[Xmca-l] Re: Continue with Hegle, and the Social through Greg

[James Ma]

Larry, for me, semiosis as a sign action has two distinct genetic roots:
the a-priori root (in a sense that sign action exists before and
independent of an organism's experience); the a-posteriori root (in a sense
that sign action is associated with or influence by an organism's prior
experience). The former is exemplified in the organism's intrinsic
behaviour due to instinctual impulses or IRM (instinctual releasing
mechanism, as triggered by the environment) - this may account for whales'
singing. The latter appears to be in a social context, bearing out an organism
acting upon prior knowledge and experience (whether consciously or
unconsciously, voluntarily or involuntarily) - this may explain whales'
social gathering.

Re retrospectivism, all knowledge and understanding involves retrospection
or recollection, whether deliberately or in an intuitive manner. However,
such retrospection or recollection is not simply based on prior experience
but also affected by present situation and experience.

I think semiogenesis is relevant to, and takes place in, all four domains
of human development (phylogenesis, ontogenesis, sociogenesis and
microgenesis) and the interaction of these domains.
James

*_____________________________________*

*James Ma*  *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
<https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>*



On 2 July 2017 at 21:09, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> James,
> Could you elaborate further  this distinction of  semiosis having two
> roots whereas sociality looks in one direction.
> Also your focus on the priority of the ethical realm as what motivates may
> come into play.
>
> On this topic, , Sociality is considered On page 8 & 9 of the introduction
> i just attached within the theme of sociality and retrospectivism.
> The comment :
> ‘ Only as manifested or expressed can one (even the subject herself)
> retrospectively determine what must have been intended. And of course it
> seems a bit paradoxical to claim that we can only know what we intended to
> do AFTER we have actually acted.  But there is little doubt that Hegel
> holds something like such a position.’
>
> So, David K mentioned (if i understood David)  two possible genetic roots
> (one root more playful while the other root  is more serious).
> Images of whales organizing dinner time and whales singing playfully are
> staying in my (mind’s) eye.
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: James Ma
> Sent: July 2, 2017 12:36 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Continue with Hegle, and the Social through Greg
>
> For me, semiosis has both an a-priori and an a-posteriori root, whereas
> sociality has an a-posteriori root only.
>
> James
>
> *_____________________________________*
>
> *James Ma*  *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>*
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2017 at 03:04, <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Lovely quote from Hasan. She really nailed it.
> > But I'm still unclear how your whale example makes the case that semiosis
> > and sociality have different genetic roots. Perhaps you could explain a
> bit
> > more for a dull skull like me?
> > Greg
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Jul 1, 2017, at 6:13 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Larry:
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I sometimes lose the practical thread in my own predilection
> > for
> > > decorating. I was trying to make the case that semiosis and sociality
> > have
> > > different genetic roots. This is really just a way of saying that
> speech
> > > and (practical) thinking have different genetic roots.
> > >
> > > So in Antarctica, whales socialize for a definite purpose, and that
> > purpose
> > > determines the size of the social group (around twelve whales). But
> when
> > > they migrate past our shores, they are very far from that purpose. They
> > are
> > > not feeding, they are not mating, but they are communicating: this is
> > where
> > > we find "songs" as distinct from echo-locating clicks. It is also where
> > we
> > > find dyads and triads--apparently for engaging in dialogues and
> > trialogues.
> > > This is not simply sociality for the sake of reproducing the material
> > > conditions of life; it is an exuberant semiosis for the sheer hell of
> it.
> > > Admittedly, ALL sociality and ALL semiosis among humans is a mixture of
> > the
> > > transactional and the expressive, but the arc of most conversation, if
> > not
> > > of history itself, seems to bend inevitably from the former to the
> > latter.
> > >
> > > Heidegger's idea that there is an "ur-Life" which has to assent to
> every
> > > instant of living seems to me precisely ass-backwards (as Vygotsky
> likes
> > to
> > > say). It is like the ridiculous notion that in order to create language
> > > people called a kind of global congress in which the precise terms of
> the
> > > language contract were hammered out, without, of course, using any
> > language
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > Take (please!) the various accounts that we humans create of the end of
> > the
> > > world by flooding. They go all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh,
> > where
> > > the gods basically turned the taps on mankind because they were making
> > too
> > > much noise down there. Then, in Revelation, there is more emphasis on
> sea
> > > monsters; by the time we get to the Middle Ages, the world is going to
> > end
> > > in water-born plagues. But it's only since 1945 that there has been an
> > > emphasis on volitional apocalypse--that is, the flooding of the earth
> by
> > > humans themselves (Kevin Costner and "Waterworld" and its various
> > > derivatives).
> > >
> > > It's possible, I suppose, to see this as a Hegelian philosophy of
> > history.
> > > You know, man unconscious of his ability to end the world as we know
> it,
> > > first ascribing it to arbitrary whims of the gods, then to nature, then
> > to
> > > human diseases and sin and only in our own time a "true concept" of
> > global
> > > warming. But it is also possible to see the development of concept as
> the
> > > outcome of human practices such as flood-based agriculture, living in
> > > proximity to Nile crocodiles, the medieval scourges of the black death,
> > and
> > > the premeditated design and thoughtless use of nuclear weapons in World
> > War
> > > II. The latter possibility has the advantage of including more tangible
> > > data if not always ocular proof.
> > >
> > > Ruqaiya Hasan says:
> > >
> > > "Design is not an expression of field alone (that is, it is not simply
> an
> > > expression of "what is going on"--DK). It is associated with the social
> > > process as a whole *i.e. as a contextual configuration of the values
> > > pertaining to field, tenor ("who is taking part"--DK) and mode ("how is
> > > language brought in?"--DK) and is independent of any one individual's
> > > desires, intentions, and/or decisions, having been negotiated between
> at
> > > least two interactants. These designs have come about because through
> the
> > > long history of the communal living of life, in every culture there
> have
> > > evolved recognizable ways of being, doing and saying that are
> communally
> > > deemed relevant to those occasions where social subjects have co-acted.
> > The
> > > design of a social practice is nothing other than a near ritualization
> of
> > > ways of doing something with others by using such semiotic systems as
> are
> > > at the community's disposal: the more culturally significant a social
> > > process, the more ritualized it gets. It is in this sense that specific
> > > social processes have become the raison d'etre of specific designs."
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Macquarie University
> > >
> > > "The Great Globe and All Who It Inherit:
> > > Narrative and Dialogue in Story-telling with
> > > Vygotsky, Halliday, and Shakespeare"
> > >
> > > Free Chapters Downloadable at:
> > >
> > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2096-the-great-
> > globe-and-all-who-it-inherit.pdf
> > >
> > > Recent Article: Thinking of feeling: Hasan, Vygotsky, and Some
> > Ruminations
> > > on the Development of Narrative in Korean Children
> > >
> > > Free E-print Downloadable at:
> > >
> > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/8Vaq4HpJMi55DzsAyFCf/full
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> David opened with exploration of whales and how they learn to
> > co-ordinate
> > >> their movements in order to herd schools of fish into a shape that
> > assists
> > >> setting the "table" before feasting..  David mentioned in passing that
> > >> whales must *learn* to create this shared small group working in
> > 'concert"
> > >> and added that this learning takes 27 years to develop.
> > >> I will not add to this line of inquiry [whales and semiosis]  but I
> hope
> > >> what I add will at some point return to [semiosis and whales] and this
> > >> theme will be revived, after my multiple detours.
> > >>
> > >> My particular swerve follows  through Greg Thompson and his posting
> the
> > >> Notre Dame Philosophical Review [NDPR} book review of the  edited book
> > Andy
> > >> is reading.. [and this 2nd text  includes a 1983 essay by Charles
> > Taylor on
> > >> the basic premise of Hegel's Philosophy].
> > >>
> > >> So my comments will be focused upon this Notre Dame text written in
> the
> > >> format of a book review that explores  two intersecting TEXTS written
> 27
> > >> years between their writings]
> > >>
> > >> [Taylor wrote the 1983 essay & also was the editor of the 1st text]  &
> > >> [the 2nd text is the  2010 edited text which republishes Taylor's 1983
> > text
> > >> as the introductory essay.
> > >>
> > >> Now to focus attention specifically on the NDPR  book review and what
> > this
> > >> 3rd text is contributing to the 1st and 2nd text. My comments are now
> > >> echoing the "insights" of the book review by highlighting what caught
> my
> > >> attention.  I will list some *insights* in point form. [note the
> symbol
> > *
> > >> can be read AS -insight- or -point of view -]
> > >>
> > >> * For Taylor - Hegel's concept of action is approached  through a
> > >> particular and specific  hermeneutical lens [or lenses] and Taylor is
> > >> producing or projecting a particular [paradigm or model] through which
> > to
> > >> *read* Hegel's Theory of Action. Taylor writes that through this
> > >> hermeneutical lens that it becomes possible to *open up* Hegel's
> SYSTEM
> > of
> > >> philosophy. In particular Hegel's "architecture" and Hegel's concepts
> > can
> > >> be *revealed* within Taylor's hermeneutical movements. This specific
> > >> movement/orientation/approach can be considered a [discipline] in its
> > own
> > >> right through textual analysis.
> > >>
> > >> *The "basic" or "grounding" aspect of Hegel's [system] is *logic*.
> The
> > >> logic articulates [as text] the patterns showing up in the other
> > >> philosophical "sciences":
> > >> 1) philosophy of Nature 2) Philosophy of Religion. Essays in the 1983
> > text
> > >> also covered 3) theory of Poltical Action and 4) Theory of Ethical
> Life.
> > >> This "insight" [point of view] outlines the 1983 texts's "intent" [its
> > >> materiality and its "spirit/meaning"
> > >>
> > >> * the 2nd text [2010 text] is both narrower in scope and wider in
> scope.
> > >> The 2010 text is narrower in the sense that this text focuses on
> Hegel's
> > >> "Philosophy of Right" and the intended "[revealing / unearthing /
> > >> extracting"] Hegel's insights on:  - freedom, agency, imputability,
> and
> > >> responsibility - This intent of the text is outlined in 8 essays. In
> > this
> > >> narrowed scope there is NO essays on Hegel's "Logic*  / the basic
> > grounding
> > >> text  from Taylor's hermeneutical approach &  movement] .What else is
> > >> "excluded" [concealed] is the text exploring the Philosophy of
> Religion
> > and
> > >> meta-physical themes. In the 2010 narrowed scope the focus of
> attention
> > >> remains reading texts on *action* WITHIN the broad WORLD / framework
> of
> > a
> > >> particular discipline - Anthroplogy -
> > >> AS a discipline. Notice that this narrowing focus is now concentrating
> > in
> > >> 2010 on one particular [disciplinary practice] and is "bounded" by
> this
> > >> limitation in 2010.
> > >> What is still included within this narrowed disciplinary focus is
> > ABSTRACT
> > >> explorations of: - right, morality, ethical life in groups,-  read
> > WITHIN
> > >> this disciplinary WORLD /framework.
> > >> Notice this narrowed focus is occurring within textual materiality &
> > >> spirituality narrowed to a specific discipline.
> > >>
> > >> * At the same time as this narrowing in the sense above , this  2010
> 2nd
> > >> text has a "wider" focus" than Taylor's 1983 intention.
> > >> The 2010 edited book of "essays" is Promoting or Projecting a focus
> *on*
> > >> disciplinary anthropological action exploration  WITHIN  discourse /
> > >> communication  [discourse as face to face dialogue & discourse as
> > textual
> > >> readings]  This 2010 edited text is encouraging both aspects of
> > discourse
> > >> [disciplinary face to face dialogicality] &  [reading textual
> "workings"
> > >> within the anthropological  disciplinary focus].
> > >> The particular aspect of anthropology is the sub-discipline of
> > [Philosophy
> > >> of Action].
> > >>
> > >> * So to weave together the above insights from the NDPR "text" :
> > >> The 1st volume supports Taylor's hermeneutical claim that for Hegel
> the
> > >> "qualitative" theory of action is BOTH 'basic" and "pervasive" and
> that
> > the
> > >> basic disciplinary focus is "LOGIC" o f Hegel's "SYSTEM" as a
> particular
> > >> and specific "discipline". This basic discipline then articulates
> > "other"
> > >> philosophical "systems" [i.e philosophy of Nature / philosophy of
> > Spirit]
> > >> that are dependent upon Hegel successfully unfolding the more "basic"
> > and
> > >> "pervasive" qualitative theory of action.
> > >> NOTE: This focus of Taylor's 1983 text is not the intended focus of
> the
> > >> 2010 edited text. Therefore the *insights* generated will be altered
> > when
> > >> the intent becomes both narrowed and widened in the ways summarized
> > above.
> > >>
> > >> This leaves open a further line of inquiry: The difference between
> > >> *situations* and *worlds* of being. Paul Ricouer has something to tell
> > us
> > >> in this regard
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>