of wording, shows that the basic interface between meaning and wording is natural. Imperatives have naturally evolved to get goods and services (and so they focus on the process of giving and getting and not on the participants which are taken for granted), declaratives have naturally evolved to give information (and so they include more context than commands), and interrogatives have naturally evolved to get information (and so they have an incompleteness that is reflected in their modality and in their intonation). (Note that there are also natural aspects of the sounding/wording interface as well--intonation is one. The way we sound angry when we are angry and sad when we are sad is natural, but the way we sound nice in a language may not be.) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > David, > I'm curious as to why you say l'arbitraire does not apply to the line that > separates (connects?) wording and meaning? > -greg > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:12 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Thanks, Andy. I am a critical fan of both men. Your interpretation of > > Barthes I recognize like an garrulous old friend who likes to give > > outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights: > > semiotics is an overgeneralization of linguistics that is the exclusive > > preserve of well-tenured linguists. Maybe if poor old Roland had simply > had > > a formal, set-theoretic way of understanding the relationship he would > have > > been paying more attention to iconicity on his way home from the cinema > and > > wouldn't have gotten hit by that laundry truck. > > > > Saussure is a little different. I too have struggled with his crude, > > associative psychology, his war on history, and above all his concept of > > "l'arbitraire". But in my dotage I have made some peace with the latter. > > First of all, it's one of those false friends they warn you about in > French > > class;it only means "arbitrary" in English; in French it really just > means > > "conventional"; that is, cultural. Secondly, it's just a way of saying > that > > a meaning can, in theory, have any sound at all in a given language, and > > this is what makes all languages equal in their meaning potential--so in > > meaning potential all cultures are intellectually equivalent, and Mike's > > problem of whether college professors think like children is solved. > > Thirdly, it it only applies at a single point--the line that separates > > wording from sounding, not the line that separates wording from meaning. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > David, I am no fan of either Barthes nor Saussure, but I interpret this > > > odd claim somewhat like this: Barthes asks you not to see the > > relationship > > > in a formal, set-theoretic way, but rather in terms of activities and > how > > > we use and understand them. We come to reflect on Semiotics as beings > > > already imbued with, indeed produced by language; we learn its > principles > > > through language and appropriate them as a special activity as > linguistic > > > beings. Semiotics is a specialised activity, which some linguists > engage > > in. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 17/06/2016 8:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > >> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > > >> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal > > with > > >> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not > > linguistic. > > >> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I > can't. > > >> > > >> David Kellogg > > >> Macquarie University > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Mon Jun 20 03:58:49 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:58:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: Thank you for the comments, David. But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died James: I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > scaffolding: > > > First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > > > Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > > Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > > > James > > > > _____________________________________________ > James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu canterbury.academia.edu James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > > Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > Wiley. > > > PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > > Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > actuality. > In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > affordances. (see page 380). > Here is a summary. > > Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > object is the formation of *true meaning*). > James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > > The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > implied in abduction. > For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > towards *multimodal* cognition. > In particular word-image complimentarity. > James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > > This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > *potential* as continuously generated. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > teaching as delivery. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > counts: > > a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > not seen evidence of this at all. > > b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > the child himself is the work in progress. > > c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > the stimulus and the response"). > > As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > > I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > thinking about the zone of proximal development. > > I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > of a ready made solution. > > Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > > Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > > ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > > "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > differentiation of will from affect." > > What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > scaffolding. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > wrote: > > > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > too, > > as a tool for thinking about learning. > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > issue > > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > > humility. > > > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > was > > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > us > > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > fictions > > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > that > > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > hypostatized > > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > of > > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > narrative. > > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > > before it became one. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > > defended > > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > " > > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > > blessed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > Jessica, > > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > > and > > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > forming > > > *as* > > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > where > > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > > and > > > > culture. > > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > moving > > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > physical > > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > > *presence*. > > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > is > > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > > intuitions > > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > internal > > > and > > > > external presence? > > > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > > intuitions > > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > an > > > apt > > > > metaphor? > > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > > faith?. > > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > activists > > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > says > > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > > that > > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > > persons. > > > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > > this > > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > > guides > > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > and > > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > > of > > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > > phrasing > > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > > thinking > > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > > influenced > > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > education > > in > > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > > almost > > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > > help > > > to > > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > > now... > > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > in > > > > Arhus! > > > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > wi**th > > > > Jerome > > > > > Bruner w* > > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > > Vygot**sky > > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > > *It* > > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > > jb > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > > >> It really does help. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > > or > > > > >> a personal experience? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Robert Lake > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > Hanfmann > > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > book > > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > with > > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > > admirer > > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > Vygotskian > > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > Vygotsky > > > > >> volume. > > > > >> > > > > >> Does that help? > > > > >> > > > > >> All best wishes. > > > > >> > > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > > >> > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > > >> areas > > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > > >> Moll, > > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > > >> > > > > >> Helena > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > > Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > vimeo.com > Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > there is a better copy of this movie. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > >>> > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > > >> experiences with him. > > > > >>>> David > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > > cole > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > heard > > > > from > > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > fundamental > > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > > >>>> mike > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > > Associate Professor > > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > > must > > > > be > > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jun 20 08:00:23 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:00:23 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). A few key points you offered: ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Thank you for the comments, David. But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died James: I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > scaffolding: > > > First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > > > Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > > Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > > > James > > > > _____________________________________________ > James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu canterbury.academia.edu James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > > Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > Wiley. > > > PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > > Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > actuality. > In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > affordances. (see page 380). > Here is a summary. > > Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > object is the formation of *true meaning*). > James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > > The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > implied in abduction. > For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > towards *multimodal* cognition. > In particular word-image complimentarity. > James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > > This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > *potential* as continuously generated. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > teaching as delivery. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > counts: > > a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > not seen evidence of this at all. > > b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > the child himself is the work in progress. > > c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > the stimulus and the response"). > > As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > > I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > thinking about the zone of proximal development. > > I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > of a ready made solution. > > Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > > Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > > ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > > "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > differentiation of will from affect." > > What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > scaffolding. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > wrote: > > > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > too, > > as a tool for thinking about learning. > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > issue > > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > > humility. > > > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > was > > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > us > > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > fictions > > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > that > > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > hypostatized > > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > of > > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > narrative. > > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > > before it became one. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > > defended > > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > " > > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > > blessed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > Jessica, > > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > > and > > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > forming > > > *as* > > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > where > > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > > and > > > > culture. > > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > moving > > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > physical > > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > > *presence*. > > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > is > > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > > intuitions > > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > internal > > > and > > > > external presence? > > > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > > intuitions > > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > an > > > apt > > > > metaphor? > > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > > faith?. > > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > activists > > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > says > > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > > that > > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > > persons. > > > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > > this > > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > > guides > > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > and > > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > > of > > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > > phrasing > > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > > thinking > > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > > influenced > > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > education > > in > > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > > almost > > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > > help > > > to > > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > > now... > > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > in > > > > Arhus! > > > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > wi**th > > > > Jerome > > > > > Bruner w* > > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > > Vygot**sky > > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > > *It* > > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > > jb > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > > >> It really does help. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > > or > > > > >> a personal experience? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Robert Lake > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > Hanfmann > > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > book > > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > with > > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > > admirer > > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > Vygotskian > > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > Vygotsky > > > > >> volume. > > > > >> > > > > >> Does that help? > > > > >> > > > > >> All best wishes. > > > > >> > > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > > >> > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > > >> areas > > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > > >> Moll, > > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > > >> > > > > >> Helena > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > > Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > vimeo.com > Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > there is a better copy of this movie. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > >>> > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > > >> experiences with him. > > > > >>>> David > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > > cole > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > heard > > > > from > > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > fundamental > > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > > >>>> mike > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > > Associate Professor > > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > > must > > > > be > > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > > > > > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Mon Jun 20 09:02:00 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:02:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> , , <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this, thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". James ________________________________ From: Lplarry Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). A few key points you offered: ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Thank you for the comments, David. But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died James: I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > scaffolding: > > > First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > > > Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > > Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > > > James > > > > _____________________________________________ > James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu canterbury.academia.edu James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > > Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > > Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > Wiley. > > > PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > > > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > > Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > actuality. > In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > affordances. (see page 380). > Here is a summary. > > Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > object is the formation of *true meaning*). > James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > > The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > implied in abduction. > For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > towards *multimodal* cognition. > In particular word-image complimentarity. > James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > > This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > *potential* as continuously generated. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > teaching as delivery. > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > counts: > > a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > not seen evidence of this at all. > > b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > the child himself is the work in progress. > > c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > the stimulus and the response"). > > As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > > I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > thinking about the zone of proximal development. > > I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > of a ready made solution. > > Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > > Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > > ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > > "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > differentiation of will from affect." > > What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > scaffolding. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > wrote: > > > I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > > okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > > scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > too, > > as a tool for thinking about learning. > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > > on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > > evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > > possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > > Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > issue > > for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > > makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > > humility. > > > > I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > > circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > > hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > > by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > was > > emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > us > > a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > fictions > > about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > that > > Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > > down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > hypostatized > > and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > > with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > > > > I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > > to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > of > > self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > narrative. > > But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > > before it became one. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > > bella.kotik@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > > > audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > > > obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > > > discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > > > way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > > defended > > > my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > " > > > you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > > > enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > > > blessed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > Jessica, > > > > This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > > and > > > > Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > forming > > > *as* > > > > a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > where > > > > these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > > and > > > > culture. > > > > For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > moving > > > > through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > > > > *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > physical > > > > death. This is also a labelling intuition. > > > > Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > > > > *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > > > *presence*. > > > > Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > is > > > > this presence located externally, or is there a location where > > intuitions > > > > arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > internal > > > and > > > > external presence? > > > > > > > > Others will offer different images and words to locate where > > intuitions > > > > originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > an > > > apt > > > > metaphor? > > > > The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > > > > questions and answers within particular communities which some call > > > > *learning* communities. > > > > > > > > In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > > > > downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > > > > *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > > > > presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > > > > worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > > > faith?. > > > > The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > activists > > > > throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > says > > > > aligns with intellectualism. > > > > James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > > > that > > > > guide human participation in civilization. > > > > I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > > > > through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > > persons. > > > > > > > > Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > > this > > > > living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > > > guides > > > > our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > > > > Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > > > > Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > and > > > > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > > of > > > > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > > > phrasing > > > > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > > thinking > > > > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > > > > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > > > > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > > influenced > > > > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > education > > in > > > > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > > > almost > > > > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > > help > > > to > > > > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > > now... > > > > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > > > > > > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > in > > > > Arhus! > > > > > > > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > > > > possible worlds. > > > > > > > > Jessie Kindred > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > > > > Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > > > Nice, Robert!!! > > > > > > > > Helena > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > > boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > wi**th > > > > Jerome > > > > > Bruner w* > > > > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > > > > Vygot**sky > > > > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > > > *It* > > > > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > > > > *Robert Lake* > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > > > > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > > > jb > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Robert Lake > > > > > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > > > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > > > > >> It really does help. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > > > > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > > or > > > > >> a personal experience? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Robert Lake > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > > > > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > Hanfmann > > > > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > book > > > > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > > > > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > > > > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > > > > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > with > > > > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > > admirer > > > > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > > > > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > Vygotskian > > > > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > > > > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > > > > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > > > > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > Vygotsky > > > > >> volume. > > > > >> > > > > >> Does that help? > > > > >> > > > > >> All best wishes. > > > > >> > > > > >> Jerome Bruner > > > > >> > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: Robert Lake > > > > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > > > > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > > > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > > > > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > > > > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > > > > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > > > > >> areas > > > > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > > > > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > > > > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > > > > >> Moll, > > > > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > > > > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > > > > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > > > > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > > > > >> > > > > >> Helena > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > > Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > vimeo.com > Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > there is a better copy of this movie. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >>> Andy Blunden > > > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > >>> > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > > > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > > > > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > > > > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > > > > >> experiences with him. > > > > >>>> David > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > > > cole > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > > > > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > heard > > > > from > > > > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > > > > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > fundamental > > > > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > > > > >>>> mike > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > > > > Associate Professor > > > > > Social Foundations of Education > > > > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > > > > Georgia Southern University > > > > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > > > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > > > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > > > must > > > > be > > > > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > > > > Dewey-*Democracy > > > > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > > > > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 20 09:50:58 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:50:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. Martin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. > > > OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this, thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". > > > James > > ________________________________ > From: Lplarry > Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 > To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. > > James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). > > A few key points you offered: > > ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. > > ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. > > ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. > > ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook > > ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. > > ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). > > > > I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Thank you for the comments, David. > > > > But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. > > > > With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". > > > > Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! > > > > James > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > James: > > > > I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as > > involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as > > you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the > > visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth > > graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large > > blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming > > a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading > > and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher > > teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long > > text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then > > stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections > > blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing > > blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell > > and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids > > are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not > > allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is > > really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but > > reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to > > INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from > > interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes > > (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of > > proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature > > functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of > > dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. > > > > I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final > > solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the > > difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. > > > > I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > > linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with > > meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. > > Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > >> scaffolding: > >> > >> > >> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > >> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > >> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > >> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > >> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > >> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > >> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > >> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > >> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > >> > >> > >> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > >> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > >> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > >> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > >> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > >> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > >> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > >> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > >> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > >> > >> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > >> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > >> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > >> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > >> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > >> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > >> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > >> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > >> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > >> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > >> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > >> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> > >> _____________________________________________ > >> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > >> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu > > canterbury.academia.edu > > James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > >> > >> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > >> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > >> > >> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > >> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > >> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > >> Wiley. > >> > >> > >> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of Lplarry > >> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > >> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > >> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > >> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > >> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > >> > >> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > >> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > >> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > >> actuality. > >> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > >> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > >> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > >> affordances. (see page 380). > >> Here is a summary. > >> > >> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > >> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > >> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > >> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > >> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > >> object is the formation of *true meaning*). > >> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > >> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > >> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > >> > >> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > >> implied in abduction. > >> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > >> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > >> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > >> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > >> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > >> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > >> towards *multimodal* cognition. > >> In particular word-image complimentarity. > >> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > >> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > >> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > >> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > >> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > >> > >> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > >> *potential* as continuously generated. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > >> teaching as delivery. > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > >> counts: > >> > >> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > >> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > >> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > >> not seen evidence of this at all. > >> > >> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > >> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > >> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > >> the child himself is the work in progress. > >> > >> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > >> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > >> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > >> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > >> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > >> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > >> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > >> the stimulus and the response"). > >> > >> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > >> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > >> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > >> > >> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > >> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > >> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > >> thinking about the zone of proximal development. > >> > >> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > >> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > >> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > >> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > >> of a ready made solution. > >> > >> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > >> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > >> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > >> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > >> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > >> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > >> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > >> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > >> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > >> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > >> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > >> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > >> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > >> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > >> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > >> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > >> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > >> > >> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > >> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > >> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > >> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > >> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > >> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > >> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > >> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > >> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > >> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > >> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > >> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > >> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > >> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > >> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > >> > >> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > >> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > >> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > >> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > >> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > >> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > >> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > >> > >> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > >> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > >> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > >> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > >> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > >> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > >> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > >> differentiation of will from affect." > >> > >> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > >> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > >> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > >> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > >> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > >> scaffolding. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > >>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > >>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > >> too, > >>> as a tool for thinking about learning. > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>> > >>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > >>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > >>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > >>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > >> issue > >>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > >>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > >>> humility. > >>> > >>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > >>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > >>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > >>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > >> was > >>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > >> us > >>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > >> fictions > >>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > >> that > >>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > >>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > >> hypostatized > >>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > >>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > >>> > >>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > >>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > >> of > >>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > >> narrative. > >>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > >>> before it became one. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > >>> bella.kotik@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > >>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > >>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > >>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > >>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > >>> defended > >>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > >> " > >>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > >>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > >>>> blessed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Jessica, > >>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > >>> and > >>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > >> forming > >>>> *as* > >>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > >> where > >>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > >>> and > >>>>> culture. > >>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > >> moving > >>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > >>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > >> physical > >>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. > >>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > >>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > >>>> *presence*. > >>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > >> is > >>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > >> internal > >>>> and > >>>>> external presence? > >>>>> > >>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > >> an > >>>> apt > >>>>> metaphor? > >>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > >>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call > >>>>> *learning* communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > >>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > >>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > >>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > >>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > >>>> faith?. > >>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > >> activists > >>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > >> says > >>>>> aligns with intellectualism. > >>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > >>>> that > >>>>> guide human participation in civilization. > >>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > >>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > >>> persons. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > >>> this > >>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > >>>> guides > >>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > >>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > >>>>> Larry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > >> and > >>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > >>> of > >>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > >>>> phrasing > >>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > >>> thinking > >>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > >>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > >>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > >>> influenced > >>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > >> education > >>> in > >>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > >>>> almost > >>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > >>> help > >>>> to > >>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > >>> now... > >>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. > >>>>> > >>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > >> in > >>>>> Arhus! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > >>>>> possible worlds. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jessie Kindred > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > >>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Nice, Robert!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> Helena > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > >>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > >> wi**th > >>>>> Jerome > >>>>>> Bruner w* > >>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > >>>>> Vygot**sky > >>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > >>>> *It* > >>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* > >>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > > >>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > >>>> jb > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>>>>>> It really does help. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > >>> or > >>>>>>> a personal experience? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Robert Lake > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > >> Hanfmann > >>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > >> book > >>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > >>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > >> with > >>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > >>> admirer > >>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > >> Vygotskian > >>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > >> Vygotsky > >>>>>>> volume. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does that help? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All best wishes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jerome Bruner > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >>>>>>> areas > >>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >>>>>>> Moll, > >>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > >>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > >>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> > >> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> vimeo.com > >> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > >> there is a better copy of this movie. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >>>>>>> experiences with him. > >>>>>>>>> David > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > >>>> cole > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > >> heard > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > >>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > >> fundamental > >>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >>>>>> Associate Professor > >>>>>> Social Foundations of Education > >>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >>>>>> Georgia Southern University > >>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > >>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > >>>> must > >>>>> be > >>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy > >>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Mon Jun 20 11:57:07 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:57:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> , <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. Martin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. > > > OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this, thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". > > > James > > ________________________________ > From: Lplarry > Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 > To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. > > James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). > > A few key points you offered: > > ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. > > ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. > > ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. > > ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook > > ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. > > ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). > > > > I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Thank you for the comments, David. > > > > But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. > > > > With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". > > > > Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! > > > > James > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > James: > > > > I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as > > involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as > > you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the > > visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth > > graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large > > blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming > > a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading > > and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher > > teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long > > text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then > > stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections > > blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing > > blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell > > and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids > > are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not > > allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is > > really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but > > reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to > > INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from > > interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes > > (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of > > proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature > > functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of > > dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. > > > > I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final > > solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the > > difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. > > > > I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > > linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with > > meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. > > Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > >> scaffolding: > >> > >> > >> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > >> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > >> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > >> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > >> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > >> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > >> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > >> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > >> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > >> > >> > >> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > >> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > >> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > >> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > >> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > >> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > >> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > >> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > >> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > >> > >> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > >> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > >> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > >> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > >> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > >> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > >> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > >> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > >> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > >> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > >> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > >> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> > >> _____________________________________________ > >> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > >> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu > > canterbury.academia.edu > > James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > >> > >> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > >> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > >> > >> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > >> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > >> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > >> Wiley. > >> > >> > >> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of Lplarry > >> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > >> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > >> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > >> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > >> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > >> > >> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > >> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > >> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > >> actuality. > >> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > >> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > >> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > >> affordances. (see page 380). > >> Here is a summary. > >> > >> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > >> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > >> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > >> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > >> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > >> object is the formation of *true meaning*). > >> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > >> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > >> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > >> > >> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > >> implied in abduction. > >> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > >> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > >> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > >> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > >> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > >> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > >> towards *multimodal* cognition. > >> In particular word-image complimentarity. > >> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > >> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > >> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > >> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > >> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > >> > >> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > >> *potential* as continuously generated. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > >> teaching as delivery. > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > >> counts: > >> > >> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > >> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > >> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > >> not seen evidence of this at all. > >> > >> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > >> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > >> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > >> the child himself is the work in progress. > >> > >> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > >> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > >> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > >> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > >> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > >> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > >> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > >> the stimulus and the response"). > >> > >> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > >> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > >> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > >> > >> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > >> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > >> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > >> thinking about the zone of proximal development. > >> > >> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > >> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > >> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > >> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > >> of a ready made solution. > >> > >> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > >> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > >> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > >> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > >> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > >> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > >> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > >> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > >> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > >> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > >> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > >> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > >> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > >> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > >> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > >> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > >> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > >> > >> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > >> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > >> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > >> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > >> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > >> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > >> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > >> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > >> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > >> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > >> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > >> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > >> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > >> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > >> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > >> > >> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > >> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > >> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > >> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > >> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > >> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > >> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > >> > >> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > >> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > >> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > >> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > >> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > >> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > >> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > >> differentiation of will from affect." > >> > >> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > >> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > >> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > >> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > >> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > >> scaffolding. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > >>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > >>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > >> too, > >>> as a tool for thinking about learning. > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>> > >>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > >>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > >>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > >>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > >> issue > >>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > >>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > >>> humility. > >>> > >>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > >>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > >>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > >>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > >> was > >>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > >> us > >>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > >> fictions > >>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > >> that > >>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > >>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > >> hypostatized > >>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > >>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > >>> > >>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > >>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > >> of > >>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > >> narrative. > >>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > >>> before it became one. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > >>> bella.kotik@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > >>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > >>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > >>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > >>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > >>> defended > >>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > >> " > >>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > >>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > >>>> blessed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Jessica, > >>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > >>> and > >>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > >> forming > >>>> *as* > >>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > >> where > >>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > >>> and > >>>>> culture. > >>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > >> moving > >>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > >>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > >> physical > >>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. > >>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > >>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > >>>> *presence*. > >>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > >> is > >>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > >> internal > >>>> and > >>>>> external presence? > >>>>> > >>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > >> an > >>>> apt > >>>>> metaphor? > >>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > >>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call > >>>>> *learning* communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > >>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > >>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > >>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > >>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > >>>> faith?. > >>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > >> activists > >>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > >> says > >>>>> aligns with intellectualism. > >>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > >>>> that > >>>>> guide human participation in civilization. > >>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > >>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > >>> persons. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > >>> this > >>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > >>>> guides > >>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > >>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > >>>>> Larry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > >> and > >>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > >>> of > >>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > >>>> phrasing > >>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > >>> thinking > >>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > >>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > >>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > >>> influenced > >>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > >> education > >>> in > >>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > >>>> almost > >>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > >>> help > >>>> to > >>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > >>> now... > >>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. > >>>>> > >>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > >> in > >>>>> Arhus! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > >>>>> possible worlds. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jessie Kindred > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > >>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Nice, Robert!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> Helena > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > >>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > >> wi**th > >>>>> Jerome > >>>>>> Bruner w* > >>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > >>>>> Vygot**sky > >>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > >>>> *It* > >>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* > >>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > > >>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > >>>> jb > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>>>>>> It really does help. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > >>> or > >>>>>>> a personal experience? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Robert Lake > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > >> Hanfmann > >>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > >> book > >>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > >>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > >> with > >>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > >>> admirer > >>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > >> Vygotskian > >>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > >> Vygotsky > >>>>>>> volume. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does that help? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All best wishes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jerome Bruner > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >>>>>>> areas > >>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >>>>>>> Moll, > >>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > >>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > >>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> > >> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> vimeo.com > >> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > >> there is a better copy of this movie. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >>>>>>> experiences with him. > >>>>>>>>> David > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > >>>> cole > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > >> heard > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > >>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > >> fundamental > >>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >>>>>> Associate Professor > >>>>>> Social Foundations of Education > >>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >>>>>> Georgia Southern University > >>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > >>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > >>>> must > >>>>> be > >>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy > >>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jun 20 12:42:45 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:42:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> , <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <57684735.0268620a.62937.ffffa815@mx.google.com> James, Thanks for this clarification. Focusing on the notion of [psychic] imagery that sets in motion an inward dialogic process *within ourselves* What I am abductively projecting is this question of the location of this within. I will add the adjective *deep*to within [the deep within] Your self of one instant [appeals] to your deeper self for *his* assent. My ear [and mind?s eye] resonates with this notion of the [deep within] where *persons* answer dialogically. However, is it possible to expand this notion of the [deep within?s location] beyond my own individual *interior*. Here I am thinking of the notions of intersubjectivity in Buber?s I-Thou relation, or Gadamer?s mitsein. This also can be conceived as travelling together towards this *deep within ourselves* but the psychic image of what is *interior* escapes the boundaries of my own individual [deep within]. My abduction is that the qualities or characteristics of the *person* that meets you [deep within] at this psychic image location may also manifest as *person*. This location is the *transitional* space or via media. James, you mentioned that the axis of your work is the Confucian notion of [well-being]. I sense that my notion of the [deep within] that travels beyond my own interior to include our places of *meeting* each other in the [deep within] may carry similar qualities of *person* as psychic image from this transitional space. I expect this to be received through vagueness. It is only an oening. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. Martin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. > > > OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this, thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". > > > James > > ________________________________ > From: Lplarry > Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 > To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. > > James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). > > A few key points you offered: > > ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. > > ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. > > ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. > > ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook > > ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. > > ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). > > > > I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Thank you for the comments, David. > > > > But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. > > > > With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". > > > > Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! > > > > James > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > James: > > > > I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as > > involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as > > you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the > > visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth > > graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large > > blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming > > a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading > > and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher > > teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long > > text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then > > stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections > > blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing > > blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell > > and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids > > are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not > > allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is > > really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but > > reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to > > INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from > > interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes > > (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of > > proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature > > functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of > > dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. > > > > I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final > > solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the > > difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. > > > > I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > > linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with > > meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. > > Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > >> scaffolding: > >> > >> > >> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > >> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > >> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > >> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > >> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > >> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > >> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > >> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > >> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > >> > >> > >> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > >> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > >> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > >> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > >> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > >> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > >> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > >> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > >> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > >> > >> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > >> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > >> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > >> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > >> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > >> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > >> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > >> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > >> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > >> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > >> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > >> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> > >> _____________________________________________ > >> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > >> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu > > canterbury.academia.edu > > James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > >> > >> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > >> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > >> > >> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > >> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > >> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > >> Wiley. > >> > >> > >> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of Lplarry > >> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > >> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > >> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > >> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > >> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > >> > >> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > >> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > >> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > >> actuality. > >> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > >> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > >> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > >> affordances. (see page 380). > >> Here is a summary. > >> > >> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > >> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > >> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > >> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > >> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > >> object is the formation of *true meaning*). > >> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > >> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > >> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > >> > >> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > >> implied in abduction. > >> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > >> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > >> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > >> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > >> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > >> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > >> towards *multimodal* cognition. > >> In particular word-image complimentarity. > >> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > >> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > >> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > >> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > >> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > >> > >> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > >> *potential* as continuously generated. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > >> teaching as delivery. > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > >> counts: > >> > >> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > >> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > >> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > >> not seen evidence of this at all. > >> > >> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > >> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > >> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > >> the child himself is the work in progress. > >> > >> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > >> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > >> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > >> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > >> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > >> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > >> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > >> the stimulus and the response"). > >> > >> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > >> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > >> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > >> > >> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > >> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > >> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > >> thinking about the zone of proximal development. > >> > >> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > >> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > >> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > >> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > >> of a ready made solution. > >> > >> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > >> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > >> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > >> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > >> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > >> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > >> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > >> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > >> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > >> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > >> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > >> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > >> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > >> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > >> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > >> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > >> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > >> > >> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > >> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > >> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > >> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > >> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > >> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > >> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > >> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > >> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > >> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > >> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > >> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > >> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > >> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > >> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > >> > >> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > >> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > >> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > >> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > >> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > >> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > >> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > >> > >> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > >> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > >> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > >> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > >> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > >> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > >> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > >> differentiation of will from affect." > >> > >> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > >> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > >> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > >> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > >> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > >> scaffolding. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > >>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > >>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > >> too, > >>> as a tool for thinking about learning. > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>> > >>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > >>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > >>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > >>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > >> issue > >>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > >>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > >>> humility. > >>> > >>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > >>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > >>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > >>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > >> was > >>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > >> us > >>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > >> fictions > >>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > >> that > >>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > >>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > >> hypostatized > >>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > >>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > >>> > >>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > >>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > >> of > >>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > >> narrative. > >>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > >>> before it became one. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > >>> bella.kotik@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > >>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > >>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > >>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > >>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > >>> defended > >>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > >> " > >>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > >>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > >>>> blessed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Jessica, > >>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > >>> and > >>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > >> forming > >>>> *as* > >>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > >> where > >>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > >>> and > >>>>> culture. > >>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > >> moving > >>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > >>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > >> physical > >>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. > >>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > >>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > >>>> *presence*. > >>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > >> is > >>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > >> internal > >>>> and > >>>>> external presence? > >>>>> > >>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming > >> an > >>>> apt > >>>>> metaphor? > >>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > >>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call > >>>>> *learning* communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > >>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > >>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > >>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > >>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > >>>> faith?. > >>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > >> activists > >>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > >> says > >>>>> aligns with intellectualism. > >>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > >>>> that > >>>>> guide human participation in civilization. > >>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > >>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > >>> persons. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > >>> this > >>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > >>>> guides > >>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > >>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > >>>>> Larry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > >> and > >>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > >>> of > >>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > >>>> phrasing > >>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > >>> thinking > >>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > >>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > >>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > >>> influenced > >>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > >> education > >>> in > >>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > >>>> almost > >>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > >>> help > >>>> to > >>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > >>> now... > >>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. > >>>>> > >>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > >> in > >>>>> Arhus! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > >>>>> possible worlds. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jessie Kindred > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > >>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Nice, Robert!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> Helena > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > >>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > >> wi**th > >>>>> Jerome > >>>>>> Bruner w* > >>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > >>>>> Vygot**sky > >>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > >>>> *It* > >>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* > >>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > > >>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > >>>> jb > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>>>>>> It really does help. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > >>> or > >>>>>>> a personal experience? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Robert Lake > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > >> Hanfmann > >>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > >> book > >>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > >>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow > >> with > >>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great > >>> admirer > >>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > >> Vygotskian > >>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > >> Vygotsky > >>>>>>> volume. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does that help? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All best wishes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jerome Bruner > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >>>>>>> areas > >>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >>>>>>> Moll, > >>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > >>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > >>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> > >> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> vimeo.com > >> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > >> there is a better copy of this movie. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >>>>>>> experiences with him. > >>>>>>>>> David > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > >>>> cole > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just > >> heard > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > >>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > >> fundamental > >>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >>>>>> Associate Professor > >>>>>> Social Foundations of Education > >>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >>>>>> Georgia Southern University > >>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > >>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > >>>> must > >>>>> be > >>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy > >>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jun 20 13:09:02 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:09:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <57684735.0268620a.62937.ffffa815@mx.google.com> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> , <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <57684735.0268620a.62937.ffffa815@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <57684d87.9614620a.a57a9.ffff8d52@mx.google.com> One other reflection. If the psychic image appeals to the deeper self for *his* consent (within this psychic image) this 3rd space, then the current self must be open and attuned to listen and hear this deeper Self who answers. By referring to this deeper self as *person* who is within dialogue with the current self, it is easier to have a psychic image of *person* as including my previous self or as including another *person* as being the deep within of dialogue and this is therefore multimodal and occurs through cycles of a continuum. I hear echos of medieval scholarship in both Peirce and Eco, when *persons* of the Trinity were psychic images Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: June 20, 2016 12:42 PM To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died James, Thanks for this clarification. Focusing on the notion of [psychic] imagery that sets in motion an inward dialogic process *within ourselves* What I am abductively projecting is this question of the location of this within.? I will add the adjective *deep*to within [the deep within] Your self of one instant [appeals] to your deeper self for *his* assent. My ear [and mind?s eye] resonates with this notion of the [deep within] where *persons* answer dialogically. However, is it possible to expand this notion of the [deep within?s location] beyond my own individual *interior*. Here I am thinking of the notions of intersubjectivity in Buber?s I-Thou relation, or Gadamer?s mitsein. This also can be conceived as travelling together towards this *deep within ourselves* but the psychic image of what is *interior* escapes the boundaries of my own individual [deep within]. My abduction is that the qualities or characteristics of the *person* that meets you [deep within] at this psychic image location may also manifest as *person*. This location is the *transitional* space or via media.? James, you mentioned that the axis of your work is the Confucian notion of [well-being]. I sense that my notion of the [deep within] that travels beyond my own interior to include our places of *meeting* each other in the [deep within] may carry similar qualities of *person* as psychic image from this transitional space. I expect this to be received through vagueness. It is only an oening. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died But James!? That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. Martin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. > > > OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this, thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". > > > James > > ________________________________ > From: Lplarry > Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 > To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my? vagueness towards greater clarity. > > James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). > > A few key points you offered: > > ???????? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. > > ???????? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. > > ???????? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. > > ???????? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook > > ???????? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. > > ???????? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy,? share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). > > > > I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > > > Thank you for the comments, David. > > > > But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. > > > > With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". > > > > Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! > > > > James > > > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > > > James: > > > > I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as > > involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as > > you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the > > visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth > > graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large > > blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming > > a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading > > and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher > > teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long > > text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then > > stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections > > blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing > > blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell > > and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids > > are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not > > allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is > > really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but > > reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to > > INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from > > interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes > > (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of > > proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature > > functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of > > dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. > > > > I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final > > solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the > > difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. > > > > I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of > > linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with > > meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. > > Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of > >> scaffolding: > >> > >> > >> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it > >> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of > >> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit > >> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt > >> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to > >> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is > >> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the > >> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > >> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). > >> > >> > >> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen > >> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more > >> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the > >> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no > >> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is > >> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the > >> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based > >> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all > >> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. > >> > >> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the > >> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the > >> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour > >> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in > >> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing > >> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in > >> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. > >> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches > >> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast > >> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics > >> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further > >> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > >> > >> > >> James > >> > >> > >> > >> _____________________________________________ > >> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > >> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > > James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu > > canterbury.academia.edu > > James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > >> > >> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in > >> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. > >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > >> > >> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A > >> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and > >> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. > >> Wiley. > >> > >> > >> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > >> > >> > >> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of Lplarry > >> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > >> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal > >> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our > >> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of > >> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. > >> > >> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford > >> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion > >> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and > >> actuality. > >> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 > >> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the > >> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and > >> affordances. (see page 380). > >> Here is a summary. > >> > >> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. > >> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative > >> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. > >> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) > >> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean > >> object is the formation of *true meaning*). > >> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of > >> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning > >> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > >> > >> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be > >> implied in abduction. > >> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is > >> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true > >> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of > >> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > >> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video > >> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel > >> towards *multimodal* cognition. > >> In particular word-image complimentarity. > >> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in > >> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on > >> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* > >> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes > >> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. > >> > >> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning > >> *potential* as continuously generated. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of > >> teaching as delivery. > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >> > >> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several > >> counts: > >> > >> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to > >> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and > >> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have > >> not seen evidence of this at all. > >> > >> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. > >> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests > >> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that > >> the child himself is the work in progress. > >> > >> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, > >> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the > >> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that > >> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, > >> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) > >> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in > >> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between > >> the stimulus and the response"). > >> > >> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like > >> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, > >> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. > >> > >> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't > >> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, > >> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for > >> thinking about the zone of proximal development. > >> > >> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody > >> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have > >> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > >> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation > >> of a ready made solution. > >> > >> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis > >> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the > >> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be > >> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he > >> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, > >> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that > >> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of > >> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to > >> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to > >> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The > >> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken > >> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and > >> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). > >> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in > >> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and > >> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of > >> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > >> > >> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But > >> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The > >> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to > >> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off > >> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the > >> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in > >> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it > >> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of > >> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think > >> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of > >> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation > >> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child > >> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he > >> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really > >> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > >> > >> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > >> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? > >> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? > >> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? > >> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. > >> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? > >> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > >> > >> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic > >> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional > >> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that > >> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own > >> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary > >> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon > >> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the > >> differentiation of will from affect." > >> > >> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very > >> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal > >> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: > >> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development > >> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been > >> scaffolding. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, > >>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of > >>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, > >> too, > >>> as a tool for thinking about learning. > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>> > >>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical > >>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes > >>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome > >>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial > >> issue > >>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, > >>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in > >>> humility. > >>> > >>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake > >>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his > >>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that > >>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner > >> was > >>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell > >> us > >>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us > >> fictions > >>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" > >> that > >>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken > >>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become > >> hypostatized > >>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified > >>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > >>> > >>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone > >>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source > >> of > >>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a > >> narrative. > >>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened > >>> before it became one. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < > >>> bella.kotik@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the > >>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than > >>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with > >>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his > >>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just > >>> defended > >>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said > >> " > >>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and > >>>> enjoyed to be his? guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be > >>>> blessed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Jessica, > >>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question > >>> and > >>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was > >> forming > >>>> *as* > >>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking > >> where > >>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history > >>> and > >>>>> culture. > >>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment > >> moving > >>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of > >>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s > >> physical > >>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. > >>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of > >>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living > >>>> *presence*. > >>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or > >> is > >>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both > >> internal > >>>> and > >>>>> external presence? > >>>>> > >>>>> Others will? offer different images and words to locate where > >>> intuitions > >>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as? *seeds* forming > >> an > >>>> apt > >>>>> metaphor? > >>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our > >>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call > >>>>> *learning* communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have > >>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that > >>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living > >>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is > >>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good > >>>> faith?. > >>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and > >> activists > >>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James > >> says > >>>>> aligns with intellectualism. > >>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals > >>>> that > >>>>> guide human participation in civilization. > >>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens > >>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as > >>> persons. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within > >>> this > >>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that > >>>> guides > >>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. > >>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > >>>>> Larry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over > >> and > >>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one > >>> of > >>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very > >>>> phrasing > >>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about > >>> thinking > >>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > >>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > >>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so > >>> influenced > >>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about > >> education > >>> in > >>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I > >>>> almost > >>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might > >>> help > >>>> to > >>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education > >>> now... > >>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. > >>>>> > >>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 > >> in > >>>>> Arhus! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > >>>>> possible worlds. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jessie Kindred > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena > >>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> Nice, Robert!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> Helena > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > >>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** > >> wi**th > >>>>> Jerome > >>>>>> Bruner w* > >>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > >>>>> Vygot**sky > >>>>>> and a second? email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * > >>>> *It* > >>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* > >>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > > >>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! > >>>> jb > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: Robert Lake > > >>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>>>>>> It really does help. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research > >>> or > >>>>>>> a personal experience? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Robert Lake > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Jerome S Bruner? 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia > >> Hanfmann > >>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first > >> book > >>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book.? I had > >>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at? Moscow > >> with > >>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions.? He was a great > >>> admirer > >>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the > >> Vygotskian > >>>>>>> mode.? For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >>>>>>> child development.? I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the > >> Vygotsky > >>>>>>> volume. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does that help? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All best wishes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>?????? Jerome Bruner > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>>>>>> I? am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >>>>>>> areas > >>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >>>>>>> Moll, > >>>>>>>> but? I am not able to find anything in the way of? historical > >>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is? there anything > >>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> > >> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< > >> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >> vimeo.com > >> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where > >> there is a better copy of this movie. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >>>>>>> experiences with him. > >>>>>>>>> David > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike > >>>> cole > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but? I have just > >> heard > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > >>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a > >> fundamental > >>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Robert Lake? Ed.D. > >>>>>> Associate Professor > >>>>>> Social Foundations of Education > >>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >>>>>> Georgia Southern University > >>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA? 30460 > >>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > >>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > >>>> must > >>>>> be > >>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > >>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy > >>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 20 15:11:29 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 22:11:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! > On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. > > Martin > > > > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >> >> >> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this, thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >> >> >> James >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Lplarry >> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> >> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >> >> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >> >> A few key points you offered: >> >> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >> >> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >> >> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >> >> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >> >> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >> >> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >> >> >> >> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> >> >> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for the comments, David. >> >> >> >> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >> >> >> >> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >> >> >> >> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >> >> >> >> James >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >> >> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> >> >> James: >> >> >> >> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >> >> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >> >> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >> >> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >> >> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >> >> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >> >> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >> >> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >> >> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >> >> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >> >> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >> >> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >> >> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >> >> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >> >> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >> >> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >> >> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >> >> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >> >> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >> >> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >> >> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >> >> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >> >> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >> >> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >> >> >> >> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >> >> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >> >> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >> >> >> >> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >> >> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >> >> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >> >> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Macquarie University >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >> >> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >> >>> scaffolding: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >> >>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >> >>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >> >>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >> >>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >> >>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >> >>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >> >>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >> >>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >> >>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >> >>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >> >>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >> >>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >> >>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >> >>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >> >>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >> >>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >> >>> >> >>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >> >>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >> >>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >> >>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >> >>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >> >>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >> >>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >> >>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >> >>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >> >>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >> >>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >> >>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> James >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _____________________________________________ >> >>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >> >>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >> >> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >> >> canterbury.academia.edu >> >> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >> >>> >> >>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >> >>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >> >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >> >>> >> >>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >> >>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >> >>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >> >>> Wiley. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ________________________________ >> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >>> on behalf of Lplarry >> >>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >> >>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>> >> >>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >> >>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >> >>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >> >>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >> >>> >> >>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >> >>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >> >>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >> >>> actuality. >> >>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >> >>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >> >>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >> >>> affordances. (see page 380). >> >>> Here is a summary. >> >>> >> >>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >> >>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >> >>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >> >>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >> >>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >> >>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >> >>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >> >>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >> >>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >> >>> >> >>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >> >>> implied in abduction. >> >>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >> >>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >> >>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >> >>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >> >>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >> >>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >> >>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >> >>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >> >>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >> >>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >> >>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >> >>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >> >>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >> >>> >> >>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >> >>> *potential* as continuously generated. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >>> >> >>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >> >>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>> >> >>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >> >>> teaching as delivery. >> >>> ________________________________________ >> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> >>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >> >>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>> >> >>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >> >>> counts: >> >>> >> >>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >> >>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >> >>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >> >>> not seen evidence of this at all. >> >>> >> >>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >> >>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >> >>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >> >>> the child himself is the work in progress. >> >>> >> >>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >> >>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >> >>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >> >>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >> >>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >> >>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >> >>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >> >>> the stimulus and the response"). >> >>> >> >>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >> >>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >> >>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >> >>> >> >>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >> >>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >> >>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >> >>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >> >>> >> >>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >> >>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >> >>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >> >>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >> >>> of a ready made solution. >> >>> >> >>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >> >>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >> >>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >> >>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >> >>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >> >>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >> >>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >> >>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >> >>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >> >>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >> >>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >> >>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >> >>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >> >>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >> >>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >> >>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >> >>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >> >>> >> >>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >> >>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >> >>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >> >>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >> >>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >> >>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >> >>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >> >>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >> >>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >> >>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >> >>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >> >>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >> >>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >> >>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >> >>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >> >>> >> >>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >> >>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >> >>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >> >>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >> >>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >> >>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >> >>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >> >>> >> >>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >> >>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >> >>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >> >>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >> >>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >> >>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >> >>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >> >>> differentiation of will from affect." >> >>> >> >>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >> >>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >> >>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >> >>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >> >>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >> >>> scaffolding. >> >>> >> >>> David Kellogg >> >>> Macquarie University >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >> >>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >> >>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >> >>> too, >> >>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >> >>>> ________________________________________ >> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>>> >> >>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >> >>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >> >>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >> >>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >> >>> issue >> >>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >> >>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >> >>>> humility. >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >> >>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >> >>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >> >>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >> >>> was >> >>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >> >>> us >> >>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >> >>> fictions >> >>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >> >>> that >> >>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >> >>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >> >>> hypostatized >> >>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >> >>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >> >>>> >> >>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >> >>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >> >>> of >> >>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >> >>> narrative. >> >>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >> >>>> before it became one. >> >>>> >> >>>> David Kellogg >> >>>> Macquarie University >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >> >>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >> >>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >> >>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >> >>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >> >>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >> >>>> defended >> >>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >> >>> " >> >>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >> >>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >> >>>>> blessed. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Jessica, >> >>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >> >>>> and >> >>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >> >>> forming >> >>>>> *as* >> >>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >> >>> where >> >>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >> >>>> and >> >>>>>> culture. >> >>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >> >>> moving >> >>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >> >>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >> >>> physical >> >>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >> >>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >> >>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >> >>>>> *presence*. >> >>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >> >>> is >> >>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >> >>>> intuitions >> >>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >> >>> internal >> >>>>> and >> >>>>>> external presence? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >> >>>> intuitions >> >>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >> >>> an >> >>>>> apt >> >>>>>> metaphor? >> >>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >> >>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >> >>>>>> *learning* communities. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >> >>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >> >>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >> >>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >> >>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >> >>>>> faith?. >> >>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >> >>> activists >> >>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >> >>> says >> >>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >> >>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >> >>>>> that >> >>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >> >>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >> >>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >> >>>> persons. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >> >>>> this >> >>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >> >>>>> guides >> >>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >> >>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >> >>>>>> Larry >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >> >>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >> >>> and >> >>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >> >>>> of >> >>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >> >>>>> phrasing >> >>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >> >>>> thinking >> >>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >> >>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >> >>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >> >>>> influenced >> >>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >> >>> education >> >>>> in >> >>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >> >>>>> almost >> >>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >> >>>> help >> >>>>> to >> >>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >> >>>> now... >> >>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >> >>> in >> >>>>>> Arhus! >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >> >>>>>> possible worlds. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Jessie Kindred >> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >> >>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >> >>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Helena >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >> >>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >> >>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >> >>> wi**th >> >>>>>> Jerome >> >>>>>>> Bruner w* >> >>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >> >>>>>> Vygot**sky >> >>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >> >>>>> *It* >> >>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >> >>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >> >>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> >>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >> >>>>> jb >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >> >>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> >>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >> >>>>>>>> It really does help. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >> >>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >> >>>> or >> >>>>>>>> a personal experience? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Robert Lake >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >> >>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >> >>> Hanfmann >> >>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >> >>> book >> >>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >> >>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >> >>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >> >>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >> >>> with >> >>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >> >>>> admirer >> >>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >> >>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >> >>> Vygotskian >> >>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >> >>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >> >>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >> >>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >> >>> Vygotsky >> >>>>>>>> volume. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Does that help? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> All best wishes. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >> >>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >> >>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >> >>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >> >>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >> >>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >> >>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >> >>>>>>>> areas >> >>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >> >>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >> >>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >> >>>>>>>> Moll, >> >>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >> >>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >> >>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >> >>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >> >>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Helena >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >> >>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >> >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >> >>> >> >>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >> >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >> >>> vimeo.com >> >>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >> >>> there is a better copy of this movie. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >> >>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >> >>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >> >>>>>>>> experiences with him. >> >>>>>>>>>> David >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >> >>>>> cole >> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >> >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >> >>> heard >> >>>>>> from >> >>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >> >>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >> >>> fundamental >> >>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >> >>>>>>>>>> mike >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >> >>>>>>> Associate Professor >> >>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >> >>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >> >>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >> >>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >> >>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >> >>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >> >>>>> must >> >>>>>> be >> >>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >> >>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >> >>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Jun 20 16:21:49 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:21:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> , <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Hello! I was wondering if it might be OK for recent discussion on this thread to be retitled so that Jerry Bruner might at least be free to wander to his intended destination, if there is one? Perhaps anything of note of his work could be posted here, but offshoot-topics (which are most welcomed!) could be spun off to a new thread title? I was under the impression that honoring his contribution had been happening, but it seems things have gotten a little debate-y? What do you think? ============== I myself would like to know the story how Bruner came to meet Luria. Would anyone like to recount that? ============== My contribution to the discussion about scaffolding: It occurred to me yesterday that not only is scaffolding a metaphor, but also a metaphor is scaffolding: once the metaphor is used and the concept it is intended to illustrate takes hold, that the underlying structure becomes conceptually autonomous and the metaphor falls away leaving the meaning to stand on its own. Kind regards, Annalisa From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 20 16:50:43 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:50:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Yes, strange doings on xmca, Analissa. Poor Jerry is hanging there on a scaffold of his own making. And Zaza who was going to join in a discussion of her article is, like others, apparently pre-occupied! I think that part of the difficulty re the concept of scaffolding is present in the scaffold built into "hit reply," circumstances not of our own choosing. And we are left just hanging there, responding to all. Well, they will be figuring this all out on the plains of Salisbury tomorrow morning, their time, as the sun rises over Stonehenge. It is summer in the northern hemisphere and globally warmed where I am. Maybe such co-incidences explain the oddity Stay cool. mike On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello! > > > I was wondering if it might be OK for recent discussion on this thread to > be retitled so that Jerry Bruner might at least be free to wander to his > intended destination, if there is one? > > > Perhaps anything of note of his work could be posted here, but > offshoot-topics (which are most welcomed!) could be spun off to a new > thread title? > > > I was under the impression that honoring his contribution had been > happening, but it seems things have gotten a little debate-y? > > > What do you think? > > > ============== > > > I myself would like to know the story how Bruner came to meet Luria. Would > anyone like to recount that? > > > ============== > > > My contribution to the discussion about scaffolding: > > > It occurred to me yesterday that not only is scaffolding a metaphor, but > also a metaphor is scaffolding: once the metaphor is used and the concept > it is intended to illustrate takes hold, that the underlying structure > becomes conceptually autonomous and the metaphor falls away leaving the > meaning to stand on its own. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jun 20 17:42:56 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:42:56 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >> >> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>> >>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>> >>> >>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this > , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>> >>> James >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Lplarry >>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>> >>> >>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>> >>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>> >>> A few key points you offered: >>> >>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>> >>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>> >>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>> >>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>> >>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>> >>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>> >>> >>> >>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>> >>> >>> >>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>> >>> >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>> >>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>> >>> >>> >>> James: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>> >>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>> >>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>> >>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>> >>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>> >>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>> >>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>> >>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>> >>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>> >>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>> >>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>> >>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>> >>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>> >>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>> >>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>> >>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>> >>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>> >>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>> >>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>> >>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>> >>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>> >>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>> >>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>> >>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>> >>> >>> >>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>> >>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>> >>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>> >>> >>> >>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>> >>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>> >>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>> >>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>> >>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>> scaffolding: >>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>> James >>>> _____________________________________________ >>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>> >>> canterbury.academia.edu >>> >>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>> Wiley. >>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>> actuality. >>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>> Here is a summary. >>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>> implied in abduction. >>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>> teaching as delivery. >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>> counts: >>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>> of a ready made solution. >>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>> scaffolding. >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>> wrote: >>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>> too, >>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>> issue >>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>> humility. >>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>> was >>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>> us >>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>> fictions >>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>> that >>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>> hypostatized >>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>> of >>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>> narrative. >>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>> before it became one. >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>> defended >>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>> " >>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>> blessed. >>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>> and >>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>> forming >>>>>> *as* >>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>> where >>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>> and >>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>> moving >>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>> physical >>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>> is >>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>> intuitions >>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>> internal >>>>>> and >>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>> intuitions >>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>> an >>>>>> apt >>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>> activists >>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>> says >>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>> that >>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>> persons. >>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>> this >>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>> guides >>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>> and >>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>> of >>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>> thinking >>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>> influenced >>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>> education >>>>> in >>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>> almost >>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>> help >>>>>> to >>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>> now... >>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>> in >>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>> wi**th >>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>> jb >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>> or >>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>> book >>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>> with >>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>> vimeo.com >>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>> heard >>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>> must >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>> >>> >>> >> > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Jun 20 20:42:32 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:42:32 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> Message-ID: But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be construed as being on a continuum, where there is no specific point where one turrns into the other? How about the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe this could be animated? That would capture the temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all of the technologies that have been developedl to take the measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the workings of our bodies. Henry > On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! >> >>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>> >>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>> >>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>>> >>>> >>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this >> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Lplarry >>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>>> >>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>>> >>>> A few key points you offered: >>>> >>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>>> >>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>>> >>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>>> >>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>>> >>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>>> >>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>>> >>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>>> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> James: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>>> >>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>>> >>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>>> >>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>>> >>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>>> >>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>>> >>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>>> >>>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>>> >>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>>> >>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>>> >>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>>> >>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>>> >>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>>> >>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>>> >>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>>> >>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>>> >>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>>> >>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>>> >>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>>> >>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>>> >>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>>> >>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>>> >>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>>> >>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>>> >>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>>> >>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>>> >>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>>> >>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>>> >>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> Macquarie University >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>>> >>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>>> scaffolding: >>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>>> James >>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>>> >>>> canterbury.academia.edu >>>> >>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>>> Wiley. >>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>>> actuality. >>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>>> Here is a summary. >>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>>> implied in abduction. >>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>>> teaching as delivery. >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>>> counts: >>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>>> of a ready made solution. >>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>>> scaffolding. >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>>> too, >>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>>> issue >>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>>> humility. >>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>>> was >>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>>> us >>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>>> fictions >>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>>> that >>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>>> hypostatized >>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>>> of >>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>>> narrative. >>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>>> before it became one. >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>>> defended >>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>>> " >>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>>> blessed. >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>>> forming >>>>>>> *as* >>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>>> where >>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>>> moving >>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>>> physical >>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>>> is >>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>>> internal >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>>> an >>>>>>> apt >>>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>>> activists >>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>>> says >>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>>> persons. >>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>>> this >>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>>> guides >>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>>> and >>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>>> influenced >>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>>> education >>>>>> in >>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>>> help >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>>> now... >>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>>> in >>>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>>> wi**th >>>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>>> jb >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>> vimeo.com >>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>>> heard >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Jun 20 20:46:54 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:46:54 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Noumenal and Phenomenal References: Message-ID: Whoopsie! I had not intended to send the foregoing. Lately, I have been writing posts without the intention of sending them, just putting them in drafts. Maybe for reading later, maybe not. Anyway, darn those fingers of mine! Henry > Begin forwarded message: > > From: HENRY SHONERD > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Noumenal and Phenomenal > Date: June 20, 2016 at 9:42:32 PM MDT > To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be construed as being on a continuum, where there is no specific point where one turrns into the other? How about the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe this could be animated? That would capture the temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all of the technologies that have been developedl to take the measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the workings of our bodies. > Henry > > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! >>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this >>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>>>> >>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>>>> >>>>> A few key points you offered: >>>>> >>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>>>> >>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>>>> >>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>>>> >>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>>>> >>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>>>> >>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>>>> >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>>>> >>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>>>> >>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>>>> >>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>>>> >>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>>>> >>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>>>> >>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>>>> >>>>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>>>> >>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>>>> >>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>>>> >>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>>>> >>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>>>> >>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>>>> >>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>>>> >>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>>>> >>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>>>> >>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>>>> >>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>>>> >>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>>>> >>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>>>> >>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>>>> >>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>>>> >>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>>>> >>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>>>> >>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>>>> >>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>>>> >>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>>>> >>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>>>> >>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>>>> >>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>>>> scaffolding: >>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>>>> James >>>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>>>> >>>>> canterbury.academia.edu >>>>> >>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>>>> Wiley. >>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>>>> actuality. >>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>>>> Here is a summary. >>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>>>> implied in abduction. >>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>>>> teaching as delivery. >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>>>> counts: >>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>>>> of a ready made solution. >>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>>>> scaffolding. >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>>>> too, >>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>>>> issue >>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>>>> humility. >>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>>>> was >>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>>>> us >>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>>>> fictions >>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>>>> that >>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>>>> hypostatized >>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>>>> of >>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>>>> narrative. >>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>>>> before it became one. >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>>>> defended >>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>>>> " >>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>>>> blessed. >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>>>> forming >>>>>>>> *as* >>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>>>> moving >>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>>>> internal >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>>>> an >>>>>>>> apt >>>>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>>>> activists >>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>>>> says >>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>>>> persons. >>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>>>> guides >>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>>>> influenced >>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>>>> education >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>>>> now... >>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>>>> wi**th >>>>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>>>> jb >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>> vimeo.com >>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>>>> heard >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jun 20 21:49:10 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:49:10 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> Message-ID: "Noumenal/Phenomenological" is a valid *distinction* (more or less), Henry, but it is the reference to noumenal and phenomenal *worlds* which placed James' thought firmly in the Kantian dualist camp. Without using animation, Hegel dealt with the issue you raise, i.e., the transition from Being to Phenomenon to Concept, and Lenin made a big point of there being "no difference in principle" between noumenon and phenomenon, and Vygotsky went that way, too. As soon as you mention any kind of mediation then you are with Peirce on this question, as well as Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, as Martin insisted. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/06/2016 1:42 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be construed as being on a continuum, where there is no specific point where one turrns into the other? How about the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe this could be animated? That would capture the temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all of the technologies that have been developedl to take the measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the workings of our bodies. > Henry > > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! >>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this >>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>>>> >>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>>>> >>>>> A few key points you offered: >>>>> >>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>>>> >>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>>>> >>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>>>> >>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>>>> >>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>>>> >>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>>>> >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>>>> >>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>>>> >>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>>>> >>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>>>> >>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>>>> >>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>>>> >>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>>>> >>>>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>>>> >>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>>>> >>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>>>> >>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>>>> >>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>>>> >>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>>>> >>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>>>> >>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>>>> >>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>>>> >>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>>>> >>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>>>> >>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>>>> >>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>>>> >>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>>>> >>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>>>> >>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>>>> >>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>>>> >>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>>>> >>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>>>> >>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>>>> >>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>>>> >>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>>>> >>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>>>> scaffolding: >>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>>>> James >>>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>>>> >>>>> canterbury.academia.edu >>>>> >>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>>>> Wiley. >>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>>>> actuality. >>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>>>> Here is a summary. >>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>>>> implied in abduction. >>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>>>> teaching as delivery. >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>>>> counts: >>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>>>> of a ready made solution. >>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>>>> scaffolding. >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>>>> too, >>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>>>> issue >>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>>>> humility. >>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>>>> was >>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>>>> us >>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>>>> fictions >>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>>>> that >>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>>>> hypostatized >>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>>>> of >>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>>>> narrative. >>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>>>> before it became one. >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>>>> defended >>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>>>> " >>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>>>> blessed. >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>>>> forming >>>>>>>> *as* >>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>>>> moving >>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>>>> internal >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>>>> an >>>>>>>> apt >>>>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>>>> activists >>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>>>> says >>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>>>> persons. >>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>>>> guides >>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>>>> influenced >>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>>>> education >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>>>> now... >>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>>>> wi**th >>>>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>>>> jb >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>> vimeo.com >>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>>>> heard >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>>> >>>>> >>> > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 21 01:58:44 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:58:44 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> Message-ID: <2809D1D0-F0E1-4C9F-9459-9EF4827CA85A@gmail.com> Andy, Kant didn't have a notion of mediation? Isn't that the whole reason why he ended up with phenomena and noumena? The noumenal world is mediated by the categories of the understanding and that gives us the phenomena. Dualist, yes, but also a mediationist. (And some Heideggerians would point to mediation as the problem, hence their preference for "disclosure" or "un concealment"). -Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > "Noumenal/Phenomenological" is a valid *distinction* (more or less), Henry, but it is the reference to noumenal and phenomenal *worlds* which placed James' thought firmly in the Kantian dualist camp. Without using animation, Hegel dealt with the issue you raise, i.e., the transition from Being to Phenomenon to Concept, and Lenin made a big point of there being "no difference in principle" between noumenon and phenomenon, and Vygotsky went that way, too. As soon as you mention any kind of mediation then you are with Peirce on this question, as well as Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, as Martin insisted. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> On 21/06/2016 1:42 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be construed as being on a continuum, where there is no specific point where one turrns into the other? How about the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe this could be animated? That would capture the temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all of the technologies that have been developedl to take the measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the workings of our bodies. >> Henry >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! >>>> >>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this >>>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>>>>> >>>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>>>>> >>>>>> A few key points you offered: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>>>>> >>>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>>>>> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> James: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>>>>> >>>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>>>>> >>>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>>>>> >>>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>>>>> >>>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>>>>> >>>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>>>>> >>>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>>>>> >>>>>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>>>>> >>>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>>>>> >>>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>>>>> >>>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>>>>> >>>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>>>>> >>>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>>>>> >>>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>>>>> >>>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>>>>> >>>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>>>>> >>>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>>>>> >>>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>>>>> >>>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>>>>> >>>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>>>>> >>>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>>>>> >>>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>>>>> >>>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>>>>> >>>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>>>>> >>>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>>>>> >>>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>>>>> >>>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>>>>> >>>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>>>>> >>>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>>>>> scaffolding: >>>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> canterbury.academia.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>>>>> Wiley. >>>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>>>>> actuality. >>>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>>>>> Here is a summary. >>>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>>>>> implied in abduction. >>>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>>>>> teaching as delivery. >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>>>>> counts: >>>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>>>>> of a ready made solution. >>>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>>>>> scaffolding. >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>>>>> too, >>>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>>>>> humility. >>>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>>>>> us >>>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>>>>> fictions >>>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>>>>> hypostatized >>>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>>>>> narrative. >>>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>>>>> before it became one. >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>>>>> defended >>>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>>>>> blessed. >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>>>>> forming >>>>>>>>> *as* >>>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>>>>> moving >>>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>>>>> internal >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> apt >>>>>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>>>>> activists >>>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>>>>> says >>>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>>>>> persons. >>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>>>>> guides >>>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>>>>> influenced >>>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>>>>> education >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>>>>> now... >>>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>>>>> wi**th >>>>>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>>>>> jb >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>>>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>>>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>>> vimeo.com >>>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>>>>> heard >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 21 03:08:22 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:08:22 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <2809D1D0-F0E1-4C9F-9459-9EF4827CA85A@gmail.com> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <2809D1D0-F0E1-4C9F-9459-9EF4827CA85A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5895c6b9-2e2c-c19a-80d7-daf80e983a96@mira.net> Well, "mediation" is a very broad category indeed. If you need a bridge to get from this side to /jenseits/, then that is, to my mind, the kind of mediation which is consistent with dualism. Perhaps Martin could comment? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/06/2016 6:58 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > Andy, > Kant didn't have a notion of mediation? > Isn't that the whole reason why he ended up with phenomena and noumena? The noumenal world is mediated by the categories of the understanding and that gives us the phenomena. > Dualist, yes, but also a mediationist. > (And some Heideggerians would point to mediation as the problem, hence their preference for "disclosure" or "un concealment"). > -Greg > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> "Noumenal/Phenomenological" is a valid *distinction* (more or less), Henry, but it is the reference to noumenal and phenomenal *worlds* which placed James' thought firmly in the Kantian dualist camp. Without using animation, Hegel dealt with the issue you raise, i.e., the transition from Being to Phenomenon to Concept, and Lenin made a big point of there being "no difference in principle" between noumenon and phenomenon, and Vygotsky went that way, too. As soon as you mention any kind of mediation then you are with Peirce on this question, as well as Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, as Martin insisted. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> On 21/06/2016 1:42 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>> But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be construed as being on a continuum, where there is no specific point where one turrns into the other? How about the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe this could be animated? That would capture the temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all of the technologies that have been developedl to take the measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the workings of our bodies. >>> Henry >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> >>>>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this >>>>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>>>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A few key points you offered: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>>>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>>>>>> >>>>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>>>>>> >>>>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>>>>>> >>>>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>>>>>> >>>>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>>>>>> >>>>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>>>>>> >>>>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>>>>>> >>>>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>>>>>> >>>>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>>>>>> >>>>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>>>>>> >>>>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>>>>>> >>>>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>>>>>> scaffolding: >>>>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> canterbury.academia.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>>>>>> Wiley. >>>>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>>>>>> actuality. >>>>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>>>>>> Here is a summary. >>>>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>>>>>> implied in abduction. >>>>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>>>>>> teaching as delivery. >>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>>>>>> counts: >>>>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>>>>>> of a ready made solution. >>>>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>>>>>> scaffolding. >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>>>>>> too, >>>>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>>>>>> humility. >>>>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>>>>>> fictions >>>>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>>>>>> hypostatized >>>>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>>>>>> narrative. >>>>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>>>>>> before it became one. >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>>>>>> defended >>>>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>>>>>> blessed. >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>>>>>> forming >>>>>>>>>> *as* >>>>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>>>>>> moving >>>>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>>>>>> internal >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> apt >>>>>>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>>>>>> activists >>>>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>>>>>> says >>>>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>>>>>> persons. >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>>>>>> guides >>>>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>>>>>> influenced >>>>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>>>>>> education >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>>>>>> now... >>>>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>>>>>> wi**th >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>>>>>> jb >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>>>>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>>>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>>>>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>>>> vimeo.com >>>>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>>>>>> heard >>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>>>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Tue Jun 21 04:27:16 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:27:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> , Message-ID: Hello Andy, Lenin's view of noumenon and phenomenon is new to me but somehow reminds me of a Russian scholar I came across at the Estoril Vygotsky Conference in 2010. I was curious to know why the term "non-classical" was used to describe Vygotsky's cultural-historical school of thought. He said this was because what was subjective in traditional Western psychology was considered to be objective by Vygotsky. e.g. thoughts and feelings can be studied objectively since they are reflected in a particular culture and expressed through the mediational functions of signs and symbols associated with that culture. The reason I brought up the Kantian distinction was somehow connected to existentialism which has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the a priori property of which has long been my interest). I've often had something phenomenological at the back of my mind whenever my thoughts are on Vygotsky's "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts on the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 21 June 2016 05:49 To: HENRY SHONERD; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal "Noumenal/Phenomenological" is a valid *distinction* (more or less), Henry, but it is the reference to noumenal and phenomenal *worlds* which placed James' thought firmly in the Kantian dualist camp. Without using animation, Hegel dealt with the issue you raise, i.e., the transition from Being to Phenomenon to Concept, and Lenin made a big point of there being "no difference in principle" between noumenon and phenomenon, and Vygotsky went that way, too. As soon as you mention any kind of mediation then you are with Peirce on this question, as well as Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, as Martin insisted. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/06/2016 1:42 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be construed as being on a continuum, where there is no specific point where one turrns into the other? How about the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe this could be animated? That would capture the temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all of the technologies that have been developedl to take the measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the workings of our bodies. > Henry > > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please explain. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! >>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>> >>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question re free will - sorry about my delayed response. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be made between the two. We have access to the former because it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. A large part of our decision making takes place at a preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery sets in motion an inward dialogic process within ourselves. I'm still thinking about this >>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent". >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 >>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. >>>>> >>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). >>>>> >>>>> A few key points you offered: >>>>> >>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological resonance. >>>>> >>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. >>>>> >>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to authorize this synergy. >>>>> >>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through word-image complementarity in a storybook >>>>> >>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of semiotic mediation. >>>>> >>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with union of two separate substances that join but remain two). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional space as the via media through which the invisible travels on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition to becoming clearer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be warned that his definition of language is in its most productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, commonsense insights". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as they are not emotionalists)! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 >>>>> >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development can be seen as >>>>> >>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible and the invisible, as >>>>> >>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the invisible to the >>>>> >>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this week. Some Korean sixth >>>>> >>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, by skipping over large >>>>> >>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial and final letter, forming >>>>> >>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, comparing with leading >>>>> >>>>> and following context and moving on where this is adequate. The teacher >>>>> >>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids have to read a long >>>>> >>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six pages long. They then >>>>> >>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages with the sections >>>>> >>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and fill in the missing >>>>> >>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the teacher rings a bell >>>>> >>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their whole team. The kids >>>>> >>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses visible) but they are not >>>>> >>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays in the book). It is >>>>> >>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method of dual stimulation, but >>>>> >>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation allows the child to >>>>> >>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by transferring it first from >>>>> >>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to extramental modes >>>>> >>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. With the zone of >>>>> >>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we are making still immature >>>>> >>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with the functional method of >>>>> >>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions invisible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best explanation" and "final >>>>> >>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a difference to me, like the >>>>> >>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and supporting him. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of >>>>> >>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with >>>>> >>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic. >>>>> >>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >>>>> >>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make regarding the concept of >>>>>> scaffolding: >>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. To some extent it >>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? which is deliberate and of >>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined the term ?explicit >>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only intentional and overt >>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence of scaffolding is to >>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice has achieved what is >>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending on the needs of the >>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of >>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, instructive context). >>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, scaffolding can be seen >>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which means the more >>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how best to assist the >>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in themselves but there is no >>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto Eco would say this is >>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis perpetuates itself in the >>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to theorise scaffolding based >>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with iconic signs in all >>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural and auditory etc. >>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of Semiology? (1967) inverted the >>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of semiotics. To me, the >>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of linguistics offers a tour >>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and representation in >>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most productive sense, encompassing >>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, arguably, assist in >>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment semiotic construction. >>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of other modalities enriches >>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other modalities can all be cast >>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way exchange (between linguistics >>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, if we are to further >>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. >>>>>> James >>>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA >>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - Academia.edu >>>>> >>>>> canterbury.academia.edu >>>>> >>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD from the University of Bristol and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES >>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception of learning outcomes in >>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis. >>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 >>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging can be misleading?: A >>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of mind between mother and >>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. >>>>>> Wiley. >>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 >>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 >>>>>> http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry >>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 >>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the arc of his personal >>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way hypothesis channel our >>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes two dominate ways of >>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which generate hypothesis. >>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both constrain and afford >>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s exploration of Peirce?s notion >>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation between hypothesis and >>>>>> actuality. >>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: (2014) vlome 21:4 >>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and Vygotsky he explores the >>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis *generating* constraints and >>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). >>>>>> Here is a summary. >>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis?. >>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) IS a *generative >>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) through semiotic action. >>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis formation (cognition) >>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of an object ( a Peircean >>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). >>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* within this exploration of >>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of sparking meaning >>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. >>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being *opaque* seems to be >>>>>> implied in abduction. >>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when intuitively generated is >>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward becoming a clarified *true >>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a continuous process of >>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. >>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme in Bruner?s video >>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James Ma?s project to travel >>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. >>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. >>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to the role of language in >>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary *tendency of dependence* on >>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning and sense* >>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal processes that includes >>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to include multimodal semiosis. >>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the centrality of meaning >>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a corrective to the idea of >>>>>> teaching as delivery. >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email as hubris on several >>>>>> counts: >>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this metaphor. It's not clear to >>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used it and Peter Langford and >>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this number, although I have >>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. >>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the phenomenon he is describing. >>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a mechanical one, and suggests >>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to the child or worse that >>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. >>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom accurate, correct, >>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his hand made strong by the >>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the painstaking work that >>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously behaviorist training, >>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than simply (like most of us) >>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an early work of Bruner's in >>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of the distance between >>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). >>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's email in that way. Like >>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it emphasized the random, >>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of the metaphor. >>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature of that metaphor--I don't >>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for thinking about learning, >>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very blunt instrument for >>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. >>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the ZPD in years, but nobody >>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else does is that people have >>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is manifestly (in Bruner, Woods >>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an instantaneous assimilation >>>>>> of a ready made solution. >>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the lecture on the Crisis >>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, if you read the >>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected Works of LSV, you will be >>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with the statement that he >>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of view: neoformation, >>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal development. Then he says that >>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to examine a good deal of >>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for Vygotsky--he never wants to >>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead prefers to allow them to >>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word of what to expect). The >>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the "factual material" is taken >>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of child development and >>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in Nazi occupied Vienna). >>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven Stars"--a folk theory in >>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of "terrible twos" and >>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without any further mention of >>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. >>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of the story. But >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" has a lecture "The >>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for all the world appears to >>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the Collected Works left off >>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven Stars" and noting the >>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is misleading: the lecture in >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the material in the CW. But it >>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course ("Foundations of >>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of his life, and so I think >>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version of the continuation of >>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk about the neoformation >>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development (tantrums where the child >>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing to do things he >>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things that he doesn't really >>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: >>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? >>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? >>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ??? >>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????????, ???????? ?? >>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????. >>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ???????????? >>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. >>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: What does this hypobulic >>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it prefigure for the volitional >>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The contradictory position that >>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative motive for his own >>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and facutally acting contrary >>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is a paradoxical phenomenon >>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three consists in the >>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." >>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the question he asks at the very >>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the zone of proximal >>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the answer is most clear: >>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the actual zone of development >>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not and never has been >>>>>> scaffolding. >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come into this. Humility, >>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the literal meaning of >>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. But enduring, clearly, >>>>>> too, >>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is that a critical >>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative product then becomes >>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a memorial issue for Jerome >>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's also why a memorial >>>>>> issue >>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death is in two weeks time, >>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not in hubris but in >>>>>>> humility. >>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the email that Rob Lake >>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of Bruner's humility, not his >>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential metaphor--but I think that >>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition out of the blue Bruner >>>>>> was >>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are misleading: they tell >>>>>> us >>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces but they tell us >>>>>> fictions >>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for example the "scaffolding" >>>>>> that >>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was something to be taken >>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" it has become >>>>>> hypostatized >>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it has become identified >>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. >>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of narrative. Bruner was prone >>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for narrative as the very source >>>>>> of >>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of Bruner is now a >>>>>> narrative. >>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting part is what happened >>>>>>> before it became one. >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut < >>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky conference. I shared with the >>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to Moscow. It was more than >>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his beautiful life full with >>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he transmitted to people on his >>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay in Moskow ( I just >>>>>>> defended >>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for my first job) he said >>>>>> " >>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with this opportunity and >>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this week. Let his memory be >>>>>>>> blessed. >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>>> Jessica, >>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved by Robert?s question >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept *scaffolding* was >>>>>> forming >>>>>>>> *as* >>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of *depth* inquiry asking >>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as they enter into history >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> culture. >>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that is at this moment >>>>>> moving >>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? This is a notion of >>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* tingbeyond Bruner?s >>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. >>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) be a source of >>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own sense of living >>>>>>>> *presence*. >>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* located internally or >>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a location where >>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is permeable to both >>>>>> internal >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> external presence? >>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to locate where >>>>>>> intuitions >>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions as *seeds* forming >>>>>> an >>>>>>>> apt >>>>>>>>> metaphor? >>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* dialogue within our >>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular communities which some call >>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. >>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his article that I have >>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he proposes a deep sense that >>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as advocated by the living >>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In particular learning that is >>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, conscientiousness, and good >>>>>>>> faith?. >>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* devotees and >>>>>> activists >>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) *learning* which James >>>>>> says >>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. >>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* the virtues and ideals >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. >>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance often arises or awakens >>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* (living presences) as >>>>>>> persons. >>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death continues to exist within >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and intellectualism that >>>>>>>> guides >>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and ideals. >>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. >>>>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. >>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very >>>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about >>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and >>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a >>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so >>>>>>> influenced >>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about >>>>>> education >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I >>>>>>>> almost >>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might >>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education >>>>>>> now... >>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. >>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Arhus! >>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward >>>>>>>>> possible worlds. >>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] on behalf of Helena >>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < >>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** >>>>>> wi**th >>>>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* >>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about >>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky >>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * >>>>>>>> *It* >>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! >>>>>>>> jb >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. >>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it >>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research >>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia >>>>>> Hanfmann >>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first >>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. >>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had >>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander >>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow >>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great >>>>>>> admirer >>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on >>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very much in the >>>>>> Vygotskian >>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an >>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to >>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work >>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the >>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> volume. >>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? >>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, >>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and >>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the >>>>>>>>>>> areas >>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic >>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. >>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. >>>>>>>>>>> Moll, >>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical >>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything >>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? >>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! >>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 >>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, interviewed by Mike Cole< >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> >>>>>> vimeo.com >>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at http://luria.ucsd.edu where >>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal >>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of mike >>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just >>>>>> heard >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a >>>>>> fundamental >>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. >>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education >>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University >>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 >>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >>>>>>>>>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John >>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy >>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut >>>>> >>>>> >>> > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 21 05:29:30 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:29:30 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> Message-ID: Personally I don't think Phenomenology has much to tell us about Vygotsky's views, but Martin is one who holds the opposite view and I hope that he will put that view here. Vygotsky was certainly clear that his work was part of Objective Psychology, not only because it was a continuation of the work of Dilthey and Wundt based on the observation of cultural development, but also in laboratory conditions where the actions of both research subjects and researchers were the material on which psychological research is based. But Vygotsky differed from the Behaviourists of various kinds because Vygotsky held that consciousness was an uneliminable component of action and activity. But the study of consciousness was indirect, just as is the study of history, geology and atomic physics. I don't recall that Vygotsky had much to say about Kant, but nor did Marx or Lenin. There seems to have been a view that everything that needed to be said about Kant had already been said by Hegel. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/06/2016 9:27 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > Hello Andy, > > > Lenin's view of noumenon and phenomenon is new to me but > somehow reminds me of a Russian scholar I came across at > the Estoril Vygotsky Conference in 2010. I was curious to > know why the term "non-classical" was used to describe > Vygotsky's cultural-historical school of thought. > He said this was because what was subjective > in traditional Western psychology was considered to > be objective by Vygotsky. e.g. thoughts and feelings can > be studied objectively since they are reflected in a > particular culture and expressed through the mediational > functions of signs and symbols associated with that culture. > > > The reason I brought up the Kantian > distinctionwas somehow connected to existentialism which > has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the a > priori property of which has long been my interest). > I've often had something phenomenological at the back of > my mind whenever my thoughts are on Vygotsky's > "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts > on the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? > > > James > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy > Blunden > *Sent:* 21 June 2016 05:49 > *To:* HENRY SHONERD; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > "Noumenal/Phenomenological" is a valid *distinction* (more > or less), Henry, but it is the reference to noumenal and > phenomenal *worlds* which placed James' thought firmly in > the Kantian dualist camp. Without using animation, Hegel > dealt with the issue you raise, i.e., the transition from > Being to Phenomenon to Concept, and Lenin made a big point > of there being "no difference in principle" between noumenon > and phenomenon, and Vygotsky went that way, too. As soon as > you mention any kind of mediation then you are with Peirce > on this question, as well as Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, as > Martin insisted. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > Andy Blunden's Home Page > home.mira.net > Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain > and mail-to buttons > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 21/06/2016 1:42 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be > construed as being on a continuum, where there is no > specific point where one turrns into the other? How about > the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I > think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe > this could be animated? That would capture the > temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it > would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our > five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is > enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground > relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think > Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of > semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic > space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human > conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and > it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing > the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe > there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all > of the technologies that have been developedl to take the > measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have > been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we > ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the > workings of our bodies. > > Henry > > > > > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > >> > >> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, > even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, > James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please > explain. > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! > >>> > >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps > you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John > Packer > >>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>> > >>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that > Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have > disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least > from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question > re free will - sorry about my delayed response. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here > talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the > noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be > made between the two. We have access to the former because > it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense > perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as > it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). > Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's > deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, > perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. > A large part of our decision making takes place at a > preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems > to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his > words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the > deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's > iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery > sets in motion an inward dialogic process within > ourselves. I'm still thinking about this > >>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating > Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your > self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his > assent". > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 > >>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to > see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. > >>>>> > >>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy > of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the > Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). > >>>>> > >>>>> A few key points you offered: > >>>>> > >>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological > resonance. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical > *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to > authorize this synergy. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through > word-image complementarity in a storybook > >>>>> > >>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of > Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of > semiotic mediation. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, > share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with > union of two separate substances that join but remain two). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through > the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming > visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional > space as the via media through which the invisible travels > on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to > scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition > to becoming clearer. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > >>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you > miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an > inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. > All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best > explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of > Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of > semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that > any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As > Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is > inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: > there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world > of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be > warned that his definition of language is in its most > productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic > entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would > probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the > unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these > assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being > "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, > commonsense insights". > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned > opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as > they are not emotionalists)! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David > Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 > >>>>> > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> James: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development > can be seen as > >>>>> > >>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible > and the invisible, as > >>>>> > >>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the > invisible to the > >>>>> > >>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this > week. Some Korean sixth > >>>>> > >>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, > by skipping over large > >>>>> > >>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial > and final letter, forming > >>>>> > >>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, > comparing with leading > >>>>> > >>>>> and following context and moving on where this is > adequate. The teacher > >>>>> > >>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids > have to read a long > >>>>> > >>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six > pages long. They then > >>>>> > >>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages > with the sections > >>>>> > >>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and > fill in the missing > >>>>> > >>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the > teacher rings a bell > >>>>> > >>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their > whole team. The kids > >>>>> > >>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses > visible) but they are not > >>>>> > >>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays > in the book). It is > >>>>> > >>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method > of dual stimulation, but > >>>>> > >>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation > allows the child to > >>>>> > >>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by > transferring it first from > >>>>> > >>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to > extramental modes > >>>>> > >>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. > With the zone of > >>>>> > >>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we > are making still immature > >>>>> > >>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with > the functional method of > >>>>> > >>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions > invisible. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best > explanation" and "final > >>>>> > >>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a > difference to me, like the > >>>>> > >>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and > supporting him. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of > Saussure's location of > >>>>> > >>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and > linguistics both deal with > >>>>> > >>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning > which are not linguistic. > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not > semiotic? I can't. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > >>>>> > >>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make > regarding the concept of > >>>>>> scaffolding: > >>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. > To some extent it > >>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? > which is deliberate and of > >>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined > the term ?explicit > >>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only > intentional and overt > >>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence > of scaffolding is to > >>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice > has achieved what is > >>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending > on the needs of the > >>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs > from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > >>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, > instructive context). > >>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, > scaffolding can be seen > >>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which > means the more > >>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how > best to assist the > >>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in > themselves but there is no > >>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto > Eco would say this is > >>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis > perpetuates itself in the > >>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to > theorise scaffolding based > >>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with > iconic signs in all > >>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, > gestural and auditory etc. > >>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of > Semiology? (1967) inverted the > >>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of > semiotics. To me, the > >>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of > linguistics offers a tour > >>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and > representation in > >>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most > productive sense, encompassing > >>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, > arguably, assist in > >>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment > semiotic construction. > >>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of > other modalities enriches > >>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other > modalities can all be cast > >>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way > exchange (between linguistics > >>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, > if we are to further > >>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > >>>>>> James > >>>>>> _____________________________________________ > >>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > >>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > >>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - > Academia.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> canterbury.academia.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, > Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural > Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori > Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD > from the University of Bristol and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > >>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception > of learning outcomes in > >>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor > & Francis. > >>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > >>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging > can be misleading?: A > >>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of > mind between mother and > >>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of > Educational Psychology. > >>>>>> Wiley. > >>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > >>>>>> > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > >>>>>> > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > >>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry > >>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > >>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the > arc of his personal > >>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way > hypothesis channel our > >>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes > two dominate ways of > >>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which > generate hypothesis. > >>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both > constrain and afford > >>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s > exploration of Peirce?s notion > >>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation > between hypothesis and > >>>>>> actuality. > >>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: > (2014) vlome 21:4 > >>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and > Vygotsky he explores the > >>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis > *generating* constraints and > >>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). > >>>>>> Here is a summary. > >>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory > hypothesis?. > >>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) > IS a *generative > >>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) > through semiotic action. > >>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis > formation (cognition) > >>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of > an object ( a Peircean > >>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). > >>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* > within this exploration of > >>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of > sparking meaning > >>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > >>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being > *opaque* seems to be > >>>>>> implied in abduction. > >>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when > intuitively generated is > >>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward > becoming a clarified *true > >>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a > continuous process of > >>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > >>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme > in Bruner?s video > >>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James > Ma?s project to travel > >>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. > >>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. > >>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to > the role of language in > >>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary > *tendency of dependence* on > >>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning > and sense* > >>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal > processes that includes > >>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to > include multimodal semiosis. > >>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the > centrality of meaning > >>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. > >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a > corrective to the idea of > >>>>>> teaching as delivery. > >>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email > as hubris on several > >>>>>> counts: > >>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this > metaphor. It's not clear to > >>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used > it and Peter Langford and > >>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this > number, although I have > >>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. > >>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the > phenomenon he is describing. > >>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a > mechanical one, and suggests > >>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to > the child or worse that > >>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. > >>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom > accurate, correct, > >>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his > hand made strong by the > >>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the > painstaking work that > >>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously > behaviorist training, > >>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than > simply (like most of us) > >>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an > early work of Bruner's in > >>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of > the distance between > >>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). > >>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's > email in that way. Like > >>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it > emphasized the random, > >>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of > the metaphor. > >>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature > of that metaphor--I don't > >>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for > thinking about learning, > >>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very > blunt instrument for > >>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. > >>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the > ZPD in years, but nobody > >>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else > does is that people have > >>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is > manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > >>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an > instantaneous assimilation > >>>>>> of a ready made solution. > >>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the > lecture on the Crisis > >>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, > if you read the > >>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected > Works of LSV, you will be > >>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with > the statement that he > >>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of > view: neoformation, > >>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal > development. Then he says that > >>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to > examine a good deal of > >>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for > Vygotsky--he never wants to > >>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead > prefers to allow them to > >>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word > of what to expect). The > >>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the > "factual material" is taken > >>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of > child development and > >>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in > Nazi occupied Vienna). > >>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven > Stars"--a folk theory in > >>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of > "terrible twos" and > >>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without > any further mention of > >>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > >>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of > the story. But > >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" > has a lecture "The > >>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for > all the world appears to > >>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the > Collected Works left off > >>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven > Stars" and noting the > >>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is > misleading: the lecture in > >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the > material in the CW. But it > >>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course > ("Foundations of > >>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of > his life, and so I think > >>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version > of the continuation of > >>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk > about the neoformation > >>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development > (tantrums where the child > >>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing > to do things he > >>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things > that he doesn't really > >>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > >>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? > ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > >>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? > ??????? ??????????? > >>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? > ??????????? ? ???, ??? > >>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? > ????????????, ???????? ?? > >>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? > ??????? ??????????? ????????. > >>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, > ????? ???????????? > >>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? > ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > >>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: > What does this hypobulic > >>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it > prefigure for the volitional > >>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The > contradictory position that > >>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative > motive for his own > >>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and > facutally acting contrary > >>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is > a paradoxical phenomenon > >>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three > consists in the > >>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." > >>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the > question he asks at the very > >>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the > zone of proximal > >>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the > answer is most clear: > >>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the > actual zone of development > >>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not > and never has been > >>>>>> scaffolding. > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica > Dr. > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come > into this. Humility, > >>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the > literal meaning of > >>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. > But enduring, clearly, > >>>>>> too, > >>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. > >>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is > that a critical > >>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative > product then becomes > >>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a > memorial issue for Jerome > >>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's > also why a memorial > >>>>>> issue > >>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death > is in two weeks time, > >>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not > in hubris but in > >>>>>>> humility. > >>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the > email that Rob Lake > >>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of > Bruner's humility, not his > >>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential > metaphor--but I think that > >>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition > out of the blue Bruner > >>>>>> was > >>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are > misleading: they tell > >>>>>> us > >>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces > but they tell us > >>>>>> fictions > >>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for > example the "scaffolding" > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was > something to be taken > >>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" > it has become > >>>>>> hypostatized > >>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it > has become identified > >>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > >>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of > narrative. Bruner was prone > >>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for > narrative as the very source > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of > Bruner is now a > >>>>>> narrative. > >>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting > part is what happened > >>>>>>> before it became one. > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella > Kotik-Friedgut < > >>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky > conference. I shared with the > >>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to > Moscow. It was more than > >>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his > beautiful life full with > >>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he > transmitted to people on his > >>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay > in Moskow ( I just > >>>>>>> defended > >>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for > my first job) he said > >>>>>> " > >>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with > this opportunity and > >>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this > week. Let his memory be > >>>>>>>> blessed. > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Jessica, > >>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved > by Robert?s question > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept > *scaffolding* was > >>>>>> forming > >>>>>>>> *as* > >>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of > *depth* inquiry asking > >>>>>> where > >>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as > they enter into history > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> culture. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that > is at this moment > >>>>>> moving > >>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? > This is a notion of > >>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* > tingbeyond Bruner?s > >>>>>> physical > >>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. > >>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) > be a source of > >>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own > sense of living > >>>>>>>> *presence*. > >>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* > located internally or > >>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a > location where > >>>>>>> intuitions > >>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is > permeable to both > >>>>>> internal > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> external presence? > >>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to > locate where > >>>>>>> intuitions > >>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions > as *seeds* forming > >>>>>> an > >>>>>>>> apt > >>>>>>>>> metaphor? > >>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* > dialogue within our > >>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular > communities which some call > >>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. > >>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his > article that I have > >>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he > proposes a deep sense that > >>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as > advocated by the living > >>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In > particular learning that is > >>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, > conscientiousness, and good > >>>>>>>> faith?. > >>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* > devotees and > >>>>>> activists > >>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) > *learning* which James > >>>>>> says > >>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. > >>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* > the virtues and ideals > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. > >>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance > often arises or awakens > >>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* > (living presences) as > >>>>>>> persons. > >>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death > continues to exist within > >>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and > intellectualism that > >>>>>>>> guides > >>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and > ideals. > >>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > >>>>>>>>> Larry > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you > had with "jb" over > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of > scaffolding as "just one > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the > blue". This very > >>>>>>>> phrasing > >>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as > we think about > >>>>>>> thinking > >>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in > such profound and > >>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for > sharing it. What a > >>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an > idea that has so > >>>>>>> influenced > >>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner > wrote about > >>>>>> education > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an > in-passing way that I > >>>>>>>> almost > >>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling > intuition then might > >>>>>>> help > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural > landscape of education > >>>>>>> now... > >>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. > >>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his > keynote at Iscrat 98 > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> Arhus! > >>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your > actual minds toward > >>>>>>>>> possible worlds. > >>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [ > >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] > on behalf of Helena > >>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! > >>>>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > >>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email > correspondence** > >>>>>> wi**th > >>>>>>>>> Jerome > >>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* > >>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book > for educators about > >>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky > >>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the > phrase "scaffolding" * > >>>>>>>> *It* > >>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* > >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were > introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > > >>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that > came out of the blue! > >>>>>>>> jb > >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were > introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. > >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of > scaffolding? Was it > >>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own > experience in research > >>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came > when Eugenia > >>>>>> Hanfmann > >>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be > Vygotsky's first > >>>>>> book > >>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in > 1962 by MIT Press. > >>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to > that book. I had > >>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work > through Alexander > >>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of > Psychology at Moscow > >>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several > occasions. He was a great > >>>>>>> admirer > >>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly > that my own work on > >>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very > much in the > >>>>>> Vygotskian > >>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that > Vygotsky was an > >>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian > culturally-blind approach to > >>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that > aspect of my own work > >>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an > introduction to the > >>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>> volume. > >>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? > >>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. > >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner > >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced > to Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer > on Vygotsky and > >>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book > contract. One of the > >>>>>>>>>>> areas > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some > of LSV's academic > >>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. > Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom > ,D.Robbins and L. > >>>>>>>>>>> Moll, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the > way of historical > >>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. > Is there anything > >>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were > introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our > generation. > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>>>>>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, > interviewed by Mike Cole< > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >>>>>> vimeo.com > >>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at > http://luria.ucsd.edu where > >>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > >>>>>>>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some > of your personal > >>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On Behalf Of mike > >>>>>>>> cole > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, > but I have just > >>>>>> heard > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend > who had a > >>>>>> fundamental > >>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor > >>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education > >>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University > >>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special > Interest Group > >>>>>>>>>> Webpage: > https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > >>>>>>>> must > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is > its midwife.* John > >>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy > >>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > > > From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Tue Jun 21 06:24:32 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:24:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> , Message-ID: Many thanks Andy. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 21 June 2016 13:29 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Personally I don't think Phenomenology has much to tell us about Vygotsky's views, but Martin is one who holds the opposite view and I hope that he will put that view here. Vygotsky was certainly clear that his work was part of Objective Psychology, not only because it was a continuation of the work of Dilthey and Wundt based on the observation of cultural development, but also in laboratory conditions where the actions of both research subjects and researchers were the material on which psychological research is based. But Vygotsky differed from the Behaviourists of various kinds because Vygotsky held that consciousness was an uneliminable component of action and activity. But the study of consciousness was indirect, just as is the study of history, geology and atomic physics. I don't recall that Vygotsky had much to say about Kant, but nor did Marx or Lenin. There seems to have been a view that everything that needed to be said about Kant had already been said by Hegel. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy Andy Blunden's Home Page home.mira.net Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain and mail-to buttons http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 21/06/2016 9:27 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > Hello Andy, > > > Lenin's view of noumenon and phenomenon is new to me but > somehow reminds me of a Russian scholar I came across at > the Estoril Vygotsky Conference in 2010. I was curious to > know why the term "non-classical" was used to describe > Vygotsky's cultural-historical school of thought. > He said this was because what was subjective > in traditional Western psychology was considered to > be objective by Vygotsky. e.g. thoughts and feelings can > be studied objectively since they are reflected in a > particular culture and expressed through the mediational > functions of signs and symbols associated with that culture. > > > The reason I brought up the Kantian > distinctionwas somehow connected to existentialism which > has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the a > priori property of which has long been my interest). > I've often had something phenomenological at the back of > my mind whenever my thoughts are on Vygotsky's > "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts > on the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? > > > James > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy > Blunden > *Sent:* 21 June 2016 05:49 > *To:* HENRY SHONERD; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > "Noumenal/Phenomenological" is a valid *distinction* (more > or less), Henry, but it is the reference to noumenal and > phenomenal *worlds* which placed James' thought firmly in > the Kantian dualist camp. Without using animation, Hegel > dealt with the issue you raise, i.e., the transition from > Being to Phenomenon to Concept, and Lenin made a big point > of there being "no difference in principle" between noumenon > and phenomenon, and Vygotsky went that way, too. As soon as > you mention any kind of mediation then you are with Peirce > on this question, as well as Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, as > Martin insisted. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > Andy Blunden's Home Page > home.mira.net > Andy Blunden's Home Page with links to pages I maintain > and mail-to buttons > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 21/06/2016 1:42 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > But can?t those two extremes of conceptualization be > construed as being on a continuum, where there is no > specific point where one turrns into the other? How about > the two concepts being figure and ground to one another? I > think we need a temporal dimension for this to work. Maybe > this could be animated? That would capture the > temporality. On the chat we can only verbalize, so it > would be impossible to ?settle? the issue. We have our > five senses for something. Even three (Helen Keller) is > enough. This is so connected to the figure/ground > relationship of linguistics and semiotics. I think > Langacker would say that phonological space is a subset of > semantic space and semantic space a subset of symbolic > space: Ph>Sem>Sym.As structure, It?s human > conceptualization/conceptualizing all the way down and > it?s all embodied, which results in: Syn>Sem>Ph, reversing > the figure/ground relationship. Of course I/we believe > there?s a real world, my senses tell me/us so, as do all > of the technologies that have been developedl to take the > measure of that world and to imagine that world. I have > been reading Damasio and like: Our senses are how we > ?read" the external world, our emotions to how we read the > workings of our bodies. > > Henry > > > > > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > >> > >> "Noumenal and Phenomenal worlds" sounds thoroughly, > even paradigmatically, Kantian and Dualist to me, too, > James and quite alien to both Vygotsky and Peirce. Please > explain. > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >> On 21/06/2016 8:11 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>> Well, you introduced it, James. You've confused me! > >>> > >>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Martin, I'm not at all being dualistic here - perhaps > you thought I borrowed the Kantian distinction? James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John > Packer > >>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 17:50 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>> > >>>> But James! That?s a fundamental dualism that > Vygotsky (following Marx and Hegel) would certainly have > disavowed. And Peirce too, as I understand him, at least > from reading interpreters such as Paul Kockelman. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello Larry, I haven't forgotten your early question > re free will - sorry about my delayed response. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, first, let's make it clear that we're here > talking about the phenomenal world, rather than the > noumenal world. According to Kant, a distinction has to be > made between the two. We have access to the former because > it is a thing as it appears (knowable through our sense > perception), whereas the latter we don't have access to as > it is a thing in itself (beyond our capacity of knowing). > Free will concerns what it takes to be in terms of one's > deliberation of action. Back to what I said earlier, > perception is selective, situated in virtue of free will. > A large part of our decision making takes place at a > preconscious, subconscious or unconscious level. It seems > to me that Peirce's interpretant (a further sign - in his > words, "sign in the mind") plays an important part in the > deliberating of our action. More to the point, Peirce's > iconicity can help us understand how the psychic imagery > sets in motion an inward dialogic process within > ourselves. I'm still thinking about this > >>> , thanks to Larry's prompt, meanwhile contemplating > Peirce's idea that "all thinking is dialogic in form. Your > self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his > assent". > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:00 > >>>>> To: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk); eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope to keep these opinions travelling as I try to > see through my vagueness towards greater clarity. > >>>>> > >>>>> James, I am returning to your article (The Synergy > of Peirce and Vygotsky as an Analytical Approach to the > Multimodality of Semiotic Mediation). > >>>>> > >>>>> A few key points you offered: > >>>>> > >>>>> ? Peirce and Vygotsky share an ontological > resonance. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? The synergy occurs within the logical > *fusion* of Vygotskian deduction and Peircean abduction. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? This logical fusion is *designated* to > authorize this synergy. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? How this synergy is exemplified is through > word-image complementarity in a storybook > >>>>> > >>>>> ? The article accentuates the con/fluence of > Peirce-Vygotsky to articulate a profound account of > semiotic mediation. > >>>>> > >>>>> ? Resonance, fusion, confluence, synergy, > share a certain connotation of unity (contrasting with > union of two separate substances that join but remain two). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope others read this fascinating article through > the prism of what David calls the invisible becoming > visible and the 3rd space, the interval or transitional > space as the via media through which the invisible travels > on its path to becoming visible. It may contribute to > scaffolding amd the ZPD as evolving concepts in transition > to becoming clearer. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > >>>>> Sent: June 20, 2016 4:02 AM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for the comments, David. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But I'm afraid, concerning Peircean abduction, you > miss the point. Like induction, abduction is an > inconclusive logic, i.e. the conclusion is not guaranteed. > All abduction necessarily involves inferences to the best > explanation but there is no final conclusion to abide by. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> With regard to the Barthesian inversion of > Saussure's categorisation of linguistics as part of > semiotics, you again miss the point. You are right that > any linguistics meaning is essentially semiotic. As > Barthes put it, ?to perceive what a substance signifies is > inevitably to fall back in the individuation of language: > there is no meaning which is not designated, and the world > of signifieds is none other than that of language?. But be > warned that his definition of language is in its most > productive sense, embracing the entirety of semiotic > entities - this extends Saussurean linguistics. You would > probably find an echo in Lacan's account of the > unconscious structured as a language. In my opinion, these > assertions are illuminating - in contrast with being > "outlandish layers of meaning to perfectly normal, > commonsense insights". > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway, I'm glad the XMCA discussion has spawned > opinionated thoughts from opinionated people (so long as > they are not emotionalists)! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David > Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent: 17 June 2016 11:34 > >>>>> > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> James: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think that Vygotsky's zone of proximal development > can be seen as > >>>>> > >>>>> involving the transitional zone between the visible > and the invisible, as > >>>>> > >>>>> you say. But the zone involves a transition from the > invisible to the > >>>>> > >>>>> visible. Take for example a class I observed this > week. Some Korean sixth > >>>>> > >>>>> graders are learning the ability to read fluently, > by skipping over large > >>>>> > >>>>> blocks of text, perhaps only noticing the initial > and final letter, forming > >>>>> > >>>>> a testable hypothesis about the letters in between, > comparing with leading > >>>>> > >>>>> and following context and moving on where this is > adequate. The teacher > >>>>> > >>>>> teaches this by giving an impossible task--the kids > have to read a long > >>>>> > >>>>> text about playing music to vegetables--five or six > pages long. They then > >>>>> > >>>>> stand up, one by one, and are given random passages > with the sections > >>>>> > >>>>> blanked out.They have to read the passages aloud and > fill in the missing > >>>>> > >>>>> blocks of text as best they can. When they fail, the > teacher rings a bell > >>>>> > >>>>> and they must sit down, having lost points for their > whole team. The kids > >>>>> > >>>>> are allowed to help each other (making hypotheses > visible) but they are not > >>>>> > >>>>> allowed to check the book (what's in the book stays > in the book). It is > >>>>> > >>>>> really the SAME reasoning as the functional method > of dual stimulation, but > >>>>> > >>>>> reversed. The functional method of dual stimulation > allows the child to > >>>>> > >>>>> INTERNALIZE the meaning making process by > transferring it first from > >>>>> > >>>>> interpersonal modes of mediation (instructor led) to > extramental modes > >>>>> > >>>>> (using signs) to "vraschevanie", or intro-volution. > With the zone of > >>>>> > >>>>> proximal development, we are EXTERNALIZING it; we > are making still immature > >>>>> > >>>>> functions visible by offering mediation, and with > the functional method of > >>>>> > >>>>> dual stimulation we are making visible functions > invisible. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I can't understand the difference between "best > explanation" and "final > >>>>> > >>>>> solution". It seems a distinction without a > difference to me, like the > >>>>> > >>>>> difference between voting for Donald Trump and > supporting him. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of > Saussure's location of > >>>>> > >>>>> linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and > linguistics both deal with > >>>>> > >>>>> meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning > which are not linguistic. > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not > semiotic? I can't. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Ma, James > (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > >>>>> > >>>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> There are at least three points I?d like to make > regarding the concept of > >>>>>> scaffolding: > >>>>>> First, scaffolding is an act of semiotic mediation. > To some extent it > >>>>>> resembles Ruqaiya Hasan?s ?visible mediation? ? > which is deliberate and of > >>>>>> which interactants are aware. James Wertsch coined > the term ?explicit > >>>>>> mediation?, in which stimuli involved are not only > intentional and overt > >>>>>> but also non-transitory. However, the very essence > of scaffolding is to > >>>>>> reduce and eventually diminish itself when a novice > has achieved what is > >>>>>> expected of him, although it may reappear depending > on the needs of the > >>>>>> novice. For me, this is where scaffolding differs > from Vygotsky?s ZPD (of > >>>>>> course ZPD is used in more of a didactic, > instructive context). > >>>>>> Second, through the prism of Peircean abduction, > scaffolding can be seen > >>>>>> as involving inference to best explanations ? which > means the more > >>>>>> experienced social partner trying to work out how > best to assist the > >>>>>> novice. Possible effective solutions are best in > themselves but there is no > >>>>>> point in finding out a final solution ? as Umberto > Eco would say this is > >>>>>> ?unlimited semiosis?, which means semiosis > perpetuates itself in the > >>>>>> realisation of meaning potentials. If I were to > theorise scaffolding based > >>>>>> on Peircean iconicity, scaffolding is imbued with > iconic signs in all > >>>>>> semiotic forms ? verbal, non-verbal, visual, > gestural and auditory etc. > >>>>>> Third, Roland Barthes in his ?Elements of > Semiology? (1967) inverted the > >>>>>> Saussurean classification of linguistics as part of > semiotics. To me, the > >>>>>> Barthesian rearrangement of semiotics as part of > linguistics offers a tour > >>>>>> d?horizon of the multimodality of communication and > representation in > >>>>>> modern times. Language is thus in its most > productive sense, encompassing > >>>>>> the entirety of semiotic resources ? and this can, > arguably, assist in > >>>>>> extending disciplinary boundaries and hence augment > semiotic construction. > >>>>>> In the meantime, the word-forming potential of > other modalities enriches > >>>>>> language as a linguistic modality because other > modalities can all be cast > >>>>>> into words. For me, this is a dynamic two-way > exchange (between linguistics > >>>>>> and semiotics) that deserves considered attention, > if we are to further > >>>>>> explore scaffolding within the CHAT research paradigm. > >>>>>> James > >>>>>> _____________________________________________ > >>>>>> James Ma PhD MA BSc FHEA > >>>>>> https://canterbury.academia.edu/JamesMa > >>>>> James Ma | Canterbury Christ Church University - > Academia.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> canterbury.academia.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> James Ma, Canterbury Christ Church University, > Faculty of education, Faculty Member. Studies Cultural > Historical Activity Theory, Sociolinguisitcs, and A Priori > Knowledge. James Ma is a linguist. He received his PhD > from the University of Bristol and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> NEW PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES > >>>>>> Ma, J. (2016). Semiotising the student perception > of learning outcomes in > >>>>>> British higher education. Social Semiotics. Taylor > & Francis. > >>>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1189234 > >>>>>> Ma, J. (forthcoming, March 2017). ?Good packaging > can be misleading?: A > >>>>>> semiotic analysis of intersubjectivity as theory of > mind between mother and > >>>>>> child during shared reading. British Journal of > Educational Psychology. > >>>>>> Wiley. > >>>>>> PUBLICATIONS IN T&F MOST READ COLLECTIONS OF 2015 > >>>>>> > http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/most-read-2015/language-and-linguistics-25-most-read-2015 > >>>>>> > http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ed/class-of-2015/educational-research-history-of-education-education-policy-leadership-2015 > >>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> on behalf of Lplarry > >>>>>> Sent: 11 June 2016 16:06 > >>>>>> To: Kindred, Jessica Dr.; eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>> I have watched the video of Bruner describing the > arc of his personal > >>>>>> development and noticed the centrality of the way > hypothesis channel our > >>>>>> actions in the actual world. Bruner hypothesizes > two dominate ways of > >>>>>> knowing (science and narrative) both of which > generate hypothesis. > >>>>>> Holding the reality that our hypothesis can both > constrain and afford > >>>>>> human actions I want to mention James Ma?s > exploration of Peirce?s notion > >>>>>> of *abduction* to elaborate Bruner?s relation > between hypothesis and > >>>>>> actuality. > >>>>>> In James?s article in Mind, Culture, and Activity: > (2014) vlome 21:4 > >>>>>> (374-389) exploring the synergy of Peirce and > Vygotsky he explores the > >>>>>> concept of abduction as central to hypothesis > *generating* constraints and > >>>>>> affordances. (see page 380). > >>>>>> Here is a summary. > >>>>>> Abduction is ?the process of forming an explanatory > hypothesis?. > >>>>>> The interpretation of signs (which is sign action) > IS a *generative > >>>>>> process* resulting in sparking (meaning potentials) > through semiotic action. > >>>>>> That is, the abductive process of hypothesis > formation (cognition) > >>>>>> PROVides *space* for continuous representation of > an object ( a Peircean > >>>>>> object is the formation of *true meaning*). > >>>>>> James hears echos of Baldwin?s *genetic logic* > within this exploration of > >>>>>> hypothesis generation (abduction) as the process of > sparking meaning > >>>>>> *potentials* that *awaken* or *emerge* into actuality. > >>>>>> The other Peircean notion of *vagueness* or being > *opaque* seems to be > >>>>>> implied in abduction. > >>>>>> For example Bruner?s notion of (scaffolding) when > intuitively generated is > >>>>>> a vague, opaque hypothesis *travelling* toward > becoming a clarified *true > >>>>>> meaning* (an object) which for Peirce was a > continuous process of > >>>>>> generating (meaning potential) which enters actuality. > >>>>>> I read in this notion of abduction a central theme > in Bruner?s video > >>>>>> podcast, and wanted to spark a dialogue with James > Ma?s project to travel > >>>>>> towards *multimodal* cognition. > >>>>>> In particular word-image complimentarity. > >>>>>> James references Valsiner and Rosa with respect to > the role of language in > >>>>>> cognition. They pointed out a contemporary > *tendency of dependence* on > >>>>>> language as ?the only way of dealing with *meaning > and sense* > >>>>>> James is calling us to go deeper into multimodal > processes that includes > >>>>>> language as a mode but extending this mode to > include multimodal semiosis. > >>>>>> This article sparks deep reflection on the > centrality of meaning > >>>>>> *potential* as continuously generated. > >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>>> Sent: June 11, 2016 6:42 AM > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>> Glad I asked. I guess I see it's value as a > corrective to the idea of > >>>>>> teaching as delivery. > >>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM > >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>> It's possible to interpret Professor Bruner's email > as hubris on several > >>>>>> counts: > >>>>>> a) It assumes that he was the first to use this > metaphor. It's not clear to > >>>>>> me that this is the case--a number of people used > it and Peter Langford and > >>>>>> Renee van der Veer have included Vygotsky in this > number, although I have > >>>>>> not seen evidence of this at all. > >>>>>> b) It assumes that it was a good label for the > phenomenon he is describing. > >>>>>> This is not clear to me either, as it is a > mechanical one, and suggests > >>>>>> that knowledge is something entirely external to > the child or worse that > >>>>>> the child himself is the work in progress. > >>>>>> c) It suggests that Bruner is a prophet to whom > accurate, correct, > >>>>>> influential "intuitions" come out of the blue, his > hand made strong by the > >>>>>> hand of the Almighty. This slights a lot of the > painstaking work that > >>>>>> Bruner did; like Mike he came out of a rigorously > behaviorist training, > >>>>>> which like Mike he had to transcend rather than > simply (like most of us) > >>>>>> disdain without first mastering (I remember an > early work of Bruner's in > >>>>>> which he defined development as "the lengthening of > the distance between > >>>>>> the stimulus and the response"). > >>>>>> As I said, I don't interpret Professor Bruner's > email in that way. Like > >>>>>> Rob, I found it helpful, but mostly because it > emphasized the random, > >>>>>> aleatory, and not very well thought out quality of > the metaphor. > >>>>>> I think where we really disagree is on the nature > of that metaphor--I don't > >>>>>> agree at all that it has been a useful tool for > thinking about learning, > >>>>>> much less about development, and it has been a very > blunt instrument for > >>>>>> thinking about the zone of proximal development. > >>>>>> I made the point before that Vygotsky measures the > ZPD in years, but nobody > >>>>>> else does. One important reason that nobody else > does is that people have > >>>>>> assimilated the ZPD to scaffolding, which is > manifestly (in Bruner, Woods > >>>>>> and Ross and also in Acts of Meaning) about an > instantaneous assimilation > >>>>>> of a ready made solution. > >>>>>> Over the last few weeks I have been translating the > lecture on the Crisis > >>>>>> at Three from Vygotsky's lectures on pedology. Now, > if you read the > >>>>>> material in Volume Five of the English Collected > Works of LSV, you will be > >>>>>> very disappointed. Vygotsky begins the lecture with > the statement that he > >>>>>> is going to examine the crisis from three points of > view: neoformation, > >>>>>> line of development, and zone of proximal > development. Then he says that > >>>>>> before he does any of these things, he wants to > examine a good deal of > >>>>>> factual material (this is a typical move for > Vygotsky--he never wants to > >>>>>> impose his categories on the material and instead > prefers to allow them to > >>>>>> emerge from it, having given us some advance word > of what to expect). The > >>>>>> editors of the Collected Works claim that the > "factual material" is taken > >>>>>> from Elsa Kohler (one of the great unsung heroes of > child development and > >>>>>> also gay rights, who lived openly with her lover in > Nazi occupied Vienna). > >>>>>> On the face of it, though, it's just the "Seven > Stars"--a folk theory in > >>>>>> Russia which corresponds to our folk theory of > "terrible twos" and > >>>>>> "threenagers". And then the material ends, without > any further mention of > >>>>>> the neoformation, the line of development or the ZPD. > >>>>>> Without Galina Korotaeva, this would be the end of > the story. But > >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition of the "Lektsii' po pedologii" > has a lecture "The > >>>>>> Crisis at Three and the Crisis at Seven" which for > all the world appears to > >>>>>> take up precisely where the material in the > Collected Works left off > >>>>>> (Vygotsky begins by referring back to the "Seven > Stars" and noting the > >>>>>> unkept promise!). In fact, this appearance is > misleading: the lecture in > >>>>>> Korotaeva's edition dates from a year BEFORE the > material in the CW. But it > >>>>>> seems very likely that Vygotsky gave this course > ("Foundations of > >>>>>> Pedology") more than once in the last two years of > his life, and so I think > >>>>>> we can nevertheless read this as an early version > of the continuation of > >>>>>> the CW material. Here Vygotsky really does talk > about the neoformation > >>>>>> ("hypobulia"), discuss lines of development > (tantrums where the child > >>>>>> appears to act contrary to his own wishes, refusing > to do things he > >>>>>> actually wants to do, and insisting on doing things > that he doesn't really > >>>>>> care about or even dislikes). Then LSV says: > >>>>>> ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????: ??? ?? > ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? > >>>>>> ?????????????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ????????? > ??????? ??????????? > >>>>>> ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????, ??????? > ??????????? ? ???, ??? > >>>>>> ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? > ????????????, ???????? ?? > >>>>>> ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????? > ??????? ??????????? ????????. > >>>>>> ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????, > ????? ???????????? > >>>>>> ??????????? 3-??????? ??????? ???????? > ??????????????? ???? ?? ???????. > >>>>>> "What remains is to reply to the last question: > What does this hypobulic > >>>>>> behavior of the child offer, and what does it > prefigure for the volitional > >>>>>> behavior of the child in preschool age? The > contradictory position that > >>>>>> affects the child offers this different relative > motive for his own > >>>>>> behavior, divorced from his own inclinations and > facutally acting contrary > >>>>>> to his inclinations. In a word, what transpires is > a paradoxical phenomenon > >>>>>> where the essential content of the crisis at three > consists in the > >>>>>> differentiation of will from affect." > >>>>>> What is the last question? I think it's the > question he asks at the very > >>>>>> beginning of the material in the CW--what is the > zone of proximal > >>>>>> development for the Crisis at Three? And here the > answer is most clear: > >>>>>> it's the NEXT zone of development, that is, the > actual zone of development > >>>>>> for the preschool years (ages 3-7), i.e. it's not > and never has been > >>>>>> scaffolding. > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Kindred, Jessica > Dr. > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I am unclear about how the idea of hubris has come > into this. Humility, > >>>>>>> okay. Metaphor, clearly. Temporary, yes, as in the > literal meaning of > >>>>>>> scaffolding, so too its metaphorical extension. > But enduring, clearly, > >>>>>> too, > >>>>>>> as a tool for thinking about learning. > >>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg [dkellogg60@gmail.com] > >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:08 PM > >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>>>>> I think one of the few advantages of being dead is > that a critical > >>>>>>> evaluation of one's work as a complete narrative > product then becomes > >>>>>>> possible. This is why I think the idea of a > memorial issue for Jerome > >>>>>>> Bruner makes such great critical sense (and it's > also why a memorial > >>>>>> issue > >>>>>>> for Ruqaiya Hasan, the anniversary of whose death > is in two weeks time, > >>>>>>> makes sense). Bruner would have welcomed that, not > in hubris but in > >>>>>>> humility. > >>>>>>> I have a rather different interpretation of the > email that Rob Lake > >>>>>>> circulated: I thought it was a good example of > Bruner's humility, not his > >>>>>>> hubris. "Scaffolding" was a highly influential > metaphor--but I think that > >>>>>>> by saying that it was just a labeling intuition > out of the blue Bruner > >>>>>> was > >>>>>>> emphasizing that it was a metaphor. Metaphors are > misleading: they tell > >>>>>> us > >>>>>>> a good deal about the relationship between forces > but they tell us > >>>>>> fictions > >>>>>>> about the nature of the force itself. So for > example the "scaffolding" > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>> Bruner wanted to emphasize was temporary: it was > something to be taken > >>>>>>> down. But in th einterpretation of "scaffolding" > it has become > >>>>>> hypostatized > >>>>>>> and a permanent fixture of interaction. Worse, it > has become identified > >>>>>>> with the ZPD, which it resembles not at all. > >>>>>>> I would say the same thing about his ideas of > narrative. Bruner was prone > >>>>>>> to wild enthusiasms, and his enthusiasm for > narrative as the very source > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> self is one of these. Yes, I suppose the life of > Bruner is now a > >>>>>> narrative. > >>>>>>> But from his point of view ,the really interesting > part is what happened > >>>>>>> before it became one. > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Bella > Kotik-Friedgut < > >>>>>>> bella.kotik@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> I am now in Portugal at EVC 4 Vygotsky > conference. I shared with the > >>>>>>>> audience my memories of J.Bruner's visit to > Moscow. It was more than > >>>>>>>> obituary: I wanted in a way celebrate his > beautiful life full with > >>>>>>>> discoveries and a lot of personal light he > transmitted to people on his > >>>>>>>> way. When Alexander Romanowich asked me to stay > in Moskow ( I just > >>>>>>> defended > >>>>>>>> my theses ans had to go to Rostov university for > my first job) he said > >>>>>> " > >>>>>>>> you will not regret" I think I was blessed with > this opportunity and > >>>>>>>> enjoyed to be his guide and secretary for this > week. Let his memory be > >>>>>>>> blessed. > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2016, Lplarry > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Jessica, > >>>>>>>>> This testament to how you have been deeply moved > by Robert?s question > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> Bruner?s answer gesturing to how the concept > *scaffolding* was > >>>>>> forming > >>>>>>>> *as* > >>>>>>>>> a labelling intuition opens up a field of > *depth* inquiry asking > >>>>>> where > >>>>>>>>> these intuitions *arise* or *awaken* from as > they enter into history > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> culture. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is there a living *presence* that > is at this moment > >>>>>> moving > >>>>>>>>> through us within the *person* of Jerome Bruner? > This is a notion of > >>>>>>>>> *person* that has a continuing *existence* > tingbeyond Bruner?s > >>>>>> physical > >>>>>>>>> death. This is also a labelling intuition. > >>>>>>>>> Could this living *presence* (imaged as person) > be a source of > >>>>>>>>> *intuitions* that arise or awaken within our own > sense of living > >>>>>>>> *presence*. > >>>>>>>>> Is this *presence* that generates *intuitions* > located internally or > >>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> this presence located externally, or is there a > location where > >>>>>>> intuitions > >>>>>>>>> arise or awaken in a third location that is > permeable to both > >>>>>> internal > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> external presence? > >>>>>>>>> Others will offer different images and words to > locate where > >>>>>>> intuitions > >>>>>>>>> originate. Is the image of labelling intuitions > as *seeds* forming > >>>>>> an > >>>>>>>> apt > >>>>>>>>> metaphor? > >>>>>>>>> The term *scaffolding* that is generating *deep* > dialogue within our > >>>>>>>>> questions and answers within particular > communities which some call > >>>>>>>>> *learning* communities. > >>>>>>>>> In this thread James Ma shared a link to his > article that I have > >>>>>>>>> downloaded from academia.edu. in which he > proposes a deep sense that > >>>>>>>>> *learning* generates what is *worthwhile* as > advocated by the living > >>>>>>>>> presence of the Confucian Classics. In > particular learning that is > >>>>>>>>> worthwhile develops ?culture, conduct, > conscientiousness, and good > >>>>>>>> faith?. > >>>>>>>>> The living presence of this ideal has *inspired* > devotees and > >>>>>> activists > >>>>>>>>> throughout history to pursue truth (about) > *learning* which James > >>>>>> says > >>>>>>>>> aligns with intellectualism. > >>>>>>>>> James describes intellectualism as being *for* > the virtues and ideals > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> guide human participation in civilization. > >>>>>>>>> I would add that this intellectual guidance > often arises or awakens > >>>>>>>>> through intuitions in the form of *guises* > (living presences) as > >>>>>>> persons. > >>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner in his life and in his death > continues to exist within > >>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>> living presence *who* exemplifies learning and > intellectualism that > >>>>>>>> guides > >>>>>>>>> our own learning and intellectual virtues and > ideals. > >>>>>>>>> Bruner would label this a hypothesis. > >>>>>>>>> Larry > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>> From: Kindred, Jessica Dr. > >>>>>>>>> Sent: June 8, 2016 8:30 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>>>>>> Robert, I have read this email exchange that you > had with "jb" over > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> over and find myself so moved by the idea of > scaffolding as "just one > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the > blue". This very > >>>>>>>> phrasing > >>>>>>>>> and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as > we think about > >>>>>>> thinking > >>>>>>>>> and culture and how they influence each other in > such profound and > >>>>>>>>> spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for > sharing it. What a > >>>>>>>>> wonderful contribution to the biography of an > idea that has so > >>>>>>> influenced > >>>>>>>>> us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner > wrote about > >>>>>> education > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> which he used the word mindfulness in such an > in-passing way that I > >>>>>>>> almost > >>>>>>>>> wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling > intuition then might > >>>>>>> help > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> account for its huge status in the cultural > landscape of education > >>>>>>> now... > >>>>>>>>> in any case, great thanks for sharing. > >>>>>>>>> And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his > keynote at Iscrat 98 > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> Arhus! > >>>>>>>>> Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your > actual minds toward > >>>>>>>>> possible worlds. > >>>>>>>>> Jessie Kindred > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [ > >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] > on behalf of Helena > >>>>>>>>> Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com ] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>>>>>> Nice, Robert!!! > >>>>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake < > >>>>>>> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email > correspondence** > >>>>>> wi**th > >>>>>>>>> Jerome > >>>>>>>>>> Bruner w* > >>>>>>>>>> *hile I **was writing **an introductory book > for educators about > >>>>>>>>> Vygot**sky > >>>>>>>>>> and a second email about the coining of the > phrase "scaffolding" * > >>>>>>>> *It* > >>>>>>>>>> * starts from the bottom up.* > >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Jerome S Bruner > > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were > introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Lake > > >>>>>>>>>> Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that > came out of the blue! > >>>>>>>> jb > >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > > >>>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were > introduced to Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>> To: jsb3@nyu.edu > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >>>>>>>>>>> It really does help. > >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first come up with the notion of > scaffolding? Was it > >>>>>>>>>>> connected to an observation out of your own > experience in research > >>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>> a personal experience? > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>> Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came > when Eugenia > >>>>>> Hanfmann > >>>>>>>>>>> was working on a translation of what was to be > Vygotsky's first > >>>>>> book > >>>>>>>>>>> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in > 1962 by MIT Press. > >>>>>>>>>>> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to > that book. I had > >>>>>>>>>>> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work > through Alexander > >>>>>>>>>>> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of > Psychology at Moscow > >>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> whom I visited in Moscow on several > occasions. He was a great > >>>>>>> admirer > >>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly > that my own work on > >>>>>>>>>>> perception and cognition generally were very > much in the > >>>>>> Vygotskian > >>>>>>>>>>> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that > Vygotsky was an > >>>>>>>>>>> important corrective to the Piagetian > culturally-blind approach to > >>>>>>>>>>> child development. I think that it was that > aspect of my own work > >>>>>>>>>>> that led to my being asked to write an > introduction to the > >>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>> volume. > >>>>>>>>>>> Does that help? > >>>>>>>>>>> All best wishes. > >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome Bruner > >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Robert Lake > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced > to Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer > on Vygotsky and > >>>>>>>>>>>> education. Actually I already signed a book > contract. One of the > >>>>>>>>>>> areas > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some > of LSV's academic > >>>>>>>>>>>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. > Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom > ,D.Robbins and L. > >>>>>>>>>>> Moll, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I am not able to find anything in the > way of historical > >>>>>>>>>>>> biography about your connection to his work. > Is there anything > >>>>>>>>>>>> written anywhere about how you were > introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>>>>>>>>>>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our > generation. > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen < > >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >>>>>>>>>>> Helena > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >>>>>> [https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/392925080_1280x960.jpg]< > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >>>>>> Jerome Bruner and Oliver Sachs on Luria, > interviewed by Mike Cole< > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069> > >>>>>> vimeo.com > >>>>>> Thanks to the Alexander Luria Archive at > http://luria.ucsd.edu where > >>>>>> there is a better copy of this movie. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > > >>>>>>>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some > of your personal > >>>>>>>>>>> experiences with him. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On Behalf Of mike > >>>>>>>> cole > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner > has died > >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, > but I have just > >>>>>> heard > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> a colleague that Jerry Bruner has died. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend > who had a > >>>>>> fundamental > >>>>>>>>>>> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Robert Lake Ed.D. > >>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor > >>>>>>>>>> Social Foundations of Education > >>>>>>>>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > >>>>>>>>>> Georgia Southern University > >>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > >>>>>>>>>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special > Interest Group > >>>>>>>>>> Webpage: > https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy > >>>>>>>> must > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> born anew in every generation, and education is > its midwife.* John > >>>>>>>>>> Dewey-*Democracy > >>>>>>>>>> and Education*,1916, p. 139 > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 21 06:32:14 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:32:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> Message-ID: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Well as I see it, hermeneutic phenomenology set out precisely to escape from the Kantian (and Husserlian) distinction between the ?world of experience? and ?the real world.? It insisted that we live *in* the world, and are *of* the world. In my view, Vygotsky was attempting something similar. What ?a prior property? are you referring to, James? Martin > On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > The reason I brought up the Kantian distinction was somehow connected to existentialism which has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the a priori property of which has long been my interest). I've often had something phenomenological at the back of my mind whenever my thoughts are on Vygotsky's "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts on the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 21 06:47:28 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:47:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: I was rather enjoying the way our memory of Bruner was sustained in the thread title! :) Martin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hello! > > > I was wondering if it might be OK for recent discussion on this thread to be retitled so that Jerry Bruner might at least be free to wander to his intended destination, if there is one? > > > Perhaps anything of note of his work could be posted here, but offshoot-topics (which are most welcomed!) could be spun off to a new thread title? > > > I was under the impression that honoring his contribution had been happening, but it seems things have gotten a little debate-y? > > > What do you think? > > > ============== > > > I myself would like to know the story how Bruner came to meet Luria. Would anyone like to recount that? > > > ============== > > > My contribution to the discussion about scaffolding: > > > It occurred to me yesterday that not only is scaffolding a metaphor, but also a metaphor is scaffolding: once the metaphor is used and the concept it is intended to illustrate takes hold, that the underlying structure becomes conceptually autonomous and the metaphor falls away leaving the meaning to stand on its own. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Tue Jun 21 07:42:29 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:42:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> , <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, by "a priori property" I meant the deductive character of phenomenological inquires. By the way, I'm inclined to think that existentialism is quite in tune with Vygotsky since it takes the position that human action implies both mind and environment - e.g. according to Sartre, an individual is one who makes oneself of whatever is made of one. I'd very interested to hear your take on this. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 21 June 2016 14:32 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Well as I see it, hermeneutic phenomenology set out precisely to escape from the Kantian (and Husserlian) distinction between the 'world of experience' and 'the real world.' It insisted that we live *in* the world, and are *of* the world. In my view, Vygotsky was attempting something similar. What "a prior property" are you referring to, James? Martin > On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > The reason I brought up the Kantian distinction was somehow connected to existentialism which has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the a priori property of which has long been my interest). I've often had something phenomenological at the back of my mind whenever my thoughts are on Vygotsky's "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts on the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Tue Jun 21 07:52:00 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:52:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> , Message-ID: We must put this right! James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 21 June 2016 14:47 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died I was rather enjoying the way our memory of Bruner was sustained in the thread title! :) Martin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hello! > > > I was wondering if it might be OK for recent discussion on this thread to be retitled so that Jerry Bruner might at least be free to wander to his intended destination, if there is one? > > > Perhaps anything of note of his work could be posted here, but offshoot-topics (which are most welcomed!) could be spun off to a new thread title? > > > I was under the impression that honoring his contribution had been happening, but it seems things have gotten a little debate-y? > > > What do you think? > > > ============== > > > I myself would like to know the story how Bruner came to meet Luria. Would anyone like to recount that? > > > ============== > > > My contribution to the discussion about scaffolding: > > > It occurred to me yesterday that not only is scaffolding a metaphor, but also a metaphor is scaffolding: once the metaphor is used and the concept it is intended to illustrate takes hold, that the underlying structure becomes conceptually autonomous and the metaphor falls away leaving the meaning to stand on its own. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 21 08:54:52 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:54:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation Message-ID: The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have emerged to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in an earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter and the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from considering these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* discourse?? Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. Summer Solstice Suggestion Mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Jun 21 09:29:09 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:29:09 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> , Message-ID: <57696b7e.c51a620a.66422.ffff9c94@mx.google.com> This thread is an eye opener in my mind?s eye. James, your comment that the Russian you met describes non-classical psychology inverting what Western culture perceives as subjective, to become (emphasize this becoming) objective because you can study the manifestations within culture and history I read through a lens of hermeneutical travelling. To bring in your way of articulating objects. For Peirce the *objective* referent (words, images, icons, indexes, symbols, etc) of signs (being represented which is the representative character or aspect) comes into our phenomenal world (only one world but the adjective phenomenal focusing attention on our one world?s phenomenal character). The central or key move is that this object (becoming visible) in non-classical psychology that can be studied objectively as it manifests into culture and history THROUGH interpretans (which means meaning potential). So.... Non-classical psychology which turned from subjective idealism to non-classical objective study of *mind* visible within culture and history is not the complete image and word IF we leave the interpretan (meaning potential) invisible. Semiosis (continuous cyclical sign *action*) posits representing aspect emerging (objectively) within culture and history *as* objective THROUGH THE INTERPRETANS aspect (meaning potential aspect which is hermeneutical) All 3 aspects ? Sign representamin ? Making visible objectively in culture and history ? THROUGH hermeneutical meaning potential/interpretans Are necessary in semios (sign action). James, your appeal to a synergy bringing together Vygotsky who travelled deductively and Peirce who travelled abductively to form an oscillating *fusion* of horizons which INCLUDES necessarily both deduction and abduction adds further clarity. I hear a narrative ( bringing in Bruner?s person) of subjective idealism turning towards objective patterns of visible cultural and historical *mind* becoming visible in our one mutual world, turning towards hermeneutical (meaning) potential that generates novel signs. The invisible becoming visible through a transitional 3rd way. This transitional way through translation of sign action which as its radical root is meaning potential becoming objective and visible. To study just objective phenomena, just the visible spectrum, is leaving out the way sign action *travels* though cycles hermeneutical meaning potential which is the radical source of cultural/historical objects. James, I hope I am doing some justice to incorporating your ideas within my mind?s eye through the particular *way* I have read how you have invited a synergy of Vygotsky and Peirce. It is reading through *persons* hermeneutically. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 21 10:09:41 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:09:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <99A2EB01-EC16-489A-A420-787BB40C090C@uniandes.edu.co> James, perhaps you are thinking of transcendental phenomenology? Hermeneutic phenomenology has a logic that is interpretive - not surprisingly, given the reference to Hermes, messenger of the gods, and interpreter of their messages. In hermeneutic phenomenology, explication is ?the articulation of the possibilities projected in understanding," and understanding always has the character of interpretation. You are assuming, then, that there exist both ?mind? and ?environment?? ;) Martin > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > Martin, by "a priori property" I meant the deductive character of phenomenological inquires. > > > By the way, I'm inclined to think that existentialism is quite in tune with Vygotsky since it takes the position that human action implies both mind and environment - e.g. according to Sartre, an individual is one who makes oneself of whatever is made of one. > > > I'd very interested to hear your take on this. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 21 June 2016 14:32 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Well as I see it, hermeneutic phenomenology set out precisely to escape from the Kantian (and Husserlian) distinction between the 'world of experience' and 'the real world.' It insisted that we live *in* the world, and are *of* the world. In my view, Vygotsky was attempting something similar. > > What "a prior property" are you referring to, James? > > Martin > >> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> The reason I brought up the Kantian distinction was somehow connected to existentialism which has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the a priori property of which has long been my interest). I've often had something phenomenological at the back of my mind whenever my thoughts are on Vygotsky's "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts on the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? > > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 21 17:04:30 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:04:30 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx that Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of but try this: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have emerged > to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that > or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. > > A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in an > earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang > led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was > steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in > precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter and > the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. > > Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from considering > these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* > discourse?? > > Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior > understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? > That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my > question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective > level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a > Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. > > Summer Solstice Suggestion > > Mike > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 21 17:20:18 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:20:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> Message-ID: I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the issue clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the document you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and xmca. And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is what makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a list of relevant documents comes up. mike On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx that > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > but try this: > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have emerged >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. >> >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in an >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter >> and >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. >> >> Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from considering >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* >> discourse?? >> >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. >> >> Summer Solstice Suggestion >> >> Mike >> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 21 17:43:07 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:43:07 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, This doesn't answer the question that Andy and I were raising, namely the issue of mediation and whether or not the phenomenological position that you embrace also embraces "mediation" as a concept. I will attempt to answer my question on your behalf (based on my reading of your book, The Science of Qualitative Research). I intend this as a provocation as much as an attempt to articulate some common ground so feel free to say "No, you've got it all wrong!" In your book you draw a distinction between epistemological and ontological construction. You note that Kant (as the villain) is interested in epistemological construction - i.e. the construction of representations. This leads to the noumenal/phenomenal distinction. Thus, although things-in-themselves are noumenal, the constructed representations of the world are phenomenal (and thus not of this world - or perhaps more playfully, "out of this world"?). The problem here is that in this conception of things, the world of things is made up of one type of thing and the world of ideas is made up of an altogether different thing. So I wonder then if there might be a similar distinction with regard to mediation - i.e., there is epistemological mediation and this is different from ontological mediation. The trouble is that as my hermeneutic phenomenologist friend Stephen Yanchar (he was one of Brent Slife's students) points out, mediation presupposes something that stands between two different kinds of thing - (e.g., the noumenal and the phenomenal?). Yanchar points to Heidegger's notion of disclosure or unconcealment as a more productive concept than mediation because it places the phenomenal back into the noumenal world. So I guess I've failed to answer my question, so I'll simply re-pose it: does "mediation" have a role in a non-dualistic hermeneutic phenomenology? Martin? -greg On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > Well as I see it, hermeneutic phenomenology set out precisely to escape > from the Kantian (and Husserlian) distinction between the ?world of > experience? and ?the real world.? It insisted that we live *in* the world, > and are *of* the world. In my view, Vygotsky was attempting something > similar. > > What ?a prior property? are you referring to, James? > > Martin > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > The reason I brought up the Kantian distinction was somehow connected to > existentialism which has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the > a priori property of which has long been my interest). I've often had > something phenomenological at the back of my mind whenever my thoughts are > on Vygotsky's "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts on > the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From joe.glick@gmail.com Tue Jun 21 17:49:26 2016 From: joe.glick@gmail.com (JAG) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> <57590d03.892c620a.ef0ef.0b02@mx.google.com> <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: THANK YOU!!!!!! On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello! > > > I was wondering if it might be OK for recent discussion on this thread to > be retitled so that Jerry Bruner might at least be free to wander to his > intended destination, if there is one? > > > Perhaps anything of note of his work could be posted here, but > offshoot-topics (which are most welcomed!) could be spun off to a new > thread title? > > > I was under the impression that honoring his contribution had been > happening, but it seems things have gotten a little debate-y? > > > What do you think? > > > ============== > > > I myself would like to know the story how Bruner came to meet Luria. Would > anyone like to recount that? > > > ============== > > > My contribution to the discussion about scaffolding: > > > It occurred to me yesterday that not only is scaffolding a metaphor, but > also a metaphor is scaffolding: once the metaphor is used and the concept > it is intended to illustrate takes hold, that the underlying structure > becomes conceptually autonomous and the metaphor falls away leaving the > meaning to stand on its own. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 21 18:12:45 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 01:12:45 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <6F209BA6-49E8-43E0-B269-023C3B174F6C@uniandes.edu.co> Greg, My short answer would be that Heidegger?s favorite example was the act of hammering. And his favorite bete noire was technology. So although ?mediation? is not a term that is used in Being & Time, at least in a conceptual sense, I would say that Heidegger was very aware of the phenomena that others use the term mediation to conceptualize. I do have a longer answer too. But I need to see whether or not I have the time to write it. :) Martin > On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Martin, > > This doesn't answer the question that Andy and I were raising, namely the > issue of mediation and whether or not the phenomenological position that > you embrace also embraces "mediation" as a concept. I will attempt to > answer my question on your behalf (based on my reading of your book, The > Science of Qualitative Research). I intend this as a provocation as much as > an attempt to articulate some common ground so feel free to say "No, you've > got it all wrong!" > > In your book you draw a distinction between epistemological and ontological > construction. You note that Kant (as the villain) is interested in > epistemological construction - i.e. the construction of representations. > This leads to the noumenal/phenomenal distinction. Thus, although > things-in-themselves are noumenal, the constructed representations of the > world are phenomenal (and thus not of this world - or perhaps more > playfully, "out of this world"?). The problem here is that in this > conception of things, the world of things is made up of one type of thing > and the world of ideas is made up of an altogether different thing. > > So I wonder then if there might be a similar distinction with regard to > mediation - i.e., there is epistemological mediation and this is different > from ontological mediation. > > The trouble is that as my hermeneutic phenomenologist friend Stephen > Yanchar (he was one of Brent Slife's students) points out, mediation > presupposes something that stands between two different kinds of thing - > (e.g., the noumenal and the phenomenal?). Yanchar points to Heidegger's > notion of disclosure or unconcealment as a more productive concept than > mediation because it places the phenomenal back into the noumenal world. > > So I guess I've failed to answer my question, so I'll simply re-pose it: > does "mediation" have a role in a non-dualistic hermeneutic phenomenology? > > Martin? > > -greg > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > >> Well as I see it, hermeneutic phenomenology set out precisely to escape >> from the Kantian (and Husserlian) distinction between the ?world of >> experience? and ?the real world.? It insisted that we live *in* the world, >> and are *of* the world. In my view, Vygotsky was attempting something >> similar. >> >> What ?a prior property? are you referring to, James? >> >> Martin >> >>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> The reason I brought up the Kantian distinction was somehow connected to >> existentialism which has a direct bearing on hermeneutic phenomenology (the >> a priori property of which has long been my interest). I've often had >> something phenomenological at the back of my mind whenever my thoughts are >> on Vygotsky's "non-classical" psychology - I wondered what your thoughts on >> the relevance of phenomenology for CHAT might be, if any? >> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Jun 21 18:42:47 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:42:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> Greg, Greg, I hope when your question becomes explicated by others in order to clarify the notion of (constructed representations) and the *nature* (nodding to Raymond Williams) of representations status as (substance) or (essence) we also consider how Peirce explicates an answer to your question. Are ideas sign actions? Do ideas form cultural/historical objects? If so, do ideas have (substance) or (essence)? As I read James Ma?s Peirce, ideas do have (essence) and are of this world and generate potential that may possibly (manifest) as *meaning* The key notion is *meaning potential* Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Greg Thompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Jun 21 22:40:52 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:40:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> Message-ID: <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> Mike, I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting entities in relation to this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? Do the *persons* I am encountering here and now have any substance or essence? Is it permissible to say these *persons* bonding exist or are real as a *living* presence. Is this occurring only inside my *mind* as imaginary or imagination. Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call *imaginal* as an adjective. To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually an imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this living presence as this (bond). I am using *imaginal* image to convey a sense of the presence of these 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the words imaginary or imagination. If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via media). I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this *imaginal* image as what is occurring is *deep within* our meeting in this third space. I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my question. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: mike cole From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Jun 22 08:10:04 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:10:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <576aaa75.0251620a.da4b4.10ae@mx.google.com> Today I want to refer to this excellent resource that Andy sent as a contextualized sampling of Alfred Lang?s contributions to the xlists. Care went into this compilation. It is a rich resource of memory for the theme of this thread. If you go to page 7 there is a table of contents that links to various topics. Today I went to topic 13 Goals which takes you to page 193. Read the section or scroll to section 13.7 on page 201 where the focus opens on Lang?s definition of (structure). Structure is a distinguishing set of mind/brain states as well as particular arrangements of the environment that are: Given, selected, or brought about. The essential difference to common notions of goals and strategies and designs might be that such structures need not contain a representation of one end state yet can IMPLY a large set of attracting and constraining Possibilities that together enforce directed behaviour. The commentary is worth reading as an opwning into this thread Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Lplarry Sent: June 21, 2016 10:41 PM To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation Mike, I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting ?entities in relation to this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? Do the *persons* I am encountering here and now have any substance or essence? Is it permissible to say these *persons* bonding exist or are real as a *living* presence. Is this occurring only inside my *mind* as imaginary or imagination. Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call *imaginal* as an adjective. To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually an imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this ?living presence as this (bond). I am using *imaginal* image to convey a sense of the presence of these 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the words imaginary or imagination. If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via media). I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this *imaginal* image as what is occurring is *deep within* our meeting in this third space. I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my question. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: mike cole Sent: June 21, 2016 5:23 PM To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the issue clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the document you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and xmca. And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is what makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a list of relevant documents comes up. mike On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx that > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > but try this: > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have emerged >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. >> >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in an >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter >> and >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. >> >> Given that as background,? what new insights can we gain from considering >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* >> discourse?? >> >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. >> >> Summer Solstice Suggestion >> >> Mike >> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 22 08:42:14 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:42:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry-- Certainly the participants of xlchc, as xmca was called at the time, felt a bond with each other. It was a time of rapid change, new ideas and new modes of interaction-at-a-distance offered the possibility of mobilizing enough internationally distributed resources to allow us to make a quantum leap in our understanding of the role of culture in human development and the many associated issues that such an interest require mastery of. Two of the central participants have died subsequently, others have moved on to other ventures. Now the quantum leap seems a little more like the slow uneven, blurred movement of sand sliding down a sand dune in the Sahara, but it sure enough felt like lived experience at the time! There are a LOT of substantive issues taken up by Alfred in that document. Somewhere in there must be a good summary of his on semiotic/ecological framework. Whether those currently pursuing the possible synergies to be had by putting Peirce in conversation with LSV have superseded this early two decades old scholarship I am unsure. I often found Alfred difficult to understand; the payoff was in the trying and the friendships that evolved from the shared effort. mike On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Lplarry wrote: > Mike, > > I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep > (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. > > Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting entities in relation to > this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on > this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? > > Do the **persons** I am encountering here and now have any substance or > essence? > > Is it permissible to say these **persons** bonding exist or are real as a > **living** presence. > > Is this occurring only inside my **mind** as imaginary or imagination. > > Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call **imaginal** as an adjective. > > To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually an > imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this living > presence as this (bond). > > I am using **imaginal** image to convey a sense of the presence of these > 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This > presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the words > imaginary or imagination. > > If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then > it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via > media). > > I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this **imaginal** image as > what is occurring is **deep within** our meeting in this third space. > > I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my > question. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > *From: *mike cole > *Sent: *June 21, 2016 5:23 PM > *To: *Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > > > I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. > > Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the issue > > clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a > > dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the document > > you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and xmca. > > And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is what > > makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. > > > > If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a > > list of relevant documents comes up. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > > > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx > that > > > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > > > > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > > > but try this: > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have > emerged > > >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that > > >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. > > >> > > >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in > an > > >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang > > >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was > > >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in > > >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter > > >> and > > >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. > > >> > > >> Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from > considering > > >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* > > >> discourse?? > > >> > > >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior > > >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? > > >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my > > >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective > > >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a > > >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. > > >> > > >> Summer Solstice Suggestion > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jun 22 08:58:26 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:26 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: What a fantastic resource! On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:42 AM, mike cole wrote: > Larry-- > > Certainly the participants of xlchc, as xmca was called at the time, felt a > bond with each other. > It was a time of rapid change, new ideas and new modes of > interaction-at-a-distance offered the possibility of mobilizing enough > internationally distributed resources to allow us to make a quantum leap in > our understanding of the role of culture in human development and the many > associated issues that such an interest require mastery of. > > Two of the central participants have died subsequently, others have moved > on to other ventures. Now the quantum leap seems a little more like the > slow uneven, blurred movement of sand sliding down a sand dune in the > Sahara, but it sure enough felt like lived experience at the time! > > There are a LOT of substantive issues taken up by Alfred in that document. > Somewhere in there must be a good summary of his on semiotic/ecological > framework. Whether those currently pursuing the possible synergies to be > had by putting Peirce in conversation with LSV have superseded this early > two decades old scholarship I am unsure. I often found Alfred difficult to > understand; the payoff was in the trying and the friendships that evolved > from the shared effort. > > mike > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep > > (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. > > > > Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting entities in relation to > > this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on > > this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? > > > > Do the **persons** I am encountering here and now have any substance or > > essence? > > > > Is it permissible to say these **persons** bonding exist or are real as a > > **living** presence. > > > > Is this occurring only inside my **mind** as imaginary or imagination. > > > > Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call **imaginal** as an adjective. > > > > To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually > an > > imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this living > > presence as this (bond). > > > > I am using **imaginal** image to convey a sense of the presence of these > > 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This > > presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the > words > > imaginary or imagination. > > > > If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then > > it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via > > media). > > > > I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this **imaginal** image as > > what is occurring is **deep within** our meeting in this third space. > > > > I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my > > question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > *From: *mike cole > > *Sent: *June 21, 2016 5:23 PM > > *To: *Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > > > > > > > I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. > > > > Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the > issue > > > > clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a > > > > dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the > document > > > > you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and > xmca. > > > > And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is > what > > > > makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. > > > > > > > > If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a > > > > list of relevant documents comes up. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > > > > > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx > > that > > > > > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > > > > > but try this: > > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have > > emerged > > > > >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that > > > > >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. > > > > >> > > > > >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions > in > > an > > > > >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang > > > > >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was > > > > >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in > > > > >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the > newsletter > > > > >> and > > > > >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. > > > > >> > > > > >> Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from > > considering > > > > >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* > > > > >> discourse?? > > > > >> > > > > >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior > > > > >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? > > > > >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my > > > > >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a > collective > > > > >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a > > > > >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. > > > > >> > > > > >> Summer Solstice Suggestion > > > > >> > > > > >> Mike > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object > > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Wed Jun 22 09:12:32 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:12:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com>, Message-ID: Mike and Larry, I agree with you both. I've been enjoying reading this too - it's truly refreshing, enlightening to me! Making Peirce in dialogue with Vygotsky has been my interest for years. Alfred's ideas would be very useful to my next article for MCA re the ontological relevance of Peircean iconicity for Vygotskian semiotic mediation. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 22 June 2016 16:42 To: Lplarry Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation Larry-- Certainly the participants of xlchc, as xmca was called at the time, felt a bond with each other. It was a time of rapid change, new ideas and new modes of interaction-at-a-distance offered the possibility of mobilizing enough internationally distributed resources to allow us to make a quantum leap in our understanding of the role of culture in human development and the many associated issues that such an interest require mastery of. Two of the central participants have died subsequently, others have moved on to other ventures. Now the quantum leap seems a little more like the slow uneven, blurred movement of sand sliding down a sand dune in the Sahara, but it sure enough felt like lived experience at the time! There are a LOT of substantive issues taken up by Alfred in that document. Somewhere in there must be a good summary of his on semiotic/ecological framework. Whether those currently pursuing the possible synergies to be had by putting Peirce in conversation with LSV have superseded this early two decades old scholarship I am unsure. I often found Alfred difficult to understand; the payoff was in the trying and the friendships that evolved from the shared effort. mike On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Lplarry wrote: > Mike, > > I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep > (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. > > Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting entities in relation to > this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on > this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? > > Do the **persons** I am encountering here and now have any substance or > essence? > > Is it permissible to say these **persons** bonding exist or are real as a > **living** presence. > > Is this occurring only inside my **mind** as imaginary or imagination. > > Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call **imaginal** as an adjective. > > To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually an > imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this living > presence as this (bond). > > I am using **imaginal** image to convey a sense of the presence of these > 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This > presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the words > imaginary or imagination. > > If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then > it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via > media). > > I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this **imaginal** image as > what is occurring is **deep within** our meeting in this third space. > > I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my > question. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > *From: *mike cole > *Sent: *June 21, 2016 5:23 PM > *To: *Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > > > I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. > > Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the issue > > clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a > > dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the document > > you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and xmca. > > And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is what > > makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. > > > > If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a > > list of relevant documents comes up. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > > > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx > that > > > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > > > > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > > > but try this: > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF LCHC: The Connection from the West lchc.ucsd.edu ExtrA Lang e-mail discussion Alfred Lang 1 LCHC: The Connection from the West go to the xlist introduction go to table of xlist discussion topics go to table of ... > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have > emerged > > >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that > > >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. > > >> > > >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in > an > > >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang > > >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was > > >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in > > >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter > > >> and > > >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. > > >> > > >> Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from > considering > > >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* > > >> discourse?? > > >> > > >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior > > >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? > > >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my > > >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective > > >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a > > >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. > > >> > > >> Summer Solstice Suggestion > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jun 22 09:44:35 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:44:35 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: James, Why not the index? Isn't this the Ur sign for Vygotsky? -greg On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > Mike and Larry, I agree with you both. > > > I've been enjoying reading this too - it's truly refreshing, enlightening > to me! Making Peirce in dialogue with Vygotsky has been my interest for > years. Alfred's ideas would be very useful to my next article for MCA re > the ontological relevance of Peircean iconicity for Vygotskian semiotic > mediation. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 22 June 2016 16:42 > To: Lplarry > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > Larry-- > > Certainly the participants of xlchc, as xmca was called at the time, felt a > bond with each other. > It was a time of rapid change, new ideas and new modes of > interaction-at-a-distance offered the possibility of mobilizing enough > internationally distributed resources to allow us to make a quantum leap in > our understanding of the role of culture in human development and the many > associated issues that such an interest require mastery of. > > Two of the central participants have died subsequently, others have moved > on to other ventures. Now the quantum leap seems a little more like the > slow uneven, blurred movement of sand sliding down a sand dune in the > Sahara, but it sure enough felt like lived experience at the time! > > There are a LOT of substantive issues taken up by Alfred in that document. > Somewhere in there must be a good summary of his on semiotic/ecological > framework. Whether those currently pursuing the possible synergies to be > had by putting Peirce in conversation with LSV have superseded this early > two decades old scholarship I am unsure. I often found Alfred difficult to > understand; the payoff was in the trying and the friendships that evolved > from the shared effort. > > mike > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep > > (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. > > > > Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting entities in relation to > > this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on > > this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? > > > > Do the **persons** I am encountering here and now have any substance or > > essence? > > > > Is it permissible to say these **persons** bonding exist or are real as a > > **living** presence. > > > > Is this occurring only inside my **mind** as imaginary or imagination. > > > > Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call **imaginal** as an adjective. > > > > To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually > an > > imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this living > > presence as this (bond). > > > > I am using **imaginal** image to convey a sense of the presence of these > > 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This > > presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the > words > > imaginary or imagination. > > > > If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then > > it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via > > media). > > > > I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this **imaginal** image as > > what is occurring is **deep within** our meeting in this third space. > > > > I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my > > question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > *From: *mike cole > > *Sent: *June 21, 2016 5:23 PM > > *To: *Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > > > > > > > I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. > > > > Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the > issue > > > > clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a > > > > dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the > document > > > > you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and > xmca. > > > > And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is > what > > > > makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. > > > > > > > > If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a > > > > list of relevant documents comes up. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > > > > > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx > > that > > > > > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > > > > > but try this: > > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF > LCHC: The Connection from the West< > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF> > lchc.ucsd.edu > ExtrA Lang e-mail discussion Alfred Lang 1 LCHC: The Connection from the > West go to the xlist introduction go to table of xlist discussion topics go > to table of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have > > emerged > > > > >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that > > > > >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. > > > > >> > > > > >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions > in > > an > > > > >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang > > > > >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was > > > > >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in > > > > >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the > newsletter > > > > >> and > > > > >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. > > > > >> > > > > >> Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from > > considering > > > > >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* > > > > >> discourse?? > > > > >> > > > > >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior > > > > >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? > > > > >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my > > > > >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a > collective > > > > >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a > > > > >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. > > > > >> > > > > >> Summer Solstice Suggestion > > > > >> > > > > >> Mike > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object > > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Wed Jun 22 10:00:51 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:00:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: Hi Greg, in fact I've been pondering from time to time over Peirce's "object secondness", i.e. icon, index and symbol. At the moment I'm having to finish off an article for Social Semiotics and will be diving into this in July. Thanks for your prompt! James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Greg Thompson Sent: 22 June 2016 17:44 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation James, Why not the index? Isn't this the Ur sign for Vygotsky? -greg On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > Mike and Larry, I agree with you both. > > > I've been enjoying reading this too - it's truly refreshing, enlightening > to me! Making Peirce in dialogue with Vygotsky has been my interest for > years. Alfred's ideas would be very useful to my next article for MCA re > the ontological relevance of Peircean iconicity for Vygotskian semiotic > mediation. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 22 June 2016 16:42 > To: Lplarry > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > Larry-- > > Certainly the participants of xlchc, as xmca was called at the time, felt a > bond with each other. > It was a time of rapid change, new ideas and new modes of > interaction-at-a-distance offered the possibility of mobilizing enough > internationally distributed resources to allow us to make a quantum leap in > our understanding of the role of culture in human development and the many > associated issues that such an interest require mastery of. > > Two of the central participants have died subsequently, others have moved > on to other ventures. Now the quantum leap seems a little more like the > slow uneven, blurred movement of sand sliding down a sand dune in the > Sahara, but it sure enough felt like lived experience at the time! > > There are a LOT of substantive issues taken up by Alfred in that document. > Somewhere in there must be a good summary of his on semiotic/ecological > framework. Whether those currently pursuing the possible synergies to be > had by putting Peirce in conversation with LSV have superseded this early > two decades old scholarship I am unsure. I often found Alfred difficult to > understand; the payoff was in the trying and the friendships that evolved > from the shared effort. > > mike > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep > > (bond) among the participants in this act of culture. > > > > Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting entities in relation to > > this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on > > this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a ?living? entity? > > > > Do the **persons** I am encountering here and now have any substance or > > essence? > > > > Is it permissible to say these **persons** bonding exist or are real as a > > **living** presence. > > > > Is this occurring only inside my **mind** as imaginary or imagination. > > > > Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call **imaginal** as an adjective. > > > > To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually > an > > imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this living > > presence as this (bond). > > > > I am using **imaginal** image to convey a sense of the presence of these > > 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This > > presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the > words > > imaginary or imagination. > > > > If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then > > it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via > > media). > > > > I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this **imaginal** image as > > what is occurring is **deep within** our meeting in this third space. > > > > I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my > > question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > *From: *mike cole > > *Sent: *June 21, 2016 5:23 PM > > *To: *Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation > > > > > > > > I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy. > > > > Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the > issue > > > > clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a > > > > dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the > document > > > > you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and > xmca. > > > > And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is > what > > > > makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'. > > > > > > > > If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a > > > > list of relevant documents comes up. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > > > > > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I > > > > > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx > > that > > > > > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of > > > > > but try this: > > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF LCHC: The Connection from the West lchc.ucsd.edu ExtrA Lang e-mail discussion Alfred Lang 1 LCHC: The Connection from the West go to the xlist introduction go to table of xlist discussion topics go to table of ... > LCHC: The Connection from the West< > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF> > lchc.ucsd.edu > ExtrA Lang e-mail discussion Alfred Lang 1 LCHC: The Connection from the > West go to the xlist introduction go to table of xlist discussion topics go > to table of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have > > emerged > > > > >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that > > > > >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there. > > > > >> > > > > >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions > in > > an > > > > >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang > > > > >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was > > > > >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in > > > > >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the > newsletter > > > > >> and > > > > >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer. > > > > >> > > > > >> Given that as background, what new insights can we gain from > > considering > > > > >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated* > > > > >> discourse?? > > > > >> > > > > >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior > > > > >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives? > > > > >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my > > > > >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a > collective > > > > >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a > > > > >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy. > > > > >> > > > > >> Summer Solstice Suggestion > > > > >> > > > > >> Mike > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object > > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Jun 23 07:02:18 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:02:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation In-Reply-To: References: <0a46b5e8-8bff-4b6f-c0c2-38390dc40725@mira.net> <576a250d.4787620a.d3cb2.ffffb1c6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <576bec15.815a420a.3c3fe.0d32@mx.google.com> To continue this thread. Greg, your question, why not the (index)? is not this the *ur* sign (index) for Vygotsky. James responds that this (secondness) -the index or Vygotsky ?s ur sign will require deep reflection. This seems an interesting probe implying Vygotsky amplifies secondess over Peirce?s firstness and thirdness. In other words, could Peirce?s triadic structure expand vygotsky?s semiotic potential towards this more emcompassing *picture* in the ?mind?s eye. This last reference to forming a picture or an image in the mind?s eye leads to another question. James, in his most recent article (Semiotizing the student perception of learning outcomes in British higher education) offers a way to consider or approach visual images. (does this mean both images created by sensory eye and also images created by the mind?s eye?). James, on page 5 indicates visual images take the form of circumnavigation, roaming so far and wide AS to spiral outwards from the centre to the periphery and *simultaneously* inwards *to* the center *from* the periphery. What James now adds is critical. This latter circumnavigational approach provides an abductive *capacity* for semiotic analysis that supplements a deductive capacity *inherent* in the deductive approach of interpreting verbal signs. So... The *ur* sign (object sign of secondness) as deductive approach of Vygotsky can be expanded by Peirce?s abductive circumnavigational approach. This approach SIMULTANEOUSLY navigates roaming from the center *outward*towards the periphery AND navigating from the periphery *inwards* towards the center. Now my question? When Peirce focuses on the centrality of *vagueness* travelling towards clarity is the articulating this movement from the periphery (vagueness, ambivalence, murkiness, foggy, misty, fuzzy, perception) navigating *inward* towards clarity. This travelling inward is not merely an interior *within*. When Mike, Alfred, and Arne *encountered* deep mutual meaning potentional they were navigating from the periphery towards a MUTUAL within that when experienced as mutually meaningful is an experience of a mutual travelling *deep within* dialogically. This place (periphery) as vagueness seems a key point as *central point*. And a central point navigated is a *point* travelled circumnavigationally. The movement is from the center outwards AND simultaneoysly is abductively moving from the periphery towards the central *point*. So... Stances, positions, points, centers are circumnavigational and *vagueness* is as foundational (going to the root) as clear ideas. I hope this reflection adds to our circumnavigation of Vygotsky?s *ur* phenomena through Peirce. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Greg Thompson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Jun 26 12:08:01 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:08:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. Greg?s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce?s triadic model where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: ?Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.? Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or phenomenal? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Lplarry From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Jun 26 12:18:31 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:18:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Larry, I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a reference to LSV?s frequent mention of the infant?s pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the index finger. As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. And for what it?s worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there?s some debate over that claim, but let it stand for now!) > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > Greg?s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce?s triadic model where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > ?Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.? > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or phenomenal? > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Lplarry From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jun 26 14:19:06 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 06:19:06 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Martin: Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign that would possess the character which renders it significant even though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where removed, but would not lose that character if there were no interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood to have that signification." (104). So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi Larry, > > I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign > for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a > reference to LSV?s frequent mention of the infant?s pointing - an indexical > sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the > index finger. > > As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, > and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > > And for what it?s worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as > aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to > reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what > turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for > Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there?s some debate over > that claim, but let it stand for now!) > > > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > > Greg?s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for > Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce?s triadic model where the > objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > > > ?Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition > of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to > *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.? > > > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or > phenomenal? > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Lplarry > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Jun 26 14:50:46 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:50:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> Martin, This movement of consciousness from appearance of what seems real towards a *deeper* reality brings up another question of the position or place from which appearances appear. The notion of (center) and (periphery) in relation to perception or language or meaning. Franson Manjali suggests: ?Every use of language, by every speaker/writer of what is called *a language* may be seen as taking place either at the center of a stable entity, resulting in reproductions or repetitions of what that entity is *already* made up of, OR As taking place at its tangent or periphery, subjecting it (i.e. the language) to real or potential, but often unforeseen, changes and transformations with respect to its *given* form.? This notion of perceiving phenomena as occurring either at the center or at the periphery opens up for reflection concepts such as (position, stance, point of view, place) as being fluid and in flux. The notion of context shifts to the *scope* of the context. What is appearing shifting if we are *focusing* consciousness intentionally on the *center point* or if we approach what is appearing in a more unfocused tangential peripheral way. I am intrigued not by the either/or but by the reciprocal interweaving of both/and moving through and within a focused/unfocused way of perceiving. This may be related to James Ma?s linking Vygotsky?s deductive focus with Peirce?s abductive inferences? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Jun 26 15:46:15 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:46:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Related, I think Larry, to two different models of language change. One is the genealogical tree, familiar to us all. The other is a model of waves: ?The tree model requires definite, stable languages, exactly what was denied by the Wave Model; if there are no permanent languages, then they cannot evolve as a tree. Conversely, the Wave Model regards languages as impermanent collections of features at the intersections of multiple circles. What really exists are dialect continua.? (Wikipedia) More here: Martin On Jun 26, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Lplarry > wrote: Martin, This movement of consciousness from appearance of what seems real towards a *deeper* reality brings up another question of the position or place from which appearances appear. The notion of (center) and (periphery) in relation to perception or language or meaning. Franson Manjali suggests: ?Every use of language, by every speaker/writer of what is called *a language* may be seen as taking place either at the center of a stable entity, resulting in reproductions or repetitions of what that entity is *already* made up of, OR As taking place at its tangent or periphery, subjecting it (i.e. the language) to real or potential, but often unforeseen, changes and transformations with respect to its *given* form.? This notion of perceiving phenomena as occurring either at the center or at the periphery opens up for reflection concepts such as (position, stance, point of view, place) as being fluid and in flux. The notion of context shifts to the *scope* of the context. What is appearing shifting if we are *focusing* consciousness intentionally on the *center point* or if we approach what is appearing in a more unfocused tangential peripheral way. I am intrigued not by the either/or but by the reciprocal interweaving of both/and moving through and within a focused/unfocused way of perceiving. This may be related to James Ma?s linking Vygotsky?s deductive focus with Peirce?s abductive inferences? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer Sent: June 26, 2016 12:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Hi Larry, I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a reference to LSV?s frequent mention of the infant?s pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the index finger. As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. And for what it?s worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there?s some debate over that claim, but let it stand for now!) > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > Greg?s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce?s triadic model where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > ?Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.? > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or phenomenal? > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Lplarry From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Jun 26 18:39:40 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 01:39:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <811AA305-A34D-41AD-887F-365BFEAC130A@uniandes.edu.co> A few days ago I offered a quick answer to Greg?s question, below, and said that there was a longer one. The longer answer is that in 1994 Bruno Latour wrote a detailed critique of Heidegger?s hermeneutic phenomenology of technology, later published in Pandora?s Hope. I attach the text. Certainly, Heidegger was deeply pessimistic about technology, while Latour is generally very optimistic. But in the course of his critique Latour basically rediscovered many of the very points that Heidegger made about the role of technology in human existence (as Soren Riis has noted). What did Latour discover? That technology does not transform us: it is us. That technology does not simply bridge subject and object, person and world, merely as means to achieve a goal, it displaces and transforms human agency, indeed it transforms human being. His concluding words: ?Artifacts?. They mediate our actions? No, they are us.? And the relevance to Greg?s question? Latour?s text is titled ?On Technical Mediation: Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy.? A central part of his analysis is the description and distinction of four meanings of the term ?mediation?: as translation, as composition, as black-boxing, and as delegation. In other words, to untangle the ontology of technology, Latour had to unpack the notion of mediation. Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Latour 1994 On technical mediation- Philosophy, sociology, genealogy.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2321470 bytes Desc: Latour 1994 On technical mediation- Philosophy, sociology, genealogy.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160627/1d183ff6/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160627/1d183ff6/attachment-0001.txt From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Mon Jun 27 11:54:07 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 18:54:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Martin: Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign that would possess the character which renders it significant even though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where removed, but would not lose that character if there were no interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood to have that signification." (104). So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi Larry, > > I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign > for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a > reference to LSV's frequent mention of the infant's pointing - an indexical > sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the > index finger. > > As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, > and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > > And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as > aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to > reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what > turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for > Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over > that claim, but let it stand for now!) > > > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > > Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for > Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model where the > objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > > > "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition > of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to > *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." > > > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or > phenomenal? > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Lplarry > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 27 12:19:15 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 19:19:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> Hi James, You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! Martin Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. > On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: > > > I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: > > > For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > > > Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). > > > The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. > > > Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Martin: > > Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's sometimes > pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's not really > equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans are trained to > think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought experiments to distinguish > what comes first: "An icon is a represntamen whose representative quality > is a firstness of it as a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing > renders it fit to be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, > J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > > Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > > "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign that > would possess the character which renders it significant even though its > object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak representing a > geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at once,lose the character > which makes it a sign if its object where removed, but would not lose that > character if there were no interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of > mould (i.e. particle board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a > shot; for without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a > hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign > if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which > signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood to have that > signification." (104). > > So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; indexes are > "second" because although they need an object, they don't need an > interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to mean they need an > object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to people is that this > doesn't create three distinct categories: a symbol has to also be some kind > of index and some kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot > is a foot and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and that's > what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word "foot" or > "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it also means that > there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at > one time, and these are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as > well as a symbol. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Hi Larry, >> >> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign >> for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a >> reference to LSV's frequent mention of the infant's pointing - an indexical >> sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the >> index finger. >> >> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, >> and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >> >> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as >> aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to >> reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what >> turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for >> Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over >> that claim, but let it stand for now!) >> >>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>> >>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for >> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model where the >> objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>> >>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>> >>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition >> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to >> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>> >>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or >> phenomenal? >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> From: Lplarry >> >> >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jun 27 16:34:46 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Semiotic Stance.pdf Message-ID: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> The Semiotic Stance.pdf http://www.envorganism.org/Article%20PDFs/The%20Semiotic%20Stance.pdf Sent from my Windows 10 phone From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 27 16:56:44 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 23:56:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Larry. Martin > On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:34 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > > http://www.envorganism.org/Article%20PDFs/The%20Semiotic%20Stance.pdf > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 27 17:37:57 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:37:57 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> Message-ID: James: I see big problems with BOTH views of "sign", and I think that for Vygotskyans they BOTH need to be modified. The Saussurean sign is dualistic. True, Saussure insists that both the sound and the concept are said to be mental images and not material, but then the existence of the sign in the material world and the formation of the mental image is left not accounted for. Saussure's only way of accounting for mental images is...associationist psychology. This isn't compatible with a Vygotskyan psychology. The Peircean sign is more promising in this respect, because it allows the index to exist independently, materially, without an interpretant (for example, when leaves turn red it's a sign of winter coming even when there is no one there to interpret it). Similarly, the icon can exist independently without an object: a rose is a rose by any other name, and its rosiness doesn't point to anything other than itself. But I don't see how a pencil line is really a sign for a nonexistent geometrical Euclidean line unless it points us to that nonexistent concept and unless there is someone like Euclid to interpret it that way. So I don't agree with Peirce's definition of an icon. I think it's more useful for Vygotskyans to think of language has having three properties: the biomechanical (e.g. articulation), the indicative (e.g. interpersonal properties of language such as deixis, getting attention, exchanging goods and services, etc.) and the conventional (e.g. representational properties of language). I think these are related to the Peircean categories, but not reducible to them, because they also correspond to lower level (biomechanical) and higher level (conventional) psychological systems. In this view, to return to Greg's question, indexicality is indeed central--it is the link between the lower, non-human aspects of speech and the higher, cultural ones. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > > I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' > points: > > > For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: > Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, > Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of > Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the > three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol > (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms > contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such > understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant > (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's > words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new > sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > > > Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned > with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign > through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery > of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of > Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign > is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than > "closure"). > > > The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, > sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. > The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to > make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in > Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. > signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as > Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which > bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as > signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined > by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French > language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, > the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also > absent in Saussure's dyad. > > > Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of > meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic > thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, > but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which > spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time > inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I > don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the > periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the > phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Martin: > > Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's sometimes > pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's not really > equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans are trained to > think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought experiments to distinguish > what comes first: "An icon is a represntamen whose representative quality > is a firstness of it as a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing > renders it fit to be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, > J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > > Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > > "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign that > would possess the character which renders it significant even though its > object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak representing a > geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at once,lose the character > which makes it a sign if its object where removed, but would not lose that > character if there were no interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of > mould (i.e. particle board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a > shot; for without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a > hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign > if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which > signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood to have that > signification." (104). > > So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; indexes are > "second" because although they need an object, they don't need an > interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to mean they need an > object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to people is that this > doesn't create three distinct categories: a symbol has to also be some kind > of index and some kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot > is a foot and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and that's > what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word "foot" or > "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it also means that > there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at > one time, and these are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as > well as a symbol. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > wrote: > > > Hi Larry, > > > > I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the > Ur-sign > > for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be > a > > reference to LSV's frequent mention of the infant's pointing - an > indexical > > sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the > > index finger. > > > > As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more > complex, > > and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > > > > And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) > as > > aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to > > reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what > > turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for > > Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate > over > > that claim, but let it stand for now!) > > > > > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > > > Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for > > Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model where > the > > objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > > > > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > > > > > "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a > cognition > > of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, > to > > *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." > > > > > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or > > phenomenal? > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Lplarry > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jun 27 18:08:32 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:08:32 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> References: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi James, > > You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? > > Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. > > This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > > > > Martin > > Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. > >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> >> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >> >> >> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >> >> >> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >> >> >> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >> >> >> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >> >> >> James >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Martin: >> >> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's sometimes >> pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's not really >> equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans are trained to >> think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought experiments to distinguish >> what comes first: "An icon is a represntamen whose representative quality >> is a firstness of it as a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing >> renders it fit to be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, >> J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >> >> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >> >> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign that >> would possess the character which renders it significant even though its >> object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak representing a >> geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at once,lose the character >> which makes it a sign if its object where removed, but would not lose that >> character if there were no interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of >> mould (i.e. particle board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a >> shot; for without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a >> hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign >> if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which >> signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood to have that >> signification." (104). >> >> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; indexes are >> "second" because although they need an object, they don't need an >> interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to mean they need an >> object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to people is that this >> doesn't create three distinct categories: a symbol has to also be some kind >> of index and some kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot >> is a foot and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and that's >> what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word "foot" or >> "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it also means that >> there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at >> one time, and these are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as >> well as a symbol. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >> wrote: >>> Hi Larry, >>> >>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign >>> for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a >>> reference to LSV's frequent mention of the infant's pointing - an indexical >>> sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the >>> index finger. >>> >>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, >>> and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>> >>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as >>> aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to >>> reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what >>> turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for >>> Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over >>> that claim, but let it stand for now!) >>> >>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>> >>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for >>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model where the >>> objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>> >>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition >>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to >>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or >>> phenomenal? >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> >>>> From: Lplarry >>> >>> > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 27 19:03:12 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:03:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> References: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> Message-ID: Right: my interest in Peirce stems from the fact that he seems to offer an account of semiosis that fits with LSV?s aims for a non-dualist psychology. Let?s finally put mind/world behind us! > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Hi James, >> >> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? >> >> Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. >> >> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>> >>> >>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>> >>> >>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>> >>> >>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>> >>> >>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>> >>> >>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>> >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg >>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Martin: >>> >>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's sometimes >>> pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's not really >>> equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans are trained to >>> think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought experiments to distinguish >>> what comes first: "An icon is a represntamen whose representative quality >>> is a firstness of it as a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing >>> renders it fit to be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, >>> J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>> >>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>> >>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign that >>> would possess the character which renders it significant even though its >>> object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak representing a >>> geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at once,lose the character >>> which makes it a sign if its object where removed, but would not lose that >>> character if there were no interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of >>> mould (i.e. particle board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a >>> shot; for without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a >>> hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign >>> if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which >>> signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood to have that >>> signification." (104). >>> >>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; indexes are >>> "second" because although they need an object, they don't need an >>> interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to mean they need an >>> object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to people is that this >>> doesn't create three distinct categories: a symbol has to also be some kind >>> of index and some kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot >>> is a foot and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and that's >>> what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word "foot" or >>> "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it also means that >>> there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at >>> one time, and these are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as >>> well as a symbol. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Larry, >>>> >>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign >>>> for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a >>>> reference to LSV's frequent mention of the infant's pointing - an indexical >>>> sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the >>>> index finger. >>>> >>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, >>>> and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>> >>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as >>>> aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to >>>> reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what >>>> turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for >>>> Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over >>>> that claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>> >>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for >>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model where the >>>> objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>> >>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition >>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to >>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or >>>> phenomenal? >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> From: Lplarry >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Jun 27 23:20:23 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:20:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> References: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. MIchael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi James, > > You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? > > Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. > > This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > > > > Martin > > Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. > >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> >> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >> >> >> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >> >> >> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >> >> >> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >> >> >> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >> >> >> James >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of David Kellogg >> >> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Martin: >> >> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be a >> representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >> >> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >> >> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for without >> the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a >> sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech >> which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood >> to have that signification." (104). >> >> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they don't >> need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to >> mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to >> people is that this doesn't create three distinct categories: a >> symbol has to also be some kind of index and some kind of icon, and >> an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot and it doesn't need >> any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In the same way, a foot >> print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and >> that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word >> "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it >> also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, >> lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes each >> spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >> >> wrote: >>> Hi Larry, >>> >>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>> >>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>> >>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the >>> movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this >>> movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that claim, but >>> let it stand for now!) >>> >>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>> >>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon >>>> for >>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>> >>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>> cognition >>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>> cognition, to >>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal >>>> or >>> phenomenal? >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> >>>> From: Lplarry >>> >>> > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 06:04:14 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:04:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. > > What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). > > Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. > > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Hi James, >> >> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? >> >> Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. >> >> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>> >>> >>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>> >>> >>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>> >>> >>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>> >>> >>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>> >>> >>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>> >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>> >>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Martin: >>> >>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be a >>> representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>> >>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>> >>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for without >>> the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a >>> sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech >>> which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood >>> to have that signification." (104). >>> >>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they don't >>> need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to >>> mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to >>> people is that this doesn't create three distinct categories: a >>> symbol has to also be some kind of index and some kind of icon, and >>> an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot and it doesn't need >>> any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In the same way, a foot >>> print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and >>> that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word >>> "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it >>> also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, >>> lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes each >>> spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Larry, >>>> >>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>> >>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>> >>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the >>>> movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this >>>> movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that claim, but >>>> let it stand for now!) >>>> >>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon >>>>> for >>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>> >>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>> cognition >>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>> cognition, to >>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal >>>>> or >>>> phenomenal? >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> From: Lplarry >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 07:24:56 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> References: <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu>, <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. > > What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). > > Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. > > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Hi James, >> >> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? >> >> Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. >> >> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>> >>> >>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>> >>> >>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>> >>> >>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>> >>> >>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>> >>> >>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>> >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>> >>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Martin: >>> >>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be a >>> representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>> >>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>> >>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for without >>> the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a >>> sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech >>> which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood >>> to have that signification." (104). >>> >>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they don't >>> need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to >>> mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to >>> people is that this doesn't create three distinct categories: a >>> symbol has to also be some kind of index and some kind of icon, and >>> an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot and it doesn't need >>> any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In the same way, a foot >>> print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and >>> that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word >>> "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it >>> also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, >>> lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes each >>> spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Larry, >>>> >>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>> >>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>> >>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the >>>> movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this >>>> movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that claim, but >>>> let it stand for now!) >>>> >>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon >>>>> for >>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>> >>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>> cognition >>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>> cognition, to >>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal >>>>> or >>>> phenomenal? >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> From: Lplarry >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 28 07:41:31 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:41:31 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> your activity ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? > > Martin > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >> >> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >> >> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >> >> >> MIchael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind?.? >>> >>> Do you know Paul Kockelman?s work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a ?mental concept? could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or ? more obviously could be. >>> >>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>> >>>> >>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>> >>>> >>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>> >>>> >>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>> >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>> >>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>> >>>> Martin: >>>> >>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be a >>>> representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>> >>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>> >>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for without >>>> the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it a >>>> sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech >>>> which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being understood >>>> to have that signification." (104). >>>> >>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they don't >>>> need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in order to >>>> mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is confusing to >>>> people is that this doesn't create three distinct categories: a >>>> symbol has to also be some kind of index and some kind of icon, and >>>> an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot and it doesn't need >>>> any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In the same way, a foot >>>> print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one time,and >>>> that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, the word >>>> "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a sound; it >>>> also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal cords, >>>> lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes each >>>> spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>> >>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>> >>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>> >>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the >>>>> movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this >>>>> movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that claim, but >>>>> let it stand for now!) >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon >>>>>> for >>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>> cognition >>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>> cognition, to >>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal >>>>>> or >>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Tue Jun 28 07:44:48 2016 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER D.S.) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:44:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> Message-ID: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD07887A40@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> The scope, content, and variety of contexts, of your activity -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 28 June 2016 15:42 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal your activity ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? > > Martin > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >> >> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >> >> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >> >> >> MIchael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>> >>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>> >>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>> >>>> >>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>> >>>> >>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>> >>>> >>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>> >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>> >>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>> >>>> Martin: >>>> >>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>> >>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>> >>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>> >>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>> >>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>> >>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>> >>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>> cognition >>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>> cognition, to >>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>> noumenal or >>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 07:54:58 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:54:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD07887A40@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD07887A40@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Including your cognitive and intellectual development. Consider Vygotsky?s paper ?Concrete Human Psychology? (attached), which proposes how psychology can 'ascend to the concrete? and study the organization of the (higher) psychological functions in individuals who have specific occupations. > On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:44 AM, WEBSTER D.S. wrote: > > The scope, content, and variety of contexts, of your activity > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 28 June 2016 15:42 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >>> >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >>> >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >>> >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>>> >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>> >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> Martin: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>> >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>> >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>> >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>> cognition >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Jun 26 15:39:39 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:39:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <98FCDBC9-747F-40BD-937C-783C6800A6D9@uniandes.edu.co> Related, I think Larry, to two different models of language change. One is the genealogical tree, familiar to us all. The other is a model of waves: ?The tree model requires definite, stable languages, exactly what was denied by the Wave Model; if there are no permanent languages, then they cannot evolve as a tree. Conversely, the Wave Model regards languages as impermanent collections of features at the intersections of multiple circles. What really exists are dialect continua.? (Wikipedia) More here: Martin On Jun 26, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Lplarry > wrote: Martin, This movement of consciousness from appearance of what seems real towards a *deeper* reality brings up another question of the position or place from which appearances appear. The notion of (center) and (periphery) in relation to perception or language or meaning. Franson Manjali suggests: ?Every use of language, by every speaker/writer of what is called *a language* may be seen as taking place either at the center of a stable entity, resulting in reproductions or repetitions of what that entity is *already* made up of, OR As taking place at its tangent or periphery, subjecting it (i.e. the language) to real or potential, but often unforeseen, changes and transformations with respect to its *given* form.? This notion of perceiving phenomena as occurring either at the center or at the periphery opens up for reflection concepts such as (position, stance, point of view, place) as being fluid and in flux. The notion of context shifts to the *scope* of the context. What is appearing shifting if we are *focusing* consciousness intentionally on the *center point* or if we approach what is appearing in a more unfocused tangential peripheral way. I am intrigued not by the either/or but by the reciprocal interweaving of both/and moving through and within a focused/unfocused way of perceiving. This may be related to James Ma?s linking Vygotsky?s deductive focus with Peirce?s abductive inferences? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer Sent: June 26, 2016 12:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Hi Larry, I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a reference to LSV?s frequent mention of the infant?s pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the index finger. As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. And for what it?s worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there?s some debate over that claim, but let it stand for now!) > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > Greg?s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce?s triadic model where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > ?Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.? > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or phenomenal? > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Lplarry From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Jun 26 15:39:28 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> References: <575c291c.1179420a.337bb.ffffac8b@mx.google.com> <57680530.855c620a.6f519.7d72@mx.google.com> <440133B8-4AE8-432E-A306-3DE011536DE7@uniandes.edu.co> <5ECA063E-7321-4D96-AAF5-2C02BD38B43F@uniandes.edu.co> <3ff61557-4537-4cc6-6ab4-ffa435487b8f@mira.net> <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <57704e61.4583620a.72a05.4e0f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Related, I think Larry, to two different models of language change. One is the genealogical tree, familiar to us all. The other is a model of waves: ?The tree model requires definite, stable languages, exactly what was denied by the Wave Model; if there are no permanent languages, then they cannot evolve as a tree. Conversely, the Wave Model regards languages as impermanent collections of features at the intersections of multiple circles. What really exists are dialect continua.? (Wikipedia) More here: Martin On Jun 26, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Lplarry > wrote: Martin, This movement of consciousness from appearance of what seems real towards a *deeper* reality brings up another question of the position or place from which appearances appear. The notion of (center) and (periphery) in relation to perception or language or meaning. Franson Manjali suggests: ?Every use of language, by every speaker/writer of what is called *a language* may be seen as taking place either at the center of a stable entity, resulting in reproductions or repetitions of what that entity is *already* made up of, OR As taking place at its tangent or periphery, subjecting it (i.e. the language) to real or potential, but often unforeseen, changes and transformations with respect to its *given* form.? This notion of perceiving phenomena as occurring either at the center or at the periphery opens up for reflection concepts such as (position, stance, point of view, place) as being fluid and in flux. The notion of context shifts to the *scope* of the context. What is appearing shifting if we are *focusing* consciousness intentionally on the *center point* or if we approach what is appearing in a more unfocused tangential peripheral way. I am intrigued not by the either/or but by the reciprocal interweaving of both/and moving through and within a focused/unfocused way of perceiving. This may be related to James Ma?s linking Vygotsky?s deductive focus with Peirce?s abductive inferences? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer Sent: June 26, 2016 12:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Hi Larry, I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a reference to LSV?s frequent mention of the infant?s pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done with the index finger. As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. And for what it?s worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there?s some debate over that claim, but let it stand for now!) > On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > > I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > Greg?s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce?s triadic model where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > > I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: > > ?Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.? > > Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or phenomenal? > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Lplarry From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 08:01:26 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:01:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same idea. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal your activity ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? > > Martin > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >> >> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >> >> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >> >> >> MIchael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>> >>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>> >>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>> >>>> >>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>> >>>> >>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>> >>>> >>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>> >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>> >>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>> >>>> Martin: >>>> >>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>> >>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>> >>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>> >>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>> >>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>> >>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>> >>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>> cognition >>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>> cognition, to >>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>> noumenal or >>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 08:05:12 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:05:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> You?re saying there has to be a god?? Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same idea. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >>> >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >>> >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >>> >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>>> >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>> >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> Martin: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>> >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>> >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>> >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>> cognition >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 08:09:12 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:09:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Well isn't God just an externalization of our conception of the human mind? -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:05 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal You?re saying there has to be a god?? Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same idea. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >>> >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >>> >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >>> >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-makin >>> g >>> >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>>> >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>> >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> Martin: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most >>>>> Vygotskyans are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of >>>>> thought experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as >>>>> a first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to >>>>> be a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>> >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>> >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. >>>>> particle >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>> >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. >>>>> Finally, the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's >>>>> not just a sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, >>>>> tongue, vocal cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these >>>>> are what makes each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that >>>>>> the Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or >>>>>> symbol. I took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention >>>>>> of the infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was >>>>>> one, since the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the >>>>>> mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for >>>>>> LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over >>>>>> that claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>> cognition >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 28 08:21:01 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:21:01 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Just a minute folks! Is everyone okay with the assumption that the individual=intellect/cognition? If so, then asking if non-dualism can have a theory of individual development is like asking if atheists pray to God. It's definitional. Seems like the question should be: can we imagine an individual without intellect/cognition? Some of you will immediately say, "of course not, that's a dumb question." But some others out there have been trying a different answer to this question. Paul Kockelman is one. Vincent Colapietro (whom Kockelman cites) is another. Martin is another. And maybe Vygotsky too? Speaking of which, Martin, can you re-send that Vygotsky piece? I didn't see it as an attachment. -greg ? On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > You?re saying there has to be a god?? > > Martin > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > > How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that > manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity > constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development > is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same > idea. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > > > your activity > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist > pray tell, what is developing? > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >> > >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual > development, Michael? > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >>> > >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, > which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a > Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on > doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) > Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the > head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of > this and not a cause. > >>> > >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a > great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is > no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is > societal and community development). > >>> > >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the > same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, > was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that > argument. > >>> > >>> > >>> MIchael > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>> > >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! > Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an > alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>> > >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>>> Hi James, > >>>> > >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very > important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the > mind"." > >>>> > >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes > that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can > respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction > (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign > for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella > opened, or . more obviously could be. > >>>> > >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), > 233-304. > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and > others' points: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: > Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, > Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of > Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the > three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol > (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms > contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such > understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant > (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's > words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new > sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is > concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a > sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a > discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's > Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is > that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" > (rather than "closure"). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For > Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the > sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise > pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent > in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. > signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as > Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which > bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as > signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined > by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French > language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, > the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also > absent in Saussure's dyad. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both > modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for > semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear > itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of > circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery > and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of > meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep > structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, > depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that > phenomenon. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin: > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's > >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's > >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans > >>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought > >>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a > >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a > >>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be > >>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler > ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > >>>>> > >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign > >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even > >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak > >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at > >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where > >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no > >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle > >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for > >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole > there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it > >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of > >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being > >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). > >>>>> > >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; > >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they > >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in > >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is > >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct > >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some > >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot > >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one > >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, > >>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a > >>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal > >>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes > >>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer > >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Larry, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the > >>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I > >>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the > >>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since > >>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more > >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other > >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in > >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, > >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere > >>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), > >>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that > >>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* > >>>>>>> phenomenon for > >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model > >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this > topic: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a > >>>>>>> cognition > >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this > >>>>>> cognition, to > >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere > happening." > >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* > >>>>>>> noumenal or > >>>>>> phenomenal? > >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 28 08:24:35 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:24:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD07887A40@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD07887A40@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk> Message-ID: Each new level of development is a new relevant context. C. Waddington, 1942 On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:44 AM, WEBSTER D.S. wrote: > The scope, content, and variety of contexts, of your activity > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 28 June 2016 15:42 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist > pray tell, what is developing? > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > > [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > > > Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual > development, Michael? > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> > >> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, > which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a > Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on > doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) > Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the > head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of > this and not a cause. > >> > >> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great > deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no > theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal > and community development). > >> > >> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the > same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, > was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that > argument. > >> > >> > >> MIchael > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >> > >> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! > Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an > alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >> > >> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>> Hi James, > >>> > >>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important > as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." > >>> > >>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes > that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can > respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction > (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign > for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella > opened, or . more obviously could be. > >>> > >>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), > 233-304. > >>> > >>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and > others' points: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: > Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, > Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of > Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the > three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol > (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms > contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such > understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant > (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's > words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new > sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is > concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a > sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a > discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's > Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is > that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" > (rather than "closure"). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For > Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the > sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise > pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent > in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. > signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as > Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which > bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as > signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined > by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French > language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, > the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also > absent in Saussure's dyad. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes > of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for > semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear > itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of > circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery > and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of > meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep > structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, > depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that > phenomenon. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>> > >>>> Martin: > >>>> > >>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's > >>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's > >>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans > >>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought > >>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a > >>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a > >>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be > >>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler > ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > >>>> > >>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > >>>> > >>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign > >>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even > >>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak > >>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at > >>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where > >>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no > >>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle > >>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for > >>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole > there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > >>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it > >>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of > >>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being > >>>> understood to have that signification." (104). > >>>> > >>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; > >>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they > >>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in > >>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is > >>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct > >>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some > >>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot > >>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > >>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > >>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one > >>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, > >>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a > >>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal > >>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes > >>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> Macquarie University > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer > >>>> >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Larry, > >>>>> > >>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the > >>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I > >>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the > >>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since > >>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more > >>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > >>>>> > >>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other > >>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in > >>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, > >>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere > >>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), > >>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that > >>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > >>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* > >>>>>> phenomenon for > >>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model > >>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > >>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this > topic: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a > >>>>>> cognition > >>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this > >>>>> cognition, to > >>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere > happening." > >>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* > >>>>>> noumenal or > >>>>> phenomenal? > >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 28 08:30:02 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:30:02 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <84ee5fad-6130-0c66-1c99-e84b9c5d1c4b@mira.net> Not true Michael. You are mixing up "behaviour" with "activity." On reflection, an observer can abstract "behaviour" and "consciousness" or "mind" from the study of "activity" but "activity" is not a dualist concept; activity is a prior unity of behaviour and consciousness from which "mind" is a hypothetical abstraction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same idea. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >>> >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >>> >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >>> >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>>> >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>> >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> Martin: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>> >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>> >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>> >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>> cognition >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>> >> >> >> > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 08:32:36 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:32:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co>, Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C10@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Greg, But perhaps we shouldn't be so cavalier about giving up individual cognition, When you give up individual cognition you give up an awful lot. I have never really been able to come down on one side of this argument or the other and right now I don't know where I am. I found Latour's article on how we are technology to be unhelpful to me in understanding modern relationships between humans and technology. At least some of those who actually create new technologies are dualists though I don't think they think on that level, and to lose that might mean misunderstanding the technology. But as a political question dualism is so often used for unsavory purposes. But I think if we want to talk about non-dualism we should recognize the theoretical implications. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Greg Thompson [greg.a.thompson@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:21 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Just a minute folks! Is everyone okay with the assumption that the individual=intellect/cognition? If so, then asking if non-dualism can have a theory of individual development is like asking if atheists pray to God. It's definitional. Seems like the question should be: can we imagine an individual without intellect/cognition? Some of you will immediately say, "of course not, that's a dumb question." But some others out there have been trying a different answer to this question. Paul Kockelman is one. Vincent Colapietro (whom Kockelman cites) is another. Martin is another. And maybe Vygotsky too? Speaking of which, Martin, can you re-send that Vygotsky piece? I didn't see it as an attachment. -greg ? On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > You?re saying there has to be a god?? > > Martin > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > > How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that > manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity > constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development > is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same > idea. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > > > your activity > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist > pray tell, what is developing? > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >> > >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual > development, Michael? > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >>> > >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, > which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a > Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on > doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) > Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the > head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of > this and not a cause. > >>> > >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a > great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is > no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is > societal and community development). > >>> > >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the > same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, > was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that > argument. > >>> > >>> > >>> MIchael > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>> > >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! > Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an > alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>> > >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>>> Hi James, > >>>> > >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very > important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the > mind"." > >>>> > >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes > that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can > respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction > (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign > for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella > opened, or . more obviously could be. > >>>> > >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), > 233-304. > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and > others' points: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: > Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, > Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of > Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the > three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol > (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms > contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such > understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant > (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's > words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new > sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is > concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a > sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a > discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's > Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is > that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" > (rather than "closure"). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For > Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the > sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise > pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent > in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. > signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as > Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which > bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as > signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined > by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French > language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, > the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also > absent in Saussure's dyad. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both > modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for > semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear > itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of > circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery > and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of > meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep > structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, > depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that > phenomenon. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> James > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin: > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's > >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's > >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans > >>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought > >>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a > >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a > >>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be > >>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler > ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > >>>>> > >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign > >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even > >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak > >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at > >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where > >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no > >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle > >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for > >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole > there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it > >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of > >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being > >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). > >>>>> > >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; > >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they > >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in > >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is > >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct > >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some > >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot > >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one > >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, > >>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a > >>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal > >>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes > >>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer > >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Larry, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the > >>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I > >>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the > >>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since > >>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more > >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other > >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in > >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, > >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere > >>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), > >>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that > >>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* > >>>>>>> phenomenon for > >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model > >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this > topic: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a > >>>>>>> cognition > >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this > >>>>>> cognition, to > >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere > happening." > >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* > >>>>>>> noumenal or > >>>>>> phenomenal? > >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 08:33:50 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:33:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order we see in the universe must have been designed, and design requires intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. I, however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual psychological development must require something that remains "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? in human psychological development: he calls it personality. Not mind. Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Vygotsky 1986 Concrete human psychology [Translato.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 292726 bytes Desc: Vygotsky 1986 Concrete human psychology [Translato.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160628/0aefb67d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160628/0aefb67d/attachment.txt From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 08:36:31 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:36:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <5FCAE108E8796240B89A0E15AE182DBD07887A40@CISCMRMBS01.mds.ad.dur.ac.uk>, Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C2C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Wasn't Waddington talking about physical development. Perhaps a different kettle of fish. ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of mike cole [mcole@ucsd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:24 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Each new level of development is a new relevant context. C. Waddington, 1942 On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:44 AM, WEBSTER D.S. wrote: > The scope, content, and variety of contexts, of your activity > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 28 June 2016 15:42 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist > pray tell, what is developing? > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > > [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > > > Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual > development, Michael? > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> > >> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, > which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a > Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on > doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) > Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the > head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of > this and not a cause. > >> > >> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great > deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no > theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal > and community development). > >> > >> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the > same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, > was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that > argument. > >> > >> > >> MIchael > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >> > >> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! > Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an > alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >> > >> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>> Hi James, > >>> > >>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important > as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." > >>> > >>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes > that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can > respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction > (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign > for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella > opened, or . more obviously could be. > >>> > >>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), > 233-304. > >>> > >>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and > others' points: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: > Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, > Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of > Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the > three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol > (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms > contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such > understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant > (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's > words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new > sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is > concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a > sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a > discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's > Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is > that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" > (rather than "closure"). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For > Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the > sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise > pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent > in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. > signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as > Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which > bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as > signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined > by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French > language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, > the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also > absent in Saussure's dyad. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes > of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for > semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear > itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of > circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery > and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of > meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep > structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, > depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that > phenomenon. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>> on behalf of David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>> > >>>> Martin: > >>>> > >>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's > >>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's > >>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans > >>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought > >>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a > >>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a > >>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be > >>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler > ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > >>>> > >>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > >>>> > >>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign > >>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even > >>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak > >>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at > >>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where > >>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no > >>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle > >>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for > >>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole > there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > >>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it > >>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of > >>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being > >>>> understood to have that signification." (104). > >>>> > >>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; > >>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they > >>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in > >>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is > >>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct > >>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some > >>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot > >>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > >>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > >>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one > >>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, > >>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a > >>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal > >>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes > >>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> Macquarie University > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer > >>>> >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Larry, > >>>>> > >>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the > >>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I > >>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the > >>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since > >>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more > >>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > >>>>> > >>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other > >>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in > >>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, > >>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere > >>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), > >>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that > >>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > >>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* > >>>>>> phenomenon for > >>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model > >>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > >>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this > topic: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a > >>>>>> cognition > >>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this > >>>>> cognition, to > >>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere > happening." > >>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* > >>>>>> noumenal or > >>>>> phenomenal? > >>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 08:43:33 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:43:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu>, <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might want to call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you know that. I am saying that our conception of development has similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there is a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity. One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. Michael ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order we see in the universe must have been designed, and design requires intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. I, however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual psychological development must require something that remains "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? in human psychological development: he calls it personality. Not mind. Martin From ablunden@mira.net Tue Jun 28 08:47:30 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:47:30 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Not true Michael. You are mixing up "behaviour" with "activity." On reflection, an observer can abstract "behaviour" and "consciousness" or "mind" from the study of "activity" but "activity" is not a dualist concept; activity is a prior unity of behaviour and consciousness from which "mind" is a hypothetical abstraction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same idea. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > To:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > your activity > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist pray tell, what is developing? >> ________________________________________ >> From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual development, Michael? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of this and not a cause. >>> >>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is societal and community development). >>> >>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that argument. >>> >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> >>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind"." >>>> >>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>> >>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), 233-304. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and others' points: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" (rather than "closure"). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that phenomenon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> Martin: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>> >>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>> >>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>> >>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Macquarie University >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this topic: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>> cognition >>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening." >>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Lplarry >> >> > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 28 09:01:57 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:01:57 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question. One more question: Do we carry a constant something around with us? And does that constant something not develop/change? (if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence perhaps?) And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here... someone switch sides?). -greg On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this > reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than the > idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling our > activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might want to > call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not making an > argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you know that. I am > saying that our conception of development has similarities to the > conception of intelligent design, in that there is a mind, an internal, > constant force which is manipulating activity. One of the reasons the > early Pragmatists were no against dualism is because of the destructive > tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. If we can't get there then I > would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the > explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue of > Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order we see > in the universe must have been designed, and design requires intelligence, > therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that argument convincing, > or you would not suggest the parallel. I, however, do not find it a > convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. > > In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over > time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual > psychological development must require something that remains "constant as > the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, children are born > into a highly structured social context. And LSV *does* posit something > else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? in human psychological > development: he calls it personality. Not mind. > > > Martin > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 28 09:11:39 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:11:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C9D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Don't mind the piling on. Just making the point that perhaps non-dualism is an issue to be grappled with rather than adhered to. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal Michael, I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question. One more question: Do we carry a constant something around with us? And does that constant something not develop/change? (if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence perhaps?) And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here... someone switch sides?). -greg On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this > reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than > the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling > our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might > want to call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not > making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you > know that. I am saying that our conception of development has > similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there is > a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity. > One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is > because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. > If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the > explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue > of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order > we see in the universe must have been designed, and design requires > intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that > argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. I, > however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. > > In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over > time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual > psychological development must require something that remains > "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, > children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV > *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? > in human psychological > development: he calls it personality. Not mind. > > > Martin > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 09:19:11 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:19:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <9F92EEE4-45C0-4FB3-9B81-29DE7A710D63@uniandes.edu.co> Greg, I wasn?t *equating* individual psychological development with the development of intellect and cognition, but one sure wouldn?t want to leave those out, would one? That indeed would be a costly price to pay! (And there?s no evidence that LSV wanted to leave them out, is there?) Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Just a minute folks! > > Is everyone okay with the assumption that the > individual=intellect/cognition? > > If so, then asking if non-dualism can have a theory of individual > development is like asking if atheists pray to God. It's definitional. > > Seems like the question should be: can we imagine an individual without > intellect/cognition? > > Some of you will immediately say, "of course not, that's a dumb question." > > But some others out there have been trying a different answer to this > question. Paul Kockelman is one. Vincent Colapietro (whom Kockelman cites) > is another. Martin is another. And maybe Vygotsky too? > > Speaking of which, Martin, can you re-send that Vygotsky piece? I didn't > see it as an attachment. > > -greg ? > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > >> You?re saying there has to be a god?? >> >> Martin >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >>> >>> How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that >> manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of activity >> constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying development >> is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the same >> idea. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> your activity >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>> >>> On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist >> pray tell, what is developing? >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>> >>>> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual >> development, Michael? >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on semiosis, >> which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a >> Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based on >> doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) >> Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of the >> head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an outgrowth of >> this and not a cause. >>>>> >>>>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a >> great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there is >> no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is >> societal and community development). >>>>> >>>>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the >> same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, >> was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have that >> argument. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MIchael >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! >> Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It is an >> alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>> >>>>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>>>> Hi James, >>>>>> >>>>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very >> important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in the >> mind"." >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes >> that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant can >> respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction >> (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign >> for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an umbrella >> opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>>>> >>>>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), >> 233-304. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < >> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and >> others' points: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: >> Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, >> Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect of >> Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the >> three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol >> (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms >> contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such >> understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant >> (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's >> words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new >> sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is >> concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of a >> sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a >> discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's >> Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis is >> that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or "goal" >> (rather than "closure"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For >> Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the >> sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been otherwise >> pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is absent >> in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. >> signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as >> Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification which >> bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO as >> signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is determined >> by the system of signification, English language. If the system is French >> language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, >> the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is also >> absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both >> modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope for >> semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of linear >> itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of >> circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the periphery >> and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms of >> meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep >> structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be either, >> depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that >> phenomenon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler >> ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole >> there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this >> topic: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>>>> cognition >>>>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere >> happening." >>>>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 09:57:35 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:57:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <504A82A5-0FED-4EC2-8539-4E6F6F2FE2D2@uniandes.edu.co> Well, I think your argument makes my case! No need for god (as an all-powerful designer); no need for mind (as an internal, immaterial first-cause). :) Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might want to call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you know that. I am saying that our conception of development has similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there is a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity. One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. > > Michael > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order we see in the universe must have been designed, and design requires intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. I, however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. > > In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual psychological development must require something that remains "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? in human psychological development: he calls it personality. Not mind. > > > Martin > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Jun 28 12:04:27 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:04:27 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu>, <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5772ca69.0304620a.ff69f.7b22@mx.google.com> I want to pick up on Michael Glassman?s comment on *the internal constant force* (essence?) that may be different from *the external constant force*. This notion of (internal) may or may not be a constant *force* but it does speak to a way that imagines place holder?s ( Kockelman?s term) This internal force does not have to be imagined as occurring within an individual body, mind, or consciousness. This internal force may be a relation (of) relations (Kockleman?s notion). For example language and mind developing internally within dialogical meetings (place-holders) as contexts of meaning *potential* (as James Ma uses this term) The sense of context as *scope* of context that can be narrower or wider, shallow or deeper. However, always in the sense I am articulating an *internal* place-holder which is *open* to meaning potential becoming a *force* Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Glassman, Michael From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 28 16:30:21 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:30:21 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [AAA_ACYIG] CFP: Wheelock Jour. of Children, Families, Social Change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not a huge fan of the proliferation of journals but this one looks like a very interesting one. Open access too. -greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eric Silverman Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM Subject: [AAA_ACYIG] CFP: Wheelock Jour. of Children, Families, Social Change To: "aaa_acyig@binhost.com" Dear colleagues: We are now accepted manuscript submissions for Volume 1, Issue 1, of the wholly open source Wheelock International Journal of Children, Families, and Social Change: You can read the first issue, and see relevant information, at http://journal.wheelock.edu/ Best? Eric Silverman ********************************************************** Eric K. Silverman, PhD Anthropology Prof. American Studies and Chair, Psych/Human Development Wheelock College 200 Riverway, Boston, MA 02215 USA Editor, Wheelock International Journal of Children, Families, and Social Change (http://journal.wheelock.edu) twitter: EKSilverman office phone: 617.879.2423 email: esilverman@wheelock.edu ************************************************************ _______________________________________________ American Anthropological Association's Anthropology of Children and Youth Interest Group Listserv. AAA_ACYIG@binhost.com To view the message archives, please visit: https://lists.capalon.com/pipermail/aaa_acyig/ For help with this list, please contact the List Administrator acyig.aaa AT gmail DOT com You may also manage your own subscription preferences at: https://lists.capalon.com/lists/listinfo/aaa_acyig Note: To stop receiving email from this list, please set your account to DISABLED. AAA_ACYIG mailing list AAA_ACYIG@binhost.com https://lists.capalon.com/lists/listinfo/aaa_acyig -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 28 17:01:20 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:01:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: [AAA_ACYIG] CFP: Wheelock Jour. of Children, Families, Social Change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It does look interesting, Greg. Thanks for forwarding. mike On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Not a huge fan of the proliferation of journals but this one looks like a > very interesting one. > Open access too. > -greg > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eric Silverman > Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM > Subject: [AAA_ACYIG] CFP: Wheelock Jour. of Children, Families, Social > Change > To: "aaa_acyig@binhost.com" > > > Dear colleagues: > > > > We are now accepted manuscript submissions for Volume 1, Issue 1, of the > wholly open source Wheelock International Journal of Children, Families, > and Social Change: > > > > You can read the first issue, and see relevant information, at > http://journal.wheelock.edu/ > > > > Best? > > Eric Silverman > > > > ********************************************************** > > Eric K. Silverman, PhD Anthropology > > Prof. American Studies and Chair, Psych/Human Development > > Wheelock College > > 200 Riverway, Boston, MA 02215 USA > > Editor, Wheelock International Journal of Children, Families, and Social > Change (http://journal.wheelock.edu) > > twitter: EKSilverman > > office phone: 617.879.2423 > > email: esilverman@wheelock.edu > < > https://webmail.wheelock.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=cc132ea091164eb1bd31f74e1fa314bc&URL=mailto%3aesilverman%40wheelock.edu > > > > ************************************************************ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > American Anthropological Association's Anthropology of Children and Youth > Interest Group Listserv. AAA_ACYIG@binhost.com > > To view the message archives, please visit: > https://lists.capalon.com/pipermail/aaa_acyig/ > > For help with this list, please contact the List Administrator > acyig.aaa AT gmail DOT com > > You may also manage your own subscription preferences at: > https://lists.capalon.com/lists/listinfo/aaa_acyig > Note: To stop receiving email from this list, please set your account to > DISABLED. > > AAA_ACYIG mailing list > AAA_ACYIG@binhost.com > https://lists.capalon.com/lists/listinfo/aaa_acyig > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 28 17:02:52 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:02:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoctoral scholar position at UVa In-Reply-To: <3c59985d-0086-5570-4b8f-14109d9bef29@eservices.virginia.edu> References: <3c59985d-0086-5570-4b8f-14109d9bef29@eservices.virginia.edu> Message-ID: This is a real great opportunity for someone interested in play and education. Angeline Lillard is a terrific scholar and person to work with. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Angeline LIllard Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:04 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoctoral scholar position at UVa To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org The University of Virginia's Early Development Lab, under the direction of Dr. Angeline Lillard, seeks applicants for a Postdoctoral Research Associate to participate in research on pretend play in early childhood and/or Montessori education. Applicants with interest and experience in epigenetics and neuroimaging as they pertain to those topic areas are especially encouraged to apply. Candidates must have completed all requirements for a Ph.D. in Psychology or related field prior to the start date. Candidates must have at least 4 years of experience in conducting research with young children, time spent as a student will be considered. This is a one-year appointment; however, appointments may be renewed for an additional year, contingent upon available funding and satisfactory performance. The University of Virginia is consistently ranked as a top public institution. Situated within iconic and historic Charlottesville, Virginia, with convenient airport and interstate access, we are located within one hour of Richmond and two hours of Washington D.C. Charlottesville is consistently ranked as one of the most livable cities in America. The postdoctoral affairs website at the following URL provides more information on resources for postdocs at the University of Virginia: http://postdoc.virginia.edu/. To apply, candidates must complete a candidate profile through Jobs@UVa ( https://jobs.virginia.edu) and electronically attach the following: cover letter, curriculum vitae, and the contact information for three professional references; search on posting number 0619053. Review of applications will begin July 8, 2016; however, the position is open until filled. The start date is anticipated to be in the fall of 2016. Questions regarding the position and application process should be directed to Rich Haverstrom at rkh6j@virginia.edu. The University will perform background checks on all new hires prior to making a final offer of employment. The University of Virginia is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer. Women, minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply. -- Angeline Lillard Professor of Psychology Developmental Area Head Editor, Journal of Cognition and Development 109 Gilmer, PO Box 400400 University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22904 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 28 17:09:08 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 09:09:08 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <9F92EEE4-45C0-4FB3-9B81-29DE7A710D63@uniandes.edu.co> References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <9F92EEE4-45C0-4FB3-9B81-29DE7A710D63@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin (and others), Well, yes, one wouldn't want to leave out what these things accomplish, but one might want to leave out the dualistic baggage that a reified notion of intellect and cognition bring with them (and as Michael notes, one might find this baggage not too burdensome to carry - or at least less burdensome than the task of trying to come up with a new language for thinking thought). So then the question with intellect and cognition, in short "thinking", is really: how might we think thinking in ways that do not presuppose the separation of thinking from living - as if thinking happens in some otherworldly (rational?) realm apart from everyday life? How might we instead conceive of thinking as something that dwells within a being? How might we return thinking to Being? And by doing so, take hold of a notion of thinking-Being as something that can develop across time? To put the core question slight differently, we might ask: What is called thinking? Here is one response (of which I'm sure you, Martin, are quite aware): http://hermitmusic.tripod.com/heidegger_thinking.pdf -greg On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Greg, > > I wasn?t *equating* individual psychological development with the > development of intellect and cognition, but one sure wouldn?t want to leave > those out, would one? That indeed would be a costly price to pay! (And > there?s no evidence that LSV wanted to leave them out, is there?) > > Martin > > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > > Just a minute folks! > > > > Is everyone okay with the assumption that the > > individual=intellect/cognition? > > > > If so, then asking if non-dualism can have a theory of individual > > development is like asking if atheists pray to God. It's definitional. > > > > Seems like the question should be: can we imagine an individual without > > intellect/cognition? > > > > Some of you will immediately say, "of course not, that's a dumb > question." > > > > But some others out there have been trying a different answer to this > > question. Paul Kockelman is one. Vincent Colapietro (whom Kockelman > cites) > > is another. Martin is another. And maybe Vygotsky too? > > > > Speaking of which, Martin, can you re-send that Vygotsky piece? I didn't > > see it as an attachment. > > > > -greg ? > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > > > >> You?re saying there has to be a god?? > >> > >> Martin > >> > >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that > >> manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of > activity > >> constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying > development > >> is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the > same > >> idea. > >>> > >>> Michael > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>> > >>> your activity > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>> > >>> On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >>>> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist > >> pray tell, what is developing? > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer > >>>> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>> > >>>> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual > >> development, Michael? > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on > semiosis, > >> which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a > >> Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based > on > >> doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) > >> Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of > the > >> head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an > outgrowth of > >> this and not a cause. > >>>>> > >>>>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a > >> great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there > is > >> no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is > >> societal and community development). > >>>>> > >>>>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the > >> same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, > >> was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have > that > >> argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> MIchael > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM > >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>>> > >>>>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! > >> Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It > is an > >> alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>>>> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>>>> > >>>>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >>>>>> Hi James, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very > >> important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in > the > >> mind"." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes > >> that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant > can > >> respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction > >> (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign > >> for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an > umbrella > >> opened, or . more obviously could be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Martin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), > >> 233-304. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > < > >> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and > >> others' points: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: > >> Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, > >> Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect > of > >> Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the > >> three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol > >> (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms > >> contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such > >> understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant > >> (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in > Peirce's > >> words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new > >> sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is > >> concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of > a > >> sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a > >> discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's > >> Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis > is > >> that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or > "goal" > >> (rather than "closure"). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For > >> Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the > >> sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been > otherwise > >> pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is > absent > >> in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. > >> signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as > >> Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification > which > >> bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO > as > >> signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is > determined > >> by the system of signification, English language. If the system is > French > >> language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, > >> the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is > also > >> absent in Saussure's dyad. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both > >> modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope > for > >> semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of > linear > >> itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of > >> circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the > periphery > >> and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms > of > >> meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep > >> structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be > either, > >> depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that > >> phenomenon. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> James > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 > >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Martin: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's > >>>>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's > >>>>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans > >>>>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought > >>>>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a > >>>>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a > >>>>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be > >>>>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler > >> ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign > >>>>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even > >>>>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak > >>>>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at > >>>>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where > >>>>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no > >>>>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle > >>>>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for > >>>>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole > >> there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. > >>>>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it > >>>>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of > >>>>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being > >>>>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; > >>>>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they > >>>>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in > >>>>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is > >>>>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct > >>>>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some > >>>>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot > >>>>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In > >>>>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a > >>>>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one > >>>>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, > >>>>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a > >>>>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal > >>>>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes > >>>>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>> Macquarie University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Larry, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the > >>>>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I > >>>>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the > >>>>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since > >>>>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more > >>>>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other > >>>>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in > >>>>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, > >>>>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere > >>>>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), > >>>>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that > >>>>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. > >>>>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* > >>>>>>>>> phenomenon for > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model > >>>>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. > >>>>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this > >> topic: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a > >>>>>>>>> cognition > >>>>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this > >>>>>>>> cognition, to > >>>>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere > >> happening." > >>>>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* > >>>>>>>>> noumenal or > >>>>>>>> phenomenal? > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From: Lplarry > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 28 17:37:35 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:37:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: References: <9D5203EE-6311-4FEB-BC69-9D9A1EBD3874@uniandes.edu.co> <5769ed40.0821620a.6bd0e.ffffa358@mx.google.com> <5770283c.865f620a.6c76e.3384@mx.google.com> <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <9F92EEE4-45C0-4FB3-9B81-29DE7A710D63@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Cognition in the wild Distributed cognition Situated cognition Everyday cognition Cognition in practice Cultural cognition Embodied cognition Cognition in context Outsourced cognition Extended cognition ?for starters! :) Martin > On Jun 28, 2016, at 7:09 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Martin (and others), > > Well, yes, one wouldn't want to leave out what these things accomplish, but > one might want to leave out the dualistic baggage that a reified notion of > intellect and cognition bring with them (and as Michael notes, one might > find this baggage not too burdensome to carry - or at least less burdensome > than the task of trying to come up with a new language for thinking > thought). > > So then the question with intellect and cognition, in short "thinking", is > really: how might we think thinking in ways that do not presuppose the > separation of thinking from living - as if thinking happens in some > otherworldly (rational?) realm apart from everyday life? > > How might we instead conceive of thinking as something that dwells within a > being? How might we return thinking to Being? And by doing so, take hold of > a notion of thinking-Being as something that can develop across time? > > To put the core question slight differently, we might ask: What is called > thinking? > > Here is one response (of which I'm sure you, Martin, are quite aware): > http://hermitmusic.tripod.com/heidegger_thinking.pdf > > -greg > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> I wasn?t *equating* individual psychological development with the >> development of intellect and cognition, but one sure wouldn?t want to leave >> those out, would one? That indeed would be a costly price to pay! (And >> there?s no evidence that LSV wanted to leave them out, is there?) >> >> Martin >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>> >>> Just a minute folks! >>> >>> Is everyone okay with the assumption that the >>> individual=intellect/cognition? >>> >>> If so, then asking if non-dualism can have a theory of individual >>> development is like asking if atheists pray to God. It's definitional. >>> >>> Seems like the question should be: can we imagine an individual without >>> intellect/cognition? >>> >>> Some of you will immediately say, "of course not, that's a dumb >> question." >>> >>> But some others out there have been trying a different answer to this >>> question. Paul Kockelman is one. Vincent Colapietro (whom Kockelman >> cites) >>> is another. Martin is another. And maybe Vygotsky too? >>> >>> Speaking of which, Martin, can you re-send that Vygotsky piece? I didn't >>> see it as an attachment. >>> >>> -greg ? >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Martin John Packer < >>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: >>> >>>> You?re saying there has to be a god?? >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Glassman, Michael >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that >>>> manipulates activity, remaining a constant as the circumstances of >> activity >>>> constantly change. Think Intelligent Design. I'm not saying >> development >>>> is parallel to intelligent design, simply that they are based on the >> same >>>> idea. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM >>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>> >>>>> your activity >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>> >>>>> On 29/06/2016 12:24 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>>>> Cognitive or intellectual development. Because it you are non-dualist >>>> pray tell, what is developing? >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >>>>>> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:04 AM >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>>> >>>>>> Why (on earth) would non-dualism prevent a theory of individual >>>> development, Michael? >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Glassman, Michael >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my view Pierce is not non-dualist because of his ideas on >> semiosis, >>>> which are extremely interesting. He is a non-dualist because he is a >>>> Pragmatist. That means their philosophy of human intelligence is based >> on >>>> doing not on thinking. Following James (or perhaps James followed him) >>>> Pierce did not make any assumptions that posited a human mind inside of >> the >>>> head. The fact that semiosis is non-dualist is I would say an >> outgrowth of >>>> this and not a cause. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I think Pragmatists understood is that you have to give up a >>>> great deal when you avoid dualism at all costs. I would suggest there >> is >>>> no theory of individual development in Pragmatism (although there is >>>> societal and community development). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Years ago I struggled with whether Vygotsky was willing to make the >>>> same type of sacrifice. He did have a theory of individual development, >>>> was is possible for him to be a non-dualist. Not that I want to have >> that >>>> argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MIchael >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 9:09 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly! which is what is so marvellously non-dualistic about Peirce! >>>> Semiosis is a natural process taking place in the objective world. It >> is an >>>> alternative, more general approach than the usual concept of causality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy >>>>>>> >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28/06/2016 5:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi James, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You write that "To my mind, Interpretant (Thirdness) is very >>>> important as it implies a mental concept - in Peirce's words, "sign in >> the >>>> mind"." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know Paul Kockelman's work (ref below)? Kockelman emphasizes >>>> that the interpretant is *not* necessary mental. For example, a plant >> can >>>> respond to sunlight as an Object by turning in its direction >>>> (Interpretant). It is hard to see how a 'mental concept' could be a sign >>>> for a subsequent step of semiosis, whereas a plant turning, or an >> umbrella >>>> opened, or . more obviously could be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This video is in Spanish, but otherwise pretty clear! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 2005(157), >>>> 233-304. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) >> < >>>> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like David's elaboration. Just to add a few comments to his and >>>> others' points: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For Peirce, any sign is a triad which constitutes three realms: >>>> Representamen, Object & Interpretant, corresponding to Firstness, >>>> Secondness & Thirdness as three aspects of the sign. Within the aspect >> of >>>> Secondness, there are three forms: Icon, Index & Symbol, relating to the >>>> three realms - hence, Icon (Firstness), Index (Secondness) & Symbol >>>> (Thirdness). Through the realm of Interpretant, each of the three forms >>>> contributes to an understanding of the sign (i.e. Object), although such >>>> understanding is insusceptible of final proof. To my mind, Interpretant >>>> (Thirdness) is very important as it implies a mental concept - in >> Peirce's >>>> words, "sign in the mind". What's more, Interpretant is in itself a new >>>> sign for the next triad (i.e. semiosis). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peirce's semiosis is an interplay of these three realms - it is >>>> concerned with sign action in terms of production and interpretation of >> a >>>> sign through the representamen-interpretant relation that leads to "a >>>> discovery of true meaning, the object" (see Mats Bergman's Peirce's >>>> Philosophy of Communication, 2009, p.114). My take on Peirce's semiosis >> is >>>> that any sign is an end in itself - here, "end" means "purpose" or >> "goal" >>>> (rather than "closure"). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The term "sign" was used loosely both Saussure and Peirce. For >>>> Saussure, sign means signifier, whereas for Peirce it means the form the >>>> sign takes. The "object" is normally hidden; it would have been >> otherwise >>>> pointless to make a sign if the object is already present. Object is >> absent >>>> in Saussure's dyad (which is self-contained: signifi?-signifiant, i.e. >>>> signified-signifier). Saussure's "signified" is not quite the same as >>>> Peirce's "interpretant". In the former, the system of signification >> which >>>> bridges the signified and the signifier is fixated, e.g. the sound MIAO >> as >>>> signifier resulting in a linguistic concept CAT as signified is >> determined >>>> by the system of signification, English language. If the system is >> French >>>> language, then the linguistic concept will be LE CHAT. More importantly, >>>> the idea behind Peirce's interpretant is "dialogical thought" which is >> also >>>> absent in Saussure's dyad. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding word-image relations, what's interesting is that both >>>> modes of meaning are slippery and elusive - which opens up a huge scope >> for >>>> semiotic thinking. The approach to written texts is in the form of >> linear >>>> itinerary, but the approach to visual images is in the form of >>>> circumnavigation, which spirals outwards from the centre to the >> periphery >>>> and at the same time inwards from the periphery to the centre. In terms >> of >>>> meaning potential, I don't think the centre necessarily implies a deep >>>> structure whereas the periphery a surface structure - both can be >> either, >>>> depending on the phenomenon and the person who finds himself in that >>>> phenomenon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent: 26 June 2016 22:19 >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, it's the icon that is "first" for Peirce, but it's >>>>>>>>> sometimes pretty hard to tell what "firstness" means, because it's >>>>>>>>> not really equivalent to mediacy, which is the way most Vygotskyans >>>>>>>>> are trained to think. Instead, Peirce uses a set of thought >>>>>>>>> experiments to distinguish what comes first: "An icon is a >>>>>>>>> represntamen whose representative quality is a firstness of it as a >>>>>>>>> first. That is a quality that it has qua thing renders it fit to be >>>>>>>>> a representament.". (Philosophical writings of Peirce, J. Buchler >>>> ed., New York: Dover, p. 104). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the passage of Peirce I find most useful: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "A sign is either an icon, an index or a symbol. An icon is a sign >>>>>>>>> that would possess the character which renders it significant even >>>>>>>>> though its object had no existence: such as a lead pencil streak >>>>>>>>> representing a geometrical line. An index is a sign which would,at >>>>>>>>> once,lose the character which makes it a sign if its object where >>>>>>>>> removed, but would not lose that character if there were no >>>>>>>>> interpretant. Such,for instance, is a piece of mould (i.e. particle >>>>>>>>> board--DK) with a bullet hole in it as a sign of a shot; for >>>>>>>>> without the shot there would have been no hole,but there is a hole >>>> there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. >>>>>>>>> A symbol is a sign which would lose the character which renders it >>>>>>>>> a sign if there were no interpretant. Such is any utterance of >>>>>>>>> speech which signifies what it does only by virtue of its being >>>>>>>>> understood to have that signification." (104). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So icons are "first" because they don't need an object to mean; >>>>>>>>> indexes are "second" because although they need an object, they >>>>>>>>> don't need an interpretant, and symbols are "third" because in >>>>>>>>> order to mean they need an object, and an interpretant. What is >>>>>>>>> confusing to people is that this doesn't create three distinct >>>>>>>>> categories: a symbol has to also be some kind of index and some >>>>>>>>> kind of icon, and an index has to be an icon. So a foot is a foot >>>>>>>>> and it doesn't need any aim or goal or object to mean a foot. In >>>>>>>>> the same way, a foot print is a footprint, but it it's not just a >>>>>>>>> footprint: it also means that there was a foot there at one >>>>>>>>> time,and that's what makes it an index as well as an icon. Finally, >>>>>>>>> the word "foot" or "pied" or "jiao" is a sound, but it's not just a >>>>>>>>> sound; it also means that there was a speaking mouth, tongue, vocal >>>>>>>>> cords, lungs and brain there at one time, and these are what makes >>>>>>>>> each spoken word an icon and an index as well as a symbol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> Macquarie University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Martin John Packer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Larry, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the >>>>>>>>>> Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I >>>>>>>>>> took this to be a reference to LSV's frequent mention of the >>>>>>>>>> infant's pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since >>>>>>>>>> the gesture is literally done with the index finger. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more >>>>>>>>>> complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And for what it's worth, I read Hegel (and many other >>>>>>>>>> phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in >>>>>>>>>> consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, >>>>>>>>>> the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere >>>>>>>>>> appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), >>>>>>>>>> this movement never ends. (Well, there's some debate over that >>>>>>>>>> claim, but let it stand for now!) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue. >>>>>>>>>>> Greg's question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* >>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon for >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce's triadic model >>>>>>>>>> where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon) is one element of semiosis. >>>>>>>>>>> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that may add to this >>>> topic: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a >>>>>>>>>>> cognition >>>>>>>>>> of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this >>>>>>>>>> cognition, to >>>>>>>>>> *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere >>>> happening." >>>>>>>>>>> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* >>>>>>>>>>> noumenal or >>>>>>>>>> phenomenal? >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Lplarry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> >> > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From ablunden@mira.net Wed Jun 29 01:24:08 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:24:08 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C9D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C9D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <8f9d37b4-114d-9f97-86e5-d82bb8dcf4e9@mira.net> As I understand it, the problem with the aspiration to non-dualism which Michael, as a Pragmatist, is challenging may be this: If you claim that an individual has a number of mental attributes which are "carried" from one context to another and go through a process of development, then this implies that the locus of these capacities is the person's body. If a person is replaced in some activity with another person, to carry on the same activity, then they take those attributes with them. The fact that this is not 100.0% true (a person may lose certain capacities when they change the context of their activity, and an activity will change when a new person enters it) does not alter the fact that the individual's body is the locus of their mind (cognitive activity, thinking, personal development, etc). So this appears to be a problem for those of us who are Activity Theorists, and see the mind (or mental processes) as phenomena abstracted from activity not as something distinct from or counterposed to activity. Activity is *not* a dualist concept, as Michael suggested earlier, when he asked: "How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity?" That is, Activity Theory does not see subjective mind "manipulating" objective behaviour. It is similar to the problem which Mike drew our attention to a few months ago of how he spent a car journey ruminating on a problem, and only acted on that when he arrived at his destination. Now, I do *not* believe that this conundrum forces us to adopt a dualism, and nor does a rejection of the problematic nature of the conundrum oblige us to abandon the idea of mental development (which presupposes a human body as the locus of mind). But I do think it is a reasonable problem to pose. Now I may have misunderstood you, Michael, but does my puzzle fairly present your issue? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 2:11 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Don't mind the piling on. Just making the point that perhaps non-dualism is an issue to be grappled with rather than adhered to. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Michael, > I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question. > > One more question: > Do we carry a constant something around with us? > And does that constant something not develop/change? > (if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence > perhaps?) > > And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here... > someone switch sides?). > > -greg > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this >> reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than >> the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling >> our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might >> want to call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not >> making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you >> know that. I am saying that our conception of development has >> similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there is >> a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity. >> One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is >> because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. >> If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. >> >> Michael >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the >> explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue >> of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order >> we see in the universe must have been designed, and design requires >> intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that >> argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. I, >> however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. >> >> In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over >> time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual >> psychological development must require something that remains >> "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, >> children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV >> *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? >> in human psychological >> development: he calls it personality. Not mind. >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Jun 29 01:40:17 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:40:17 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <8f9d37b4-114d-9f97-86e5-d82bb8dcf4e9@mira.net> References: <9515A6B7-228B-4C9A-85F4-885322DABF7B@uniandes.edu.co> <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C9D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <8f9d37b4-114d-9f97-86e5-d82bb8dcf4e9@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C1A0AC@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> This about sums up the Pragmatist position Andy - at least for me. I'm not sure I understand mind as abstracted from activity, or perhaps I am struggling with the notion of if you abstract mind from activity, where do you abstract it to? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:24 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal As I understand it, the problem with the aspiration to non-dualism which Michael, as a Pragmatist, is challenging may be this: If you claim that an individual has a number of mental attributes which are "carried" from one context to another and go through a process of development, then this implies that the locus of these capacities is the person's body. If a person is replaced in some activity with another person, to carry on the same activity, then they take those attributes with them. The fact that this is not 100.0% true (a person may lose certain capacities when they change the context of their activity, and an activity will change when a new person enters it) does not alter the fact that the individual's body is the locus of their mind (cognitive activity, thinking, personal development, etc). So this appears to be a problem for those of us who are Activity Theorists, and see the mind (or mental processes) as phenomena abstracted from activity not as something distinct from or counterposed to activity. Activity is *not* a dualist concept, as Michael suggested earlier, when he asked: "How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity?" That is, Activity Theory does not see subjective mind "manipulating" objective behaviour. It is similar to the problem which Mike drew our attention to a few months ago of how he spent a car journey ruminating on a problem, and only acted on that when he arrived at his destination. Now, I do *not* believe that this conundrum forces us to adopt a dualism, and nor does a rejection of the problematic nature of the conundrum oblige us to abandon the idea of mental development (which presupposes a human body as the locus of mind). But I do think it is a reasonable problem to pose. Now I may have misunderstood you, Michael, but does my puzzle fairly present your issue? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 2:11 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Don't mind the piling on. Just making the point that perhaps non-dualism is an issue to be grappled with rather than adhered to. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > Michael, > I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question. > > One more question: > Do we carry a constant something around with us? > And does that constant something not develop/change? > (if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence > perhaps?) > > And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here... > someone switch sides?). > > -greg > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael > > wrote: > >> Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this >> reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than >> the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling >> our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might >> want to call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not >> making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you >> know that. I am saying that our conception of development has >> similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there >> is a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity. >> One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is >> because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. >> If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. >> >> Michael >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the >> explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the >> issue of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the >> order we see in the universe must have been designed, and design >> requires intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you >> find that argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. >> I, however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. >> >> In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over >> time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual >> psychological development must require something that remains >> "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, >> children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV >> *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? >> in human psychological >> development: he calls it personality. Not mind. >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > From ablunden@mira.net Wed Jun 29 01:52:57 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:52:57 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C1A0AC@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <4d6b120c-b227-85df-eb48-af01fd09c2e5@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C13913@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <6FA1A3A5-27EF-4EB1-858F-3D41E9BE3E50@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B69@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <06790036-1d7f-cc5e-c7e8-3bf683e4e72f@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15B9C@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <69D38744-6C93-47E0-9096-1D86E452712C@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15BDC@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <1221AC84-3798-4690-938A-25DE914888E2@uniandes.edu.co> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C45@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C15C9D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <8f9d37b4-114d-9f97-86e5-d82bb8dcf4e9@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F903C1A0AC@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: The "primary" concept is activity, units of which are operations, actions and activities. There a lot of other concepts you can use to explain and describe activity, such as duration or breadth of participation or intensity of emotion, coherence, predicatability, or whatever. These are secondary concepts. "Consciousness" is one such secondary concept. You can only say anything about someone's consciousness (your own is a different matter altogether) by studying the activity they are participants in and making some hypotheses about its structure. You can describe behaviour(another abstraction) without such hypotheses, but you cannot *explain* it without making hypotheses which call upon other aspects of activity. Activity on the other hand can be explained from itself. This business of being a concept *abstracted* from activity ,and to do with describing and explaining it, does not rule out the validity of these abstracted aspects being *really abstracted*. Abstraction may be a real, material process, as well as an aspect of scientific analysis. Make sense, Michael? It's about Activity being what Dewey called a "double-barrelled concept." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 29/06/2016 6:40 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > This about sums up the Pragmatist position Andy - at least for me. I'm not sure I understand mind as abstracted from activity, or perhaps I am struggling with the notion of if you abstract mind from activity, where do you abstract it to? > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:24 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal > > As I understand it, the problem with the aspiration to non-dualism which Michael, as a Pragmatist, is challenging may be this: If you claim that an individual has a number of mental attributes which are "carried" from one context to another and go through a process of development, then this implies that the locus of these capacities is the person's body. If a person is replaced in some activity with another person, to carry on the same activity, then they take those attributes with them. The fact that this is not 100.0% true (a person may lose certain capacities when they change the context of their activity, and an activity will change when a new person enters it) does not alter the fact that the individual's body is the locus of their mind (cognitive activity, thinking, personal development, etc). > > So this appears to be a problem for those of us who are Activity Theorists, and see the mind (or mental processes) as phenomena abstracted from activity not as something distinct from or counterposed to activity. Activity is *not* a dualist concept, as Michael suggested earlier, when he > asked: "How do you posit activity as developing without a human mind that manipulates activity?" That is, Activity Theory does not see subjective mind "manipulating" objective behaviour. > > It is similar to the problem which Mike drew our attention to a few months ago of how he spent a car journey ruminating on a problem, and only acted on that when he arrived at his destination. > > Now, I do *not* believe that this conundrum forces us to adopt a dualism, and nor does a rejection of the problematic nature of the conundrum oblige us to abandon the idea of mental development (which presupposes a human body as the locus of mind). But I do think it is a reasonable problem to pose. > > Now I may have misunderstood you, Michael, but does my puzzle fairly present your issue? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 29/06/2016 2:11 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Don't mind the piling on. Just making the point that perhaps non-dualism is an issue to be grappled with rather than adhered to. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson >> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >> >> Michael, >> I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question. >> >> One more question: >> Do we carry a constant something around with us? >> And does that constant something not develop/change? >> (if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence >> perhaps?) >> >> And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here... >> someone switch sides?). >> >> -greg >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this >>> reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than >>> the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling >>> our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might >>> want to call this constant that we carry around with us. I'm not >>> making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you >>> know that. I am saying that our conception of development has >>> similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there >>> is a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity. >>> One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is >>> because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan. >>> If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction. >>> >>> Michael >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer >>> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co] >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal >>> >>> I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the >>> explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the >>> issue of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the >>> order we see in the universe must have been designed, and design >>> requires intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you >>> find that argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. >>> I, however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time. >>> >>> In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over >>> time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual >>> psychological development must require something that remains >>> "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.? Well, >>> children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV >>> *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively ?constant? >>> in human psychological >>> development: he calls it personality. Not mind. >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> >> From patrick.jaki@gmail.com Thu Jun 30 02:37:33 2016 From: patrick.jaki@gmail.com (Patrick Jaki) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:37:33 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died In-Reply-To: References: <0AA287FE-C1F5-4ECE-B048-742A63C4E3D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: 100 years are very good innings, notwithstanding the valuable contributions he made to the advancement of knowledge. I never met Jerome Bruner. I had hoped to do so at the Sevilla, ISCAR Conference of 2005. He will be missed. Jaki On 9 June 2016 at 05:27, Kindred, Jessica Dr. wrote: > Robert, I have read this email exchange that you had with "jb" over and > over and find myself so moved by the idea of scaffolding as "just one of > those 'labeling intuitions' that came out of the blue". This very phrasing > and sense of how ideas emerge is so important as we think about thinking > and culture and how they influence each other in such profound and > spiralling ways. I love this and I thank you for sharing it. What a > wonderful contribution to the biography of an idea that has so influenced > us all. I recently read a 1981 paper that Bruner wrote about education in > which he used the word mindfulness in such an in-passing way that I almost > wonder naively if his use of it as a labelling intuition then might help to > account for its huge status in the cultural landscape of education now... > in any case, great thanks for sharing. > > And yes, Leif, it is wonderful to remember his keynote at Iscrat 98 in > Arhus! > > Thanks to him and to all of you for sharing your actual minds toward > possible worlds. > > Jessie Kindred > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Helena Worthen [helenaworthen@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 6:23 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > > Nice, Robert!!! > > Helena > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Robert Lake > wrote: > > > > *Hi Everyone,**Below is a record of my email correspondence** wi**th > Jerome > > Bruner w* > > *hile I **was writing **an introductory book for educators about > Vygot**sky > > and a second email about the coining of the phrase "scaffolding" * *It* > > * starts from the bottom up.* > > *Robert Lake* > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jerome S Bruner > > Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > To: Robert Lake > > > > > > Just one of those "labelling inuitions" that came out of the blue! jb > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Lake > > Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:17 pm > > Subject: Re: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > > To: jsb3@nyu.edu > > > > > >> Thank-you Dr. Bruner. > >> It really does help. > >> > >> > >> When did you first come up with the notion of scaffolding? Was it > >> connected to an observation out of your own experience in research or > >> a personal experience? > >> > >> > >> Thanks again for responding. You made my day. > >> > >> > >> Robert Lake > >> > >> > > Jerome S Bruner 10/02/10 4:04 PM >>> > >> As I recall, my introduction to Vygotsky came when Eugenia Hanfmann > >> was working on a translation of what was to be Vygotsky's first book > >> in English, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE, published in 1962 by MIT Press. > >> You'll recall that I wrote an Introduction to that book. I had > >> earlier become acquainted with Vygotsky's work through Alexander > >> Romanovich Luria who was the Professor of Psychology at Moscow with > >> whom I visited in Moscow on several occasions. He was a great admirer > >> of Vygotsky and his work and felt strongly that my own work on > >> perception and cognition generally were very much in the Vygotskian > >> mode. For my part, I felt in those days that Vygotsky was an > >> important corrective to the Piagetian culturally-blind approach to > >> child development. I think that it was that aspect of my own work > >> that led to my being asked to write an introduction to the Vygotsky > >> volume. > >> > >> Does that help? > >> > >> All best wishes. > >> > >> Jerome Bruner > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Robert Lake > >> Date: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:40 pm > >> Subject: Sketch about how you were introduced to Vygotsky > >> To: jerome.bruner@nyu.edu > >> Cc: carol.feldman@nyu.edu > >> > >> > >>> Dear Dr. Bruner, > >>> I am now beginning chapter one of a primer on Vygotsky and > >>> education. Actually I already signed a book contract. One of the > >> areas > >>> I am covering is a brief introduction to some of LSV's academic > >>> "family". I have sources for M. Cole, S. Scribner, A. Kozulin, L. > >>> Holtzman, J.Wersch, E. Kravtsova, Y. Engstrom ,D.Robbins and L. > >> Moll, > >>> but I am not able to find anything in the way of historical > >>> biography about your connection to his work. Is there anything > >>> written anywhere about how you were introduced to your Vygotsky? > >>> If not, may I call you and ask a few questions? > >>> > >>> Thank-you for all you have imparted to our generation. > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Helena Worthen > > > wrote: > > > >> Andy, thank you for finding this!!! > >> > >> Helena > >> > >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> > >>> https://vimeo.com/groups/chat/videos/56737069 > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >>> On 6/06/2016 10:38 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > >>>> My condolences, Mike. > >>>> A huge loss to all of us. > >>>> Perhaps sometime you can share with us some of your personal > >> experiences with him. > >>>> David > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 6:37 PM > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Sad news-- Jerry Bruner has died > >>>> > >>>> ?At the age of 100 it cannot be unexpected, but I have just heard > from > >> a colleague that Jerry Bruner? has died. > >>>> Its difficult to lose a colleague and friend who had a fundamental > >> influence on my own life trajectory. > >>>> mike > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Robert Lake Ed.D. > > Associate Professor > > Social Foundations of Education > > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > > Georgia Southern University > > P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 > > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > > Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must > be > > born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John > > Dewey-*Democracy > > and Education*,1916, p. 139 > > > > -- *Patrick Jaki* *P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa* From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Jun 30 08:46:38 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:46:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic stance. The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation. When discussing Peirce?s thirds as 3 components that are a single phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce?s further discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism. Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier (representamen) and the signified (object) Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier and signified. With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost absent. In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. The via media way. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Thu Jun 30 10:17:22 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:17:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> , <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Larry, yes, I think it's a fascinating piece too (I first came across his work 11 years ago while doing a postdoc and later on quoted "the semiotic stance" in my article for MCA in 2014). What's more fascinating - I've just found that there's a whole list of his publications downloadable via http://www.envorganism.org/Essays.html I've got a question for Martin - when speaking about Kockelman's idea of the interpretant being "not" necessary mental, you gave an example of a plant react ingto sunlight by turning its direction - which you considered to be an interpretant. However, to me, this is a plant's natural response to the stimulus produced by the sun - it is similar to what Jung called IRM (instinctual releasing mechanism) as a result of human organisms' (as well as non-human organisms') behavioural adaptation to the environment through evolution. I'm still wondering why you think this is an interpretant. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Lplarry Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46 To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic stance. The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation. When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism. Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier (representamen) and the signified (object) Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier and signified. With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost absent. In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. The via media way. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Thu Jun 30 10:37:20 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:37:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> , <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Following Larry's last point "The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE", what about metonym icons - are they also INTERSUBJECTIVE? For example, No.10 Downing Street is a metonym for the British government. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Lplarry Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46 To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic stance. The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation. When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism. Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier (representamen) and the signified (object) Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier and signified. With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost absent. In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. The via media way. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer From dkirsh@lsu.edu Thu Jun 30 11:07:35 2016 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:07:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> , <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: James, Tony Whitson gives a wonderful exposition of semiotic theory--supported by accessible examples and neat graphics--in this chapter. Some of those examples address your questions about the interpretant. Tony's chapter begins on page 97. David https://books.google.com/books?id=w3yRORQocjwC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=whitson+%22cognition+as+a+semiosic+process%22&source=bl&ots=a5Eej451uH&sig=7I1LbYsnZGkxTbyaOX5n30WKpr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-c_JptDNAhXky4MKHaN-At8Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=whitson%20%22cognition%20as%20a%20semiosic%20process%22&f=false -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:17 PM To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf Hi Larry, yes, I think it's a fascinating piece too (I first came across his work 11 years ago while doing a postdoc and later on quoted "the semiotic stance" in my article for MCA in 2014). What's more fascinating - I've just found that there's a whole list of his publications downloadable via http://www.envorganism.org/Essays.html I've got a question for Martin - when speaking about Kockelman's idea of the interpretant being "not" necessary mental, you gave an example of a plant react ingto sunlight by turning its direction - which you considered to be an interpretant. However, to me, this is a plant's natural response to the stimulus produced by the sun - it is similar to what Jung called IRM (instinctual releasing mechanism) as a result of human organisms' (as well as non-human organisms') behavioural adaptation to the environment through evolution. I'm still wondering why you think this is an interpretant. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Lplarry Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46 To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic stance. The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation. When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism. Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier (representamen) and the signified (object) Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier and signified. With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost absent. In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. The via media way. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer From james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Thu Jun 30 11:24:25 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:24:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> , <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: Many thanks David James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner Sent: 30 June 2016 19:07:35 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf James, Tony Whitson gives a wonderful exposition of semiotic theory--supported by accessible examples and neat graphics--in this chapter. Some of those examples address your questions about the interpretant. Tony's chapter begins on page 97. David https://books.google.com/books?id=w3yRORQocjwC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=whitson+%22cognition+as+a+semiosic+process%22&source=bl&ots=a5Eej451uH&sig=7I1LbYsnZGkxTbyaOX5n30WKpr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-c_JptDNAhXky4MKHaN-At8Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=whitson%20%22cognition%20as%20a%20semiosic%20process%22&f=false -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:17 PM To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf Hi Larry, yes, I think it's a fascinating piece too (I first came across his work 11 years ago while doing a postdoc and later on quoted "the semiotic stance" in my article for MCA in 2014). What's more fascinating - I've just found that there's a whole list of his publications downloadable via http://www.envorganism.org/Essays.html I've got a question for Martin - when speaking about Kockelman's idea of the interpretant being "not" necessary mental, you gave an example of a plant react ingto sunlight by turning its direction - which you considered to be an interpretant. However, to me, this is a plant's natural response to the stimulus produced by the sun - it is similar to what Jung called IRM (instinctual releasing mechanism) as a result of human organisms' (as well as non-human organisms') behavioural adaptation to the environment through evolution. I'm still wondering why you think this is an interpretant. James ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Lplarry Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46 To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic stance. The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation. When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism. Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier (representamen) and the signified (object) Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier and signified. With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost absent. In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. The via media way. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Martin John Packer From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jun 30 17:42:55 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:42:55 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: ?Thanks David. Tony Whitson captures the trouble with Peirce's terms (esp. "mind") in the following: "Finally, Peirce's use of the term mind in the previous quotation demands some comment. Peirce sometimes spoke of the interpretant as being produced by a mind or by a person who is interpreting the representamen; but he himself referred to this usage as a compromise he made in "despair of making my own broader conception understood" (Letter to Lady Welby, December 14, 1908, in Kardwick, 1977, pp. 80-81). A more adequate expression of Peirce's broader conception can be seen in his references to signs as being used not only consciously by human persons, but used as well by any kind of 'scientific' intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience' (2.227 [c. 1987])" (Whitson, p. 103). I think this speaks to the sense in which a sunflower can be an interpretant for Peirce. But in reading his chapter, I am unclear why there is a need to turn back to Saussure? The essay says that it is a "complement" but is it a necessary complement? What is lost if we don't add Saussure? (my fear is that Saussure necessarily turns back the gains that Peirce's triadic view of the sign has to offer and returns us to the dualism that Tony was trying to get away from. Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the representamen exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a dualism as part of an account whose goal is non-dualism). -greg ? On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > Many thanks David > James > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David H Kirshner > Sent: 30 June 2016 19:07:35 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > James, > Tony Whitson gives a wonderful exposition of semiotic theory--supported by > accessible examples and neat graphics--in this chapter. Some of those > examples address your questions about the interpretant. Tony's chapter > begins on page 97. > David > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=w3yRORQocjwC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=whitson+%22cognition+as+a+semiosic+process%22&source=bl&ots=a5Eej451uH&sig=7I1LbYsnZGkxTbyaOX5n30WKpr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-c_JptDNAhXky4MKHaN-At8Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=whitson%20%22cognition%20as%20a%20semiosic%20process%22&f=false > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ma, James ( > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:17 PM > To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > Hi Larry, yes, I think it's a fascinating piece too (I first came across > his work 11 years ago while doing a postdoc and later on quoted "the > semiotic stance" in my article for MCA in 2014). What's more fascinating - > I've just found that there's a whole list of his publications downloadable > via http://www.envorganism.org/Essays.html > > > I've got a question for Martin - when speaking about Kockelman's idea of > the interpretant being "not" necessary mental, you gave an example of a > plant react ingto sunlight by turning its direction - which you considered > to be an interpretant. However, to me, this is a plant's natural response > to the stimulus produced by the sun - it is similar to what Jung called IRM > (instinctual releasing mechanism) as a result of human organisms' (as well > as non-human organisms') behavioural adaptation to the environment through > evolution. I'm still wondering why you think this is an interpretant. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46 > To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the semiotic > stance. > The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that illuminate > the complexity of this notion for interpretation. > When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single > phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further > discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) > (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are qualitative > imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy Metaphoric icons > refer to parallelism. > > Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier > (representamen) and the signified (object) > > Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with signifier > and signified. > > With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or > (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. > > Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum > starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence between > the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the signifier/representamen > as in the case of the image-icon, and moving by degrees to the *arbitrary* > or (law-like) symbol, where such an objective correspondence is almost > absent. > In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the nature > of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). > > The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. > The via media way. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Martin John Packer > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From dkirsh@lsu.edu Thu Jun 30 18:07:16 2016 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 01:07:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Greg, My impression is that Tony included Saussure to demonstrate that with appropriate interpretation the two systems could be seen as mutually relevant to one another, not because Peirce's triadic sign is dependent on Saussure's dyadic approach. In fact, in a subsequent publication, he makes it clear that Saussure's dyadic sign is inherently flawed in ways that Peirce corrects: "Lacan's model of a 'free play of signifiers' would also allow a wide variety of elements to participate together within the free 'chaining' of dyadic signifier-signifieds. By contrast with the Peircean account of semiosis, we can now see how the indeterminacy, or 'freedom,' in Lacan's approach betrays a basic flaw inherent in the two-term model of the sign, which he adopted from de Saussure" (Kirshner & Whitson, 1998, p. 26--note, Tony wrote this section). I've attached the article so you can get the full story. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 7:43 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf ?Thanks David. Tony Whitson captures the trouble with Peirce's terms (esp. "mind") in the following: "Finally, Peirce's use of the term mind in the previous quotation demands some comment. Peirce sometimes spoke of the interpretant as being produced by a mind or by a person who is interpreting the representamen; but he himself referred to this usage as a compromise he made in "despair of making my own broader conception understood" (Letter to Lady Welby, December 14, 1908, in Kardwick, 1977, pp. 80-81). A more adequate expression of Peirce's broader conception can be seen in his references to signs as being used not only consciously by human persons, but used as well by any kind of 'scientific' intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience' (2.227 [c. 1987])" (Whitson, p. 103). I think this speaks to the sense in which a sunflower can be an interpretant for Peirce. But in reading his chapter, I am unclear why there is a need to turn back to Saussure? The essay says that it is a "complement" but is it a necessary complement? What is lost if we don't add Saussure? (my fear is that Saussure necessarily turns back the gains that Peirce's triadic view of the sign has to offer and returns us to the dualism that Tony was trying to get away from. Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the representamen exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a dualism as part of an account whose goal is non-dualism). -greg ? On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) < james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote: > Many thanks David > James > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David H Kirshner > > Sent: 30 June 2016 19:07:35 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > James, > Tony Whitson gives a wonderful exposition of semiotic > theory--supported by accessible examples and neat graphics--in this > chapter. Some of those examples address your questions about the > interpretant. Tony's chapter begins on page 97. > David > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=w3yRORQocjwC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=whi > tson+%22cognition+as+a+semiosic+process%22&source=bl&ots=a5Eej451uH&si > g=7I1LbYsnZGkxTbyaOX5n30WKpr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-c_JptDNAhXky4MK > HaN-At8Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=whitson%20%22cognition%20as%20a%20semiosi > c%20process%22&f=false > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ma, James ( > james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:17 PM > To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > Hi Larry, yes, I think it's a fascinating piece too (I first came > across his work 11 years ago while doing a postdoc and later on > quoted "the semiotic stance" in my article for MCA in 2014). What's > more fascinating - I've just found that there's a whole list of his > publications downloadable via http://www.envorganism.org/Essays.html > > > I've got a question for Martin - when speaking about Kockelman's idea > of the interpretant being "not" necessary mental, you gave an example > of a plant react ingto sunlight by turning its direction - which you > considered to be an interpretant. However, to me, this is a plant's > natural response to the stimulus produced by the sun - it is similar > to what Jung called IRM (instinctual releasing mechanism) as a result > of human organisms' (as well as non-human organisms') behavioural > adaptation to the environment through evolution. I'm still wondering why you think this is an interpretant. > > > James > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Lplarry > > Sent: 30 June 2016 16:46 > To: Martin John Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf > > Not sure if others are reading this fascinating article on the > semiotic stance. > The first few pages offer multiple examples of *thirds* that > illuminate the complexity of this notion for interpretation. > When discussing Peirce's thirds as 3 components that are a single > phenomenal unit, it is equally important to focus on Peirce's further > discussions of the iconic component as dividing into (image-icons) > (diagrammatic-icons) and (metaphoric-icons) Image icons are > qualitative imitation Diagrammatical icons are structural analogy > Metaphoric icons refer to parallelism. > > Icon images will have some objective correspondence with the signifier > (representamen) and the signified (object) > > Diagram icons will also have some objective correspondence with > signifier and signified. > > With Metapor icons the correspondence may be (perceptually) or > (experientially) constituted on the basis of a parallelism. > > Franson Manjali indicates Percean *units* as *thirds* form a continuum > starting from those having a maximum of objective correspondence > between the object and the (spatial/temporal) form of the > signifier/representamen as in the case of the image-icon, and moving > by degrees to the *arbitrary* or (law-like) symbol, where such an > objective correspondence is almost absent. > In this continuum the metaphor-icon occupies a middle position, the > nature of the correspondence being a parallelism that is subjectively (felt). > > The iconicity of the metaphor is thus part OBJECTIVE and part SUBJECTIVE. > The via media way. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Martin John Packer > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: KirshnerWhitsonER.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 657775 bytes Desc: KirshnerWhitsonER.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160701/700aa585/attachment.pdf From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Thu Jun 30 18:14:00 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 01:14:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <37725E0B-1601-4FAA-AC72-9155CD5C7770@uniandes.edu.co> My take on this diagram, Greg, is that Tony wants to illustrate how in Peirce?s scheme the object is, so to speak, always 'over the horizon.? I think we?re back here to appearance/reality: the sign is what appears, but it is taken as an appearance of an object that is not given directly. Martin > On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious > about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the representamen > exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a > dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a dualism as > part of an account whose goal is non-dualism). From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jun 30 18:52:05 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 11:52:05 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf In-Reply-To: <37725E0B-1601-4FAA-AC72-9155CD5C7770@uniandes.edu.co> References: <5771b843.a5dc420a.c456e.7e41@mx.google.com> <57753f0b.a1a0420a.662d4.0e8f@mx.google.com> <37725E0B-1601-4FAA-AC72-9155CD5C7770@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <5f15bee9-53c0-d20a-60df-71fa94e6f0d1@mira.net> :) It is impossible to argue with what you say, Martin, without using the word (i.e. sign) "object" in the belioef that the reader will understand what is being referenced! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 1/07/2016 11:14 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > My take on this diagram, Greg, is that Tony wants to illustrate how in Peirce?s scheme the object is, so to speak, always 'over the horizon.? I think we?re back here to appearance/reality: the sign is what appears, but it is taken as an appearance of an object that is not given directly. > > Martin > > > >> On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Tony's figure 7.3 makes me doubly anxious >> about this since it seems to suggest that the object and the representamen >> exist in different realms. I'm fine with that kind of dualism in a >> dualistic account, but it seems not quite right to have such a dualism as >> part of an account whose goal is non-dualism). > > >