[Xmca-l] Re: language and music
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Dec 2 17:51:57 PST 2018
Fully agreed, Martin.
Grammatically, "consciousness" is a funny word though, isn't
it. The "-ness" suffix implies that "consciousness" is an
attribute but we use it as if it were a mass noun. But in
the present context, what we are talking about, mind, is a
countable noun, as in: "a conversation engages many minds,"
and "that was not not what was on my mind." So using the
word "mind" allows us to reference consciousness in its
individual existence, without any implication of mental
objects existing within minds (second candles) or Jungian
collective consciousness.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 3/12/2018 12:36 pm, Martin Packer wrote:
> Sound indeed. And you’ll have no bother from me if you’re
> equating mind with consciousness. After all, a dictionary
> definition of mind is "the faculty of consciousness and
> thought.” Unfortunately, as you know, psychology
> generally treats mind not as consciousness, but as an
> inner realm of mental representations, most of which a
> person is not conscious of.
>
> As LSV wrote, "This is the other half of the old dualism:
> then there is a mind without behaviour, here –
> behaviour without mind; in both cases mind and behaviour
> are understood as two different phenomena"
>
> Martin
>
>
>> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Ha, ha! No, I don't Martin. But I thought Vygotsky's
>> arguments in "Consciousness as a problem in the
>> psychology of behaviour" were pretty sound.
>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/consciousness.htm
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 3/12/2018 12:20 pm, Martin Packer wrote:
>>> Andy!
>>>
>>> I am surprised to hear you saying this. You think, then,
>>> that there really is a second candle behind the mirror?
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr.
>>> Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or
>>> Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not
>>> understand anything in the matter, and I end
>>> usually with the feeling that this also applies to
>>> myself” (Malinowski, 1930)/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Andy Blunden
>>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly
>>>> behind the game! :) Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in
>>>> that it does /not /include the category of Subject in
>>>> its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This
>>>> means that it can be used for the analysis of
>>>> /objective/ processes. When used in this way it does
>>>> not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's
>>>> semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's
>>>> observation. Speech and gesture has a subject.
>>>>
>>>> The other minor point I would make about your very
>>>> erudite response is that I think we should not be too
>>>> apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True,
>>>> mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human
>>>> interactions we deduce the state of minds from the
>>>> observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or
>>>> everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without
>>>> the presumption that it is mindful to this or that
>>>> extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky
>>>> would murder us! :)
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer
>>>>> to be critical or charitable toward linguistic
>>>>> anthropologists.
>>>>>
>>>>> The critical approach would say that with a few
>>>>> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman,
>>>>> Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic
>>>>> anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the
>>>>> things that you are talking about. Most of the ones
>>>>> that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least.
>>>>> Most of them are grappling with issues of practice,
>>>>> not just studying formal structures that exist in
>>>>> someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?).
>>>>> In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic
>>>>> anthropologists that I know is to call them a
>>>>> "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere
>>>>> documenter of language variation across the globe.
>>>>> Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of
>>>>> understanding the practical consequences of semiotic
>>>>> forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes
>>>>> precisely the point that you are making through his
>>>>> deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce
>>>>> offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived
>>>>> practice rather than one that exists only in the
>>>>> "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would
>>>>> suggest).
>>>>>
>>>>> The critical approach is nice because you can just
>>>>> dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their
>>>>> gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable
>>>>> approach might suggest that we should at least
>>>>> acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to
>>>>> do. I figured that there might be a few who are
>>>>> interested, but most on the listserve will find that
>>>>> it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame
>>>>> them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm
>>>>> very sensitive to the fact that learning the language
>>>>> of an entirely new system is a major time commitment
>>>>> and only worth it in rare cases).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get
>>>>> to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that
>>>>> you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book
>>>>> How Forests Think). I understand that you are very
>>>>> much a humanist and don't like this approach for some
>>>>> very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed
>>>>> to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best
>>>>> person to make the case for this position - unless you
>>>>> are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm
>>>>> already well beyond your one screen rule!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden
>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg:
>>>>> "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or
>>>>> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking
>>>>> about such things as psychological functioning"
>>>>> and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in
>>>>> what people do as well as what they think. In
>>>>> other words, the turn to seeing language as a
>>>>> system of Peircean signs is an entirely *formal*
>>>>> project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the
>>>>> babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally
>>>>> analysed with the same set of concepts as the
>>>>> babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But
>>>>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures
>>>>> what is expressed and transacted in the human babble.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand the fascination in such formal
>>>>> disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can
>>>>> be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out
>>>>> from such formal disciplines relevant to the real
>>>>> world (mathematics being the supreme example), but
>>>>> ....! One really has to keep in mind that words
>>>>> are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of
>>>>> how it is that humans alone have language by
>>>>> saying that everything has language, even
>>>>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret
>>>>> the equation of language with Peircean signs), is
>>>>> somewhat more than missing the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to
>>>>> grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device
>>>>> "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of
>>>>> language. And yet to hold that an actual
>>>>> biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in
>>>>> all human beings in quite inconsistent with the
>>>>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution.
>>>>> Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which
>>>>> tells me that there is a problem with this formal
>>>>> analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time
>>>>> Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary
>>>>> language question I ask it and deliver very
>>>>> relevant answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this
>>>>>> group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned
>>>>>> previously (the proliferation of technical
>>>>>> languages in different fields and the
>>>>>> time-intensive labor of translating
>>>>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from
>>>>>> one of these fields to the next). Add the fact
>>>>>> that there are few who have much interest in one
>>>>>> of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp.
>>>>>> how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics -
>>>>>> a tangle of words in its own right), and this
>>>>>> means the following post will likely remain an
>>>>>> orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill
>>>>>> intentions but simply because this is an
>>>>>> impossible situation for anyone to commit to
>>>>>> learning an entirely new language for talking
>>>>>> about language!).]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would
>>>>>> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials
>>>>>> of SPOKEN language while noting that this
>>>>>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture
>>>>>> and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of
>>>>>> language tends to assume that spoken language is
>>>>>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical
>>>>>> and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and
>>>>>> iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how
>>>>>> spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as
>>>>>> opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of
>>>>>> hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses
>>>>>> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical)
>>>>>> as irrelevant to his project).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one
>>>>>> of the first to point to the problem of this
>>>>>> dominant ideology of language, and Michael
>>>>>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career
>>>>>> off of this simple point, first elaborated in his
>>>>>> famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in
>>>>>> numerous other works. Many others working in
>>>>>> linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40
>>>>>> years expanding on this project by exploring the
>>>>>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in
>>>>>> the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization".
>>>>>> More recently linguistic anthropologists have
>>>>>> considered the processes by which sign-functions
>>>>>> can shift from one function to another - e.g.,
>>>>>> rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to
>>>>>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work),
>>>>>> and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to
>>>>>> indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's
>>>>>> work). And others have looked at more basic
>>>>>> features of sign-functioning such as the
>>>>>> realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and
>>>>>> Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relevance of all this for the present list
>>>>>> serve is that the processes being described by
>>>>>> these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental
>>>>>> to understanding human psychological functioning
>>>>>> and yet most of the anthropologists I know,
>>>>>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest
>>>>>> in talking about such things as psychological
>>>>>> functioning (one exception here is Paul
>>>>>> Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent,
>>>>>> Subject, Self - although beware that his writing
>>>>>> is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect
>>>>>> that this could be a particularly productive
>>>>>> intersection for development.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD
>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right on, James!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma
>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion
>>>>>>> to be exploratory and free style, allowing
>>>>>>> for the coexistence of subjectness and
>>>>>>> subjectless. When it comes to scholarly
>>>>>>> writing, we know we will switch the code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> 于
>>>>>>> 2018年11月29日周四 18:58写道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James,
>>>>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying
>>>>>>> I don’t want to let go of it, so I hope
>>>>>>> I am not tiring you or others with all
>>>>>>> the connections I find. But, in the
>>>>>>> spirit of Alfredo’s post, I’ll just keep
>>>>>>> on talking and remark on how the duck
>>>>>>> tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an
>>>>>>> important concept in this subject line.
>>>>>>> Gesture is an aspect of communication
>>>>>>> present in many species. Hence, the
>>>>>>> importance of gesture as a rudimentary
>>>>>>> form of language with evolutionary
>>>>>>> results in human language. Maybe this is
>>>>>>> a reach, but I see the business of
>>>>>>> quotes in the subject line now taking
>>>>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly
>>>>>>> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now)
>>>>>>> on the last chapter of Vygotsky’s Speech
>>>>>>> and Language as an issue of gesture.
>>>>>>> Language, written language in this case,
>>>>>>> is limited in its ability to provide
>>>>>>> nuance. Writing without quotes
>>>>>>> “gestured”, pointed to to author sources
>>>>>>> familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote,
>>>>>>> such that quotes were not necessary. Dan
>>>>>>> Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf,
>>>>>>> wrote that two charges of language where
>>>>>>> in “tension”: 1) make yourself clear and
>>>>>>> 2) get it said before losing the thread
>>>>>>> of thinking and talking. Gesture, I
>>>>>>> would like to argue, is an aspect of
>>>>>>> discourse that helps to address this
>>>>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a
>>>>>>> gesture, with temporal constraints that
>>>>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can
>>>>>>> ever be totally clear in and of itself.
>>>>>>> Writing, as we are doing now, is always
>>>>>>> dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn
>>>>>>> in discourse. And we keep on posting our
>>>>>>> turns.
>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma
>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for
>>>>>>>> this subject line!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous.
>>>>>>>> Funnily enough, it is what my brother
>>>>>>>> would always like his 9-year-old son to
>>>>>>>> have because he has much thicker hair
>>>>>>>> than most boys. Unfortunately last year
>>>>>>>> the boy had a one-day show off in the
>>>>>>>> classroom and was ticked off by the
>>>>>>>> school authority (in
>>>>>>>> China). However, my brother has managed
>>>>>>>> to restore the ducktail twice a year
>>>>>>>> during the boy's long school holiday in
>>>>>>>> winter and summer!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation
>>>>>>>> are predictable due to participants'
>>>>>>>> intersubjective awareness of the
>>>>>>>> subject. Yet, the nuances of
>>>>>>>> conversation (just like each
>>>>>>>> individual's ducktail unique to
>>>>>>>> himself) are unpredictable because of
>>>>>>>> the waywardness of our mind. What's
>>>>>>>> more, such nuances create the fluidity
>>>>>>>> of conversation which makes
>>>>>>>> it difficult (or even unnecessary)
>>>>>>>> to predict what comes next - this is
>>>>>>>> perhaps the whole point that
>>>>>>>> keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed
>>>>>>>> out earlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY
>>>>>>>> SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of
>>>>>>>> the mandarin drake reminded me of a
>>>>>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s
>>>>>>>> when I was in high school (grades
>>>>>>>> 9-12): ducktail haircuts images
>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ducktail+haircuts+images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
>>>>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of
>>>>>>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high
>>>>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note
>>>>>>>> that some of the photos are of
>>>>>>>> women, interesting in light of
>>>>>>>> issues of gender fluidity these
>>>>>>>> days. I don’t remember when women
>>>>>>>> started taking on the hair style.
>>>>>>>> Since I mentioned Elvis Presley,
>>>>>>>> this post counts as relevant to the
>>>>>>>> subject line! Ha!
>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James
>>>>>>>>> Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Henry.
>>>>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just
>>>>>>>>> thought you might like to see:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> 于
>>>>>>>>> 2018年11月27日周二 19:30写道：
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James,
>>>>>>>>> and providing it is a move on
>>>>>>>>> this subject line that
>>>>>>>>> instantiates nicely Gee’s
>>>>>>>>> conception of discourse.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your thoughtful and
>>>>>>>>> helpful response.
>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM,
>>>>>>>>>> James Ma
>>>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on
>>>>>>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the
>>>>>>>>>> interesting things is his
>>>>>>>>>> conception of displacement as
>>>>>>>>>> the hallmark of language,
>>>>>>>>>> whether iconic, indexical or
>>>>>>>>>> symbolic. In the case of
>>>>>>>>>> Chinese language, the sounds
>>>>>>>>>> are decontextualised or
>>>>>>>>>> sublimated over time to
>>>>>>>>>> become something more
>>>>>>>>>> integrated into the words
>>>>>>>>>> themselves as ideographs.
>>>>>>>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas are
>>>>>>>>>> suggestive of the study of
>>>>>>>>>> protolanguage as an /a priori
>>>>>>>>>> /process, involving
>>>>>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This
>>>>>>>>>> reminds me of methods used in
>>>>>>>>>> diachronic linguistics, which
>>>>>>>>>> I felt are relevant to CHAT
>>>>>>>>>> just as much as those used in
>>>>>>>>>> synchronic linguistics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and
>>>>>>>>>> "intramental", I can see your
>>>>>>>>>> point. In fact I don't take
>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's
>>>>>>>>>> "interpsychological" and
>>>>>>>>>> "intrapsychological"
>>>>>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies
>>>>>>>>>> or binary opposites. Whenever
>>>>>>>>>> it comes to their
>>>>>>>>>> relationship, I tend to have
>>>>>>>>>> a post-structuralism imagery
>>>>>>>>>> present in my mind,
>>>>>>>>>> particularly related to a
>>>>>>>>>> Derridean stance for the
>>>>>>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any
>>>>>>>>>> idea is not entirely distinct
>>>>>>>>>> from other ideas in terms of
>>>>>>>>>> the "thing itself"; rather,
>>>>>>>>>> it entails a supplement of
>>>>>>>>>> the other idea which
>>>>>>>>>> is already embedded in the
>>>>>>>>>> self). Vygotsky's two
>>>>>>>>>> categoriesare relational
>>>>>>>>>> (dialectical); they are
>>>>>>>>>> somehow like a pair of
>>>>>>>>>> mandarin ducks (see attached
>>>>>>>>>> image). I also like to think
>>>>>>>>>> that each of these categories
>>>>>>>>>> is both
>>>>>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and
>>>>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here
>>>>>>>>>> discourse is in tune with
>>>>>>>>>> James Gee's conception of
>>>>>>>>>> discourse as a patchwork of
>>>>>>>>>> actions, interactions,
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts, feelings etc). I
>>>>>>>>>> recall Barbara Rogoff talking
>>>>>>>>>> about there being no boundary
>>>>>>>>>> between the external and the
>>>>>>>>>> internal or the boundary
>>>>>>>>>> being blurred (during her
>>>>>>>>>> seminar in the Graduate
>>>>>>>>>> School of Education at
>>>>>>>>>> Bristol in 2001 while I
>>>>>>>>>> was doing my PhD).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14,
>>>>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD
>>>>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> James,
>>>>>>>>>> I think it was Derek
>>>>>>>>>> Bickerton
>>>>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton)
>>>>>>>>>> who argued that “formal
>>>>>>>>>> syntax” developed from
>>>>>>>>>> stringing together turns
>>>>>>>>>> in verbal interaction.
>>>>>>>>>> The wiki on Bickerton I
>>>>>>>>>> have linked is short and
>>>>>>>>>> raises issues discussed
>>>>>>>>>> in this subject line and
>>>>>>>>>> in the subject line on
>>>>>>>>>> Corballis. Bickerton
>>>>>>>>>> brings me back to the
>>>>>>>>>> circularity of discourse
>>>>>>>>>> and the development of
>>>>>>>>>> discourse competence.
>>>>>>>>>> Usage-based grammar.
>>>>>>>>>> Bickerton’s idea that
>>>>>>>>>> complex grammar developed
>>>>>>>>>> out of the pidgins of our
>>>>>>>>>> ancestors is interesting.
>>>>>>>>>> Do I see a chicken/egg
>>>>>>>>>> problem that for
>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, “…the
>>>>>>>>>> intramental forms of
>>>>>>>>>> semiotic mediation is
>>>>>>>>>> better understood by
>>>>>>>>>> examining the types of
>>>>>>>>>> intermental processes”? I
>>>>>>>>>> don’t know. Could one say
>>>>>>>>>> that inner speech is the
>>>>>>>>>> vehicle for turning
>>>>>>>>>> discourse into grammar?
>>>>>>>>>> Bickerton claimed a
>>>>>>>>>> strong biological
>>>>>>>>>> component to human
>>>>>>>>>> language, though I don’t
>>>>>>>>>> remember if he was a
>>>>>>>>>> Chomskian. I hope this is
>>>>>>>>>> coherent thinking in the
>>>>>>>>>> context of our
>>>>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz.
>>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22
>>>>>>>>>>> PM, James Ma
>>>>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with
>>>>>>>>>>> Greg - intersubjectivity
>>>>>>>>>>> is relevant and
>>>>>>>>>>> pertinent here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I see it,
>>>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity
>>>>>>>>>>> transcends "outlines" or
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps sublimates the
>>>>>>>>>>> "muddledness" and
>>>>>>>>>>> "unpredictability" of a
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation (as in
>>>>>>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue)
>>>>>>>>>>> into what Rommetveit
>>>>>>>>>>> termed the "draft of a
>>>>>>>>>>> contract". This is
>>>>>>>>>>> because shared
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding makes
>>>>>>>>>>> explicit and external
>>>>>>>>>>> what would otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> remain implicit and
>>>>>>>>>>> internal. Rommetveit
>>>>>>>>>>> argues that private
>>>>>>>>>>> worlds can only be
>>>>>>>>>>> transcended up to a
>>>>>>>>>>> certain level and
>>>>>>>>>>> interlocutors need to
>>>>>>>>>>> agree upon the draft of
>>>>>>>>>>> a contract with which
>>>>>>>>>>> the communication can be
>>>>>>>>>>> initiated. In the spirit
>>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky, he uses a
>>>>>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and
>>>>>>>>>>> "social-cognitive"
>>>>>>>>>>> approach to human
>>>>>>>>>>> communication - and
>>>>>>>>>>> especially to the
>>>>>>>>>>> problem of linguistic
>>>>>>>>>>> mediation and regulation
>>>>>>>>>>> in interpsychological
>>>>>>>>>>> functioning, with
>>>>>>>>>>> reference to semantics,
>>>>>>>>>>> syntactics and
>>>>>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him,
>>>>>>>>>>> the intramental forms of
>>>>>>>>>>> semiotic mediation is
>>>>>>>>>>> better understood by
>>>>>>>>>>> examining the types of
>>>>>>>>>>> intermental processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think these
>>>>>>>>>>> intermental processes
>>>>>>>>>>> (just like intramental
>>>>>>>>>>> ones) can be boiled down
>>>>>>>>>>> or distilled to signs
>>>>>>>>>>> and symbols with which
>>>>>>>>>>> interlocutors are in
>>>>>>>>>>> harmony during a
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation or any
>>>>>>>>>>> other joint activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent
>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar
>>>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at
>>>>>>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet
>>>>>>>>>>> Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks
>>>>>>>>>>> about no directors
>>>>>>>>>>> and symphonic
>>>>>>>>>>> potential of
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation reminded
>>>>>>>>>>> me of G. Bateson's
>>>>>>>>>>> metalogue "why do
>>>>>>>>>>> things have
>>>>>>>>>>> outlines"
>>>>>>>>>>> (attached). Implicitly,
>>>>>>>>>>> it raises the
>>>>>>>>>>> question of units
>>>>>>>>>>> and elements, of how
>>>>>>>>>>> a song, a dance, a
>>>>>>>>>>> poem, a
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, to
>>>>>>>>>>> make sense, they
>>>>>>>>>>> must have a
>>>>>>>>>>> recognizable
>>>>>>>>>>> outline, even in
>>>>>>>>>>> improvisation; they
>>>>>>>>>>> must be wholes, or
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest wholes. That
>>>>>>>>>>> makes them
>>>>>>>>>>> "predictable". And
>>>>>>>>>>> yet, when you are
>>>>>>>>>>> immersed in a
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, the
>>>>>>>>>>> fact that you can
>>>>>>>>>>> never exactly predict
>>>>>>>>>>> what comes next is
>>>>>>>>>>> the whole point
>>>>>>>>>>> that keep
>>>>>>>>>>> us talking, dancing,
>>>>>>>>>>> drawing, etc!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY
>>>>>>>>>>> SHONERD
>>>>>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November
>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 06:22
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind,
>>>>>>>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l]
>>>>>>>>>>> Re: language and music
>>>>>>>>>>> I’d like to add to
>>>>>>>>>>> the call and
>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation that
>>>>>>>>>>> discourse, this
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation itself,
>>>>>>>>>>> is staged. There are
>>>>>>>>>>> performers and and
>>>>>>>>>>> an audience made up
>>>>>>>>>>> partly of performers
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves. How many
>>>>>>>>>>> are lurkers, as I am
>>>>>>>>>>> usually? This
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation has no
>>>>>>>>>>> director, but there
>>>>>>>>>>> are leaders. There
>>>>>>>>>>> is symphonic
>>>>>>>>>>> potential. And even
>>>>>>>>>>> gestural potential,
>>>>>>>>>>> making the chat a
>>>>>>>>>>> dance. All on line.:)
>>>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For many years I
>>>>>>>>>>>> used the work of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ellen Dissenyake to
>>>>>>>>>>>> teach comm classes
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> language/music/development.
>>>>>>>>>>>> She is quite
>>>>>>>>>>>> unusual in ways
>>>>>>>>>>>> that might find
>>>>>>>>>>>> interest here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 2:16 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> James Ma
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In semiotic
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms, whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> each of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> participants
>>>>>>>>>>>> has constructed
>>>>>>>>>>>> internally is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the signified,
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. his or her
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> vocalised
>>>>>>>>>>>> (spoken out),
>>>>>>>>>>>> it becomes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> signifier to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the listener.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's more,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when the
>>>>>>>>>>>> participants
>>>>>>>>>>>> work together
>>>>>>>>>>>> to compose a
>>>>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>>>>> impromptu, each
>>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> signifiers
>>>>>>>>>>>> turns into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> new signified –
>>>>>>>>>>>> a shared,
>>>>>>>>>>>> newly-established
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding,
>>>>>>>>>>>> woven into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> fabric of
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning making.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>> language, words
>>>>>>>>>>>> for singing and
>>>>>>>>>>>> dancing have
>>>>>>>>>>>> long been used
>>>>>>>>>>>> inseparably. As
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see it, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> semiotically
>>>>>>>>>>>> indexed to, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> adjusted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> allow for, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> feelings,
>>>>>>>>>>>> emotions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> actions and
>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a consciousness
>>>>>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the singing and
>>>>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here
>>>>>>>>>>>> are some idioms:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 酣歌醉舞- singing
>>>>>>>>>>>> and dancing
>>>>>>>>>>>> rapturously
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 村歌社舞-
>>>>>>>>>>>> dancingvillage
>>>>>>>>>>>> and singing club
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 燕歌赵舞- citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>> of ancient Yan
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Zhao good
>>>>>>>>>>>> at singing and
>>>>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence
>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonderful songs
>>>>>>>>>>>> and dances
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 舞榭歌楼- a church
>>>>>>>>>>>> or building set
>>>>>>>>>>>> up for singing
>>>>>>>>>>>> and dancing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Independent
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar
>>>>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 19:08,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simangele
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mayisela
>>>>>>>>>>>> <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>> is getting
>>>>>>>>>>>> even more
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> not that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have an
>>>>>>>>>>>> informed
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer for
>>>>>>>>>>>> you Rob, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> can only
>>>>>>>>>>>> think of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> National
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthems
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> stand still
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> singing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even then
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> observed
>>>>>>>>>>>> only in
>>>>>>>>>>>> international
>>>>>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Other
>>>>>>>>>>>> occasions
>>>>>>>>>>>> when people
>>>>>>>>>>>> are likely
>>>>>>>>>>>> not to move
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>>>>>> when there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is death
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> mood is
>>>>>>>>>>>> sombre.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>>>>>> rhythmic
>>>>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>>>>> movement,
>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>>>> dance are a
>>>>>>>>>>>> norm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This then
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>>>>>> what this
>>>>>>>>>>>> means in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>> cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>> functioning,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> light of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> developmental
>>>>>>>>>>>> stages – of
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would the
>>>>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>>>>> movement
>>>>>>>>>>>> constitute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> externalisation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>> contained
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the music?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Helena –
>>>>>>>>>>>> the video
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> relating
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> reminds of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching or
>>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>> therapy
>>>>>>>>>>>> technique-
>>>>>>>>>>>> where a
>>>>>>>>>>>> group of
>>>>>>>>>>>> learners
>>>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>>>> participants
>>>>>>>>>>>> in OD
>>>>>>>>>>>> settings)
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to tell a
>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>> and logical
>>>>>>>>>>>> story as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> group. They
>>>>>>>>>>>> all take
>>>>>>>>>>>> turns to
>>>>>>>>>>>> say a
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> not more
>>>>>>>>>>>> than 6
>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>> (depending
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructor
>>>>>>>>>>>> ), each
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> linking
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>>> articulator,
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> next person
>>>>>>>>>>>> also doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>> until the
>>>>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> More
>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> compose
>>>>>>>>>>>> this story
>>>>>>>>>>>> impromptu,
>>>>>>>>>>>> It with
>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>>>>>> that group
>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamics
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> analysed,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>> therapy
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences
>>>>>>>>>>>> of trauma
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> shared. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> example of
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>>>>>> although
>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought of
>>>>>>>>>>>> it as just
>>>>>>>>>>>> an “activity”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simangele
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>>>>>>>>>>>> *On Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robsub@ariadne.org.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Friday, 16
>>>>>>>>>>>> November
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 21:01
>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*
>>>>>>>>>>>> eXtended
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Culture,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>;
>>>>>>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>>>>>> Worthen
>>>>>>>>>>>> <helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>> C. Corballis
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember
>>>>>>>>>>>> being told
>>>>>>>>>>>> once that
>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>> languages
>>>>>>>>>>>> do not have
>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>> words for
>>>>>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>>>>>> dancing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because if
>>>>>>>>>>>> you sing
>>>>>>>>>>>> you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> move -
>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> western
>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation
>>>>>>>>>>>> beats it
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> true, or is
>>>>>>>>>>>> it complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> cod?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> true, does
>>>>>>>>>>>> it have
>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>> to say
>>>>>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>>>>>> body and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>> of speech?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018
>>>>>>>>>>>> 17:29,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>>>>>> Worthen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> going.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Theories
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Literacy
>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> Glynda
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hull,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructor,
>>>>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>>>>> a video
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>>>>>> circle
>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazon,
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>>>>>> phrases
>>>>>>>>>>>> wove in
>>>>>>>>>>>> and out
>>>>>>>>>>>> among
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> singers
>>>>>>>>>>>> underlaid
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> drumming
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking,
>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> response,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>> 20
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved,
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>> steam
>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> seemed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to know
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> did it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>> studied
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> (improvised
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise),
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> musicians
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>>>>>>> blank
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> listen
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> kinds
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> music,
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazon
>>>>>>>>>>>> drum
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> chant
>>>>>>>>>>>> circles,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is some
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> - like
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonata
>>>>>>>>>>>> form is
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> involves
>>>>>>>>>>>> exposition
>>>>>>>>>>>> (they
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> word).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> soundtrack
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Coen
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brothers’
>>>>>>>>>>>> film
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fargo
>>>>>>>>>>>> opens
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>>>>>> theme
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> says,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> as if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we were
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>> aloud
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> children’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> book,
>>>>>>>>>>>> “I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>> to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>> you a
>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>> strange
>>>>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>> promise
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>> word of
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> true…da-de-da-de-da.’
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only it
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> many words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (18)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fargo
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1996)
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Fargo,
>>>>>>>>>>>> North
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dakota'
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Opening)
>>>>>>>>>>>> scene
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1080]
>>>>>>>>>>>> - YouTube
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>>>>>> Worthen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley,
>>>>>>>>>>>> CA
>>>>>>>>>>>> 94707
>>>>>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog
>>>>>>>>>>>> US/
>>>>>>>>>>>> Viet Nam:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://helenaworthen.wordpress.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> skype:
>>>>>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018,
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:56
>>>>>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>> HENRY
>>>>>>>>>>>> SHONERD
>>>>>>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> music
>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>> nicely:
>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>>>> voice
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ear.
>>>>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> linked
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> visual
>>>>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> face-to-face
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> rhythmically
>>>>>>>>>>>> entrained
>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural
>>>>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any
>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vera
>>>>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holbrook
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mahn
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> co-construction
>>>>>>>>>>>> “at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> speed
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought”.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Heady
>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> part,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> smart
>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> disheartening
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> dialog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> realize
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> prosodic
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> (intonation)
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> gestural
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> simplistic
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrict
>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> visual
>>>>>>>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> prototypically
>>>>>>>>>>>> visual,
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> accompaniment
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> voice.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> surfing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> web,
>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> paralanguage
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> embodiment
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> senses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018,
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7:00
>>>>>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Staff]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> notion
>>>>>>>>>>>> of delayed
>>>>>>>>>>>> gratification
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> precondition
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> connection
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>> participant
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> exercise
>>>>>>>>>>>> patience
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else's
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Much
>>>>>>>>>>>> obliged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fri,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:50
>>>>>>>>>>>> AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Corballis,
>>>>>>>>>>>> oddly
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>> view,
>>>>>>>>>>>> places
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> weight
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called
>>>>>>>>>>>> mirror
>>>>>>>>>>>> neurons
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionality
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> blindingly
>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>> participating
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>>>> not-present
>>>>>>>>>>>> object,
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> begets
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>> perceptive
>>>>>>>>>>>> abilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> delayed
>>>>>>>>>>>> gratification,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> precondition
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> sociality
>>>>>>>>>>>> fostering
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> upright
>>>>>>>>>>>> gait
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> frees
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> hands
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> carrying
>>>>>>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> camp
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>>>>>> None
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> presupposes
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools,
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=itd0qPWlE7uAuyEX0ii8ohEoZegfdMAOOLf-YoaEqqs&s=-uwTjZDhHtJM2EFdBS-rXLTptADQdSGAcibaav-mhJw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:36
>>>>>>>>>>>> am,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Staff]
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>> chime
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> rule
>>>>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> being,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> did,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> *exchanging*
>>>>>>>>>>>> utterances
>>>>>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> complementarity
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>>>>>> roles,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> alternating
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversational
>>>>>>>>>>>> roles
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> mental
>>>>>>>>>>>> perspectives. Turn-taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>>>>> 15,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:21
>>>>>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oddly,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazon
>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> p.5.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Corballis
>>>>>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> synopsis
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> end,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim,
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Merlin
>>>>>>>>>>>> Donald,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> proto-humans
>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> unique
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonderful
>>>>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly_there
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> humanly
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible_.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> development,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> physiological
>>>>>>>>>>>> adaptations
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> being.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e,
>>>>>>>>>>>> proto-humans
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpersonal,
>>>>>>>>>>>> voluntary
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> begin
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mime
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture,
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> vocalisations
>>>>>>>>>>>> (all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> reference
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-present
>>>>>>>>>>>> entities
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> situations)
>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually,
>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved
>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection
>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> integral
>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>> niche.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>>>>>> wordless
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>>> gradually
>>>>>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech,
>>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> accompanying
>>>>>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand
>>>>>>>>>>>> movements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest,
>>>>>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>>>>>> fostering
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> (something
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>> nearest
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>> cousins
>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> elements
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech)
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing
>>>>>>>>>>>> tool-using,
>>>>>>>>>>>> tool-making,
>>>>>>>>>>>> tool-giving
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> tool-instructing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=A3k5oeQ13zGCPUbWibdOb2KNZT4q__fLyCwugyULUDw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:58
>>>>>>>>>>>> pm,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>>>>> Escandon
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomasello
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> claims,
>>>>>>>>>>>> grounding
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> surge
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> articulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> innate
>>>>>>>>>>>> co-operativism
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cambridge.org_core_books_cambridge-2Dhandbook-2Dof-2Dchild-2Dlanguage_90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=vxJZooXRDYwTRrM4dzWBbLfUhF9HhmUvU3ouq6sbwPI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gmail
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Institutional
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fordham
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hall-202
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bronx,
>>>>>>>>>>>> NY
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10458
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 817-2243
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 817-3817
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Institutional
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fordham
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hall-202
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bronx,
>>>>>>>>>>>> NY
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10458
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 817-2243
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 817-3817
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> is intended
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> addressee
>>>>>>>>>>>> only. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> received
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> in error,
>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>> notify us
>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>>>>>>> and destroy
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>>>> message.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not
>>>>>>>>>>>> copy or
>>>>>>>>>>>> disseminate
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>>>>> without the
>>>>>>>>>>>> permission
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> University.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>>>>>> authorised
>>>>>>>>>>>> signatories
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> competent
>>>>>>>>>>>> to enter
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreements
>>>>>>>>>>>> on behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> recipients
>>>>>>>>>>>> are thus
>>>>>>>>>>>> advised
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> content of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> message may
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> legally
>>>>>>>>>>>> binding on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>> and may
>>>>>>>>>>>> contain the
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> views and
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the author,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>> the views
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg.
>>>>>>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreements
>>>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> outsiders
>>>>>>>>>>>> are subject
>>>>>>>>>>>> to South
>>>>>>>>>>>> African Law
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless the
>>>>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>>>> agrees in
>>>>>>>>>>>> writing to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Mandarin Ducks.jpg>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>>>>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu/>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>>>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu/>
>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/ce8f52fc/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list