From bferholt@gmail.com Thu Nov 1 05:43:15 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:43:15 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I only knew the first - thanks!! Beth On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, Shirin Vossoughi wrote: > I find these two pieces very helpful as well > > Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Comment: Culture, rigor, and science > in educational research. *Educational Researcher*, *31*(8), 21-24. > http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X031008021 > > Guti?rrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a > criterion for rigor. *Educational Researcher*, *43*(1), 19-23. > http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X13520289 > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:29 PM Beth Ferholt wrote: > >> Excellent! Thanks, Beth >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:22 PM Wolff-Michael Roth < >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Beth, not too long ago I wrote >>> Roth, W.-M. (2015). Rigorous data analysis: Beyond anything goes. >>> Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. >>> >>> A preview (preface, intro chapter) is here: >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2256-rigorous-data-analysis.pdf >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>> >>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >>>> "reliability". >>>> >>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have >>>> some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>> teach a methods class? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Beth >>>> -- >>>> Beth Ferholt >>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>> >>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>> >>>> -2889 >>>> >>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> >> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >> >> -2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181101/c702a6cc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Nov 1 05:58:54 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 23:58:54 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt > > wrote: > > I'm starting to take the role of advisor > on doctoral dissertations and wonder how > best to begin to discuss "what is > science?" with students who will need to > respond concisely when asked about the > rigor and reliability of their formative > intervention, narrative and/or > autobiographical studies. > > I'm looking for an overview or paper that > does more than argue the value of one > approach -- something to start them off > thinking about the issues, not immerse > them in one perspective quite yet. > > If not an overview then maybe a paper that > contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". > > Obviously this is an endless topic but do > some people reading XMCA have some > favorite papers that they give to their > advisees or use when they teach a methods > class? > > Thanks! > Beth > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early > Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > > Brooklyn, NY 11210 > -2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181101/fdfcb964/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Thu Nov 1 08:29:50 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:29:50 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Message-ID: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: > Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's > Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: > > 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/ > archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm > > 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/ > archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 > > 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific > Revolutions > https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm > > Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < > bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>> >>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >>>>> "reliability". >>>>> >>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> Beth >>>>> -- >>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>> >>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>> >>>>> -2889 >>>>> >>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181101/282516da/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Fri Nov 2 08:03:40 2018 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:03:40 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Message-ID: This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications. Also, I want to know your opinion on this book: https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through Gy?rgy Luk?cs. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any opinions on this also? Wagner On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt wrote: > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list > already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks > so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's >> Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions >> >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < >> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >>>>>> "reliability". >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Beth >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>> >>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>> >>>>>> -2889 >>>>>> >>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/653720f4/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Fri Nov 2 08:36:25 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:36:25 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Message-ID: <74027603-161E-4653-BCFE-8071C1A96B1B@cantab.net> Wagner, the Chalmer?s book looks interesting: it?s unusual to see an introductory textbook cover not only Kuhn but also Lakatos and Feyerabend. I think though that Latour?s work, from Laboratory Life to Inquiry into Modes of Existence, has changed the way we think about science. Can I ask, though, why are you ?struggling" with the notion of ontology? It is true that since the Logical Positivists the emphasis has been on epistemology, on knowledge. But it has been clear from Kohn onwards that every scientific discipline, indeed every paradigm, assumes an ontology, usually tacit. That is to say, in simpler terms, researchers make assumptions about the kinds of things, entities, or objects about which they are trying to obtain knowledge. So every science is ontological. but often its ontology is taken for granted, and so ignored. Luk?cs laid out a ?social ontology?: exploring how new *kinds* of entities have been created through human activity, which call for new kinds of investigation. Vygotsky rejected the ontology of dualism: the way that psychologists assume that the objects they are studying are mental entities, distinct from the material entities studied by the natural sciences. 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 Nov 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > > This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications. Also, I want to know your opinion on this book: > > https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science > > In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through Gy?rgy Luk?cs. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any opinions on this also? > > Wagner > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt > wrote: > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden > wrote: > Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: > > The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm > Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 > And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions > https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm > Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < bferholt@gmail.com > wrote: >> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >> >> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >> >> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". >> >> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? >> >> Thanks! >> Beth >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210 -2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> > > > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/c1a3a319/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Fri Nov 2 08:51:57 2018 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:51:57 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <74027603-161E-4653-BCFE-8071C1A96B1B@cantab.net> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <74027603-161E-4653-BCFE-8071C1A96B1B@cantab.net> Message-ID: Hello Martin, I struggle not of accepting the idea of ontology, but the concept itself. Is it a "way to exist"? But to acknowledge that we exist, or the way we exist, isn't also "to know"? Isn't this the base of the "cogito, ergo sum", I think therefore I exist? So what is the difference between ontology and epistemology? I feel like the "ontology" is kind of related to the German bildung tradition, or is this wrong? Sorry if those sounds like silly questions. I am just beginning my studies on philosophy, so sorry. And thanks for your attention. Wagner On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:38 PM Martin Packer wrote: > Wagner, the Chalmer?s book looks interesting: it?s unusual to see an > introductory textbook cover not only Kuhn but also Lakatos and Feyerabend. > I think though that Latour?s work, from Laboratory Life to Inquiry into > Modes of Existence, has changed the way we think about science. > > Can I ask, though, why are you ?struggling" with the notion of ontology? > It is true that since the Logical Positivists the emphasis has been on > epistemology, on knowledge. But it has been clear from Kohn onwards that > every scientific discipline, indeed every paradigm, assumes an ontology, > usually tacit. That is to say, in simpler terms, researchers make > assumptions about the kinds of things, entities, or objects about which > they are trying to obtain knowledge. > > So every science is ontological. but often its ontology is taken for > granted, and so ignored. Luk?cs laid out a ?social ontology?: exploring how > new *kinds* of entities have been created through human activity, which > call for new kinds of investigation. Vygotsky rejected the ontology of > dualism: the way that psychologists assume that the objects they are > studying are mental entities, distinct from the material entities studied > by the natural sciences. > > 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 Nov 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit > wrote: > > This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications. > Also, I want to know your opinion on this book: > > > https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science > > In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an > "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through Gy?rgy > Luk?cs. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any > opinions on this also? > > Wagner > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt wrote: > >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list >> already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >> so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to >>> Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >>> >>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >>> Revolutions >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>> >>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < >>> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" >>>>>>> and "reliability". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Beth >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art >>>>>>> Education; >>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -2889 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/710ff180/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Fri Nov 2 09:26:39 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:26:39 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <74027603-161E-4653-BCFE-8071C1A96B1B@cantab.net> Message-ID: Okay, so now we need recommendations for a good introductory philosophy text! :) Epistemology and ontology are certainly interrelated. One could say that there is no epistemology without ontology: no knowledge without assumptions about the kinds of entity that can be known. Can the properties of electrons be known? Can the properties of God be known? Can the properties of elves be known? Your answer to each question will depend on your assumptions about the existence of the entity involved. You exist (ontological claim). You also know (epistemological claim) that you exist (at least while you are awake) ... I once put the matter this way: "Epistemology is the systematic consideration, in philosophy and elsewhere, of knowing: when knowledge is valid, what counts as truth, and so on. Ontology is the consideration of being: what is, what exists, what it means for something?or somebody?to be." Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-241. > Martin > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > > Hello Martin, > > I struggle not of accepting the idea of ontology, but the concept itself. Is it a "way to exist"? But to acknowledge that we exist, or the way we exist, isn't also "to know"? Isn't this the base of the "cogito, ergo sum", I think therefore I exist? So what is the difference between ontology and epistemology? > > I feel like the "ontology" is kind of related to the German bildung tradition, or is this wrong? > > Sorry if those sounds like silly questions. I am just beginning my studies on philosophy, so sorry. > > And thanks for your attention. > > Wagner > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:38 PM Martin Packer > wrote: > Wagner, the Chalmer?s book looks interesting: it?s unusual to see an introductory textbook cover not only Kuhn but also Lakatos and Feyerabend. I think though that Latour?s work, from Laboratory Life to Inquiry into Modes of Existence, has changed the way we think about science. > > Can I ask, though, why are you ?struggling" with the notion of ontology? It is true that since the Logical Positivists the emphasis has been on epistemology, on knowledge. But it has been clear from Kohn onwards that every scientific discipline, indeed every paradigm, assumes an ontology, usually tacit. That is to say, in simpler terms, researchers make assumptions about the kinds of things, entities, or objects about which they are trying to obtain knowledge. > > So every science is ontological. but often its ontology is taken for granted, and so ignored. Luk?cs laid out a ?social ontology?: exploring how new *kinds* of entities have been created through human activity, which call for new kinds of investigation. Vygotsky rejected the ontology of dualism: the way that psychologists assume that the objects they are studying are mental entities, distinct from the material entities studied by the natural sciences. > > 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 Nov 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit > wrote: >> >> This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications. Also, I want to know your opinion on this book: >> >> https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science >> >> In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through Gy?rgy Luk?cs. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any opinions on this also? >> >> Wagner >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt > wrote: >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < bferholt@gmail.com > wrote: >>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>> >>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>> >>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". >>> >>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Beth >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 -2889 >>> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/2ee5966d/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Fri Nov 2 09:28:22 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:28:22 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Message-ID: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching... They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. -greg ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt Beth, This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple Best of luck! -greg On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list > already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks > so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's >> Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions >> >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < >> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >>>>>> "reliability". >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Beth >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>> >>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>> >>>>>> -2889 >>>>>> >>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/f0cad92c/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Fri Nov 2 09:32:55 2018 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:32:55 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <74027603-161E-4653-BCFE-8071C1A96B1B@cantab.net> Message-ID: Thanks so much Martin, this clarified a lot! And I just realized why I did not get Ontology, I was understanding Epistemology as Ontology, so... Thank you very much! Wagner On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:29 PM Martin Packer wrote: > Okay, so now we need recommendations for a good introductory philosophy > text! :) > > Epistemology and ontology are certainly interrelated. One could say that > there is no epistemology without ontology: no knowledge without assumptions > about the kinds of entity that can be known. Can the properties of > electrons be known? Can the properties of God be known? Can the properties > of elves be known? Your answer to each question will depend on your > assumptions about the existence of the entity involved. > > You exist (ontological claim). You also know (epistemological claim) that > you exist (at least while you are awake) ... > > I once put the matter this way: "Epistemology is the systematic > consideration, in philosophy and elsewhere, of knowing: when knowledge > is valid, what counts as truth, and so on. Ontology is the consideration of > being: what is, what exists, what it means for something?or somebody?to be." > > Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist > theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. *Educational > Psychologist*, *35*(4), 227-241. > > > > Martin > > > > > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit > wrote: > > Hello Martin, > > I struggle not of accepting the idea of ontology, but the concept itself. > Is it a "way to exist"? But to acknowledge that we exist, or the way we > exist, isn't also "to know"? Isn't this the base of the "cogito, ergo sum", > I think therefore I exist? So what is the difference between ontology and > epistemology? > > I feel like the "ontology" is kind of related to the German bildung > tradition, or is this wrong? > > Sorry if those sounds like silly questions. I am just beginning my studies > on philosophy, so sorry. > > And thanks for your attention. > > Wagner > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:38 PM Martin Packer wrote: > >> Wagner, the Chalmer?s book looks interesting: it?s unusual to see an >> introductory textbook cover not only Kuhn but also Lakatos and Feyerabend. >> I think though that Latour?s work, from Laboratory Life to Inquiry into >> Modes of Existence, has changed the way we think about science. >> >> Can I ask, though, why are you ?struggling" with the notion of ontology? >> It is true that since the Logical Positivists the emphasis has been on >> epistemology, on knowledge. But it has been clear from Kohn onwards that >> every scientific discipline, indeed every paradigm, assumes an ontology, >> usually tacit. That is to say, in simpler terms, researchers make >> assumptions about the kinds of things, entities, or objects about which >> they are trying to obtain knowledge. >> >> So every science is ontological. but often its ontology is taken for >> granted, and so ignored. Luk?cs laid out a ?social ontology?: exploring how >> new *kinds* of entities have been created through human activity, which >> call for new kinds of investigation. Vygotsky rejected the ontology of >> dualism: the way that psychologists assume that the objects they are >> studying are mental entities, distinct from the material entities studied >> by the natural sciences. >> >> 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 Nov 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Wagner Luiz Schmit >> wrote: >> >> This is also of my interest, so thank you very much for the indications. >> Also, I want to know your opinion on this book: >> >> >> https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541166995&sr=8-1&keywords=chalmers+science >> >> In my PhD classes one teacher is proposing that the need of an >> "ontological" "marxist" way of science in Vygotsky, through Gy?rgy >> Luk?cs. I am still struggling a lot with the concept of "ontology", but any >> opinions on this also? >> >> Wagner >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >>> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list >>> already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >>> so much, Beth >>> >>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to >>>> Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >>>> >>>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >>>> Revolutions >>>> >>>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>>> >>>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < >>>> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" >>>>>>>> and "reliability". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> Beth >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art >>>>>>>> Education; >>>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -2889 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >>> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/32244bab/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Fri Nov 2 09:34:55 2018 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:34:55 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Message-ID: Thanks a lot Greg, those references will be useful for me also. Wagner On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM Greg Thompson wrote: > I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without > the attachments just in case someone is watching... > They should be publicly accessible. > (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, > behold the power of Google!). > > Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it > has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. > Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx > imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of > it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable > with all readings of Marx. > > -greg > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Greg Thompson > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral > students? > To: Beth Ferholt > > Beth, > > This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some > interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html > > I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well > as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an > early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. > > Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). > > And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that > really seems to be a very smart approach: > > https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false > > I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. > I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has > "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might > be of interest depending on your students' projects: > https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple > > Best of luck! > -greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list >> already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >> so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to >>> Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >>> >>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >>> Revolutions >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>> >>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < >>> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" >>>>>>> and "reliability". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Beth >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art >>>>>>> Education; >>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -2889 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> > > -- > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/b4bb224a/attachment.html From ewall@umich.edu Fri Nov 2 14:09:14 2018 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some interesting beginning thinking (and otherwise) about this sort of thing is found in Dewey?s Logic: The Theory of Inquiry and some latter writings attempting to do some unpacking: Burke?s Dewey?s New Logic and an edited volume (Burke and others): Dewey?s Logical Theory. Further must reads, I think, is the work of Popper, Quine, and Bachelard and more recently Kitcher. As I write I am realize that I am forgetting Foucault, Comte, Heelan, and Husserl (I am, by the way, trying not to mention those already suggested) and, of course, Aristotle. Mathematics plays a strange role in all this; for example the work of Jacob Klein. Then there is Harding, Fiumara, and Medin & Bang (Who?s Aking) - which was discussed on this listserve. I should mention that many of those I listed disagreed with many of those I listed. Ed Wall ?Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.? ~ Viktor Frankl > On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > > I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. > > I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. > > If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". > > Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? > > Thanks! > Beth > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/a82eac89/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Nov 2 20:01:57 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 20:01:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Tenure-track Ed Tech Job open at SFU In-Reply-To: <0815a338ebb241709b2a5e1be16e0bab@sfu.ca> References: <84151a28e0114a2b957ee41758560fbc@sfu.ca> <5d3aba32a2434febaf1b6c32e046df63@sfu.ca> <32ca5025d3f1404999d6f6e7ea059655@sfu.ca> <0815a338ebb241709b2a5e1be16e0bab@sfu.ca> Message-ID: Good job Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kevin O'Neill Date: Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:47 PM Subject: Tenure-track Ed Tech Job open at SFU To: William Penuel , Joseph Polman < joseph.polman@colorado.edu>, Barry Fishman , joshuar@uic.edu , Iris Tabak , Nichole Pinkard , noel.d.enyedy@vanderbilt.edu < noel.d.enyedy@vanderbilt.edu>, susanne.lajoie@mcgill.ca < susanne.lajoie@mcgill.ca>, Bill Sandoval , jim.hewitt@utoronto.ca , clare.brett@utoronto.ca < clare.brett@utoronto.ca>, Saul.Carliner@concordia.ca < Saul.Carliner@concordia.ca>, mike cole CC: Engida Gebre Greetings folks, We have a tenure-track job in Educational Technology and Learning Design open at SFU for Fall 2019. I am hoping it is the first of one or two more over the next few years, possibly including a senior-level hire. Please share through your networks! FYI, Engida Gebre and I were deliberate about mentioning Learning Sciences prominently in the ad, though our program does not fly the LS flag in its name. Our program content and thesis advising are slanted heavily this way, so LS grads would feel well at home. Best, Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/6a1c1ff9/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Educational Technology & Learning Design 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 133618 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181102/6a1c1ff9/attachment.pdf From andyb@marxists.org Fri Nov 2 20:17:28 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 14:17:28 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> Message-ID: <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die Lehre vom Sein/) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the /Phenomenology/, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send > it here without the attachments just in case someone is > watching... > They should be publicly accessible. > (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book > that I did, behold the power of Google!). > > Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at > least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now > speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of > them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx > imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get > to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this > move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. > > -greg > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Greg Thompson* > > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start > doctoral students? > To: Beth Ferholt > > > Beth, > > This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has > been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this > issue, reported secondarily here: > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html > > I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of > steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you > believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of > this particular (re)articulation of his position. > > Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also > attached). > > And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this > book that really seems to be a very smart approach: > https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false > > I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to > your question. I googled and found that I've already been > outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" > based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest > depending on your students' projects: > https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple > > Best of luck! > -greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt > > wrote: > > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few > things on my list already and I?ll start reading the > other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend > the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being > sensible I would still recommend: > > 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm > 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 > 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure > of Scientific Revolutions > https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm > > Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >> > >> wrote: >> >> I'm starting to take the role of >> advisor on doctoral dissertations >> and wonder how best to begin to >> discuss "what is science?" with >> students who will need to respond >> concisely when asked about the >> rigor and reliability of their >> formative intervention, narrative >> and/or autobiographical studies. >> >> I'm looking for an overview or >> paper that does more than argue >> the value of one approach -- >> something to start them off >> thinking about the issues, not >> immerse them in one perspective >> quite yet. >> >> If not an overview then maybe a >> paper that contextualizes "rigor" >> and "reliability". >> >> Obviously this is an endless >> topic but do some people reading >> XMCA have some favorite papers >> that they give to their advisees >> or use when they teach a methods >> class? >> >> Thanks! >> Beth >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department >> of Early Childhood and Art >> Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate >> Center >> Brooklyn College, City University >> of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> >> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >> -2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and > Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > > -- > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/731fbbb3/attachment.html From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Nov 3 08:53:00 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 15:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> Message-ID: <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Andy,I think Marx and Engels both ridicule Hegel's reduction of "Ontology" to "Logic". And theirs was not a matter of "formulation" , rather , a matter of a Philosopher's state of thinking while he has his head stuck to soil shying the air away of him under strict pressure :-) needing to be upheld erect again so that the head retrieves his capability of ordinary thinking.? Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." yes , but of "Being of the Idea" self-generating (suis generis) counterpart of Nothing co-existing with it on the very instant leaving no space for any creation other than his governing the whole universe divinely looking down on the Material World as having been alienated from him relapsed into his warm bosom if desired to find Originality provided averts materiality.? If we take "ontology" as the Being of any phenomena and thoughts and and ideas and ideals and even fantasies and imaginary creatures and speculations , won't you think we get involved in vicious circles , any sublations and derivations as new existences , any leaps and bounds as newer and newer qualities as new existences? Then what becomes of Dualism and Pluralism and the one single matter in motion? Thought has its origin in reality but is not one with it. Can we generalize "what exists in mind" as what ARE? Take onto mind Condition and the Conditioned. Greg's first statement sounds well! Marx says : Science is the Product of Practical Activity 1844 Manuscripts. Please see the attached. Best regards Haydi?? On Saturday, November 3, 2018, 6:49:37 AM GMT+3:30, Andy Blunden wrote: I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching...? They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. -greg ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt Beth, This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple Best of luck! -greg On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: - The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm - Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 - And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability".? Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/f18f4b35/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MARX ON HEGELIAN LOGIC.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24455 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/f18f4b35/attachment.bin From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Nov 3 08:56:24 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 15:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Fw: Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1407618206.290809.1541260584621@mail.yahoo.com> ----- Forwarded message ----- From: Haydi Zulfei To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2018, 7:23:00 PM GMT+3:30Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? Hi Andy,I think Marx and Engels both ridicule Hegel's reduction of "Ontology" to "Logic". And theirs was not a matter of "formulation" , rather , a matter of a Philosopher's state of thinking while he has his head stuck to soil shying the air away of him under strict pressure :-) needing to be upheld erect again so that the head retrieves his capability of ordinary thinking.? Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." yes , but of "Being of the Idea" self-generating (suis generis) counterpart of Nothing co-existing with it on the very instant leaving no space for any creation other than his governing the whole universe divinely looking down on the Material World as having been alienated from him relapsed into his warm bosom if desired to find Originality provided averts materiality.? If we take "ontology" as the Being of any phenomena and thoughts and and ideas and ideals and even fantasies and imaginary creatures and speculations , won't you think we get involved in vicious circles , any sublations and derivations as new existences , any leaps and bounds as newer and newer qualities as new existences? Then what becomes of Dualism and Pluralism and the one single matter in motion? Thought has its origin in reality but is not one with it. Can we generalize "what exists in mind" as what ARE? Take onto mind Condition and the Conditioned. Greg's first statement sounds well! Marx says : Science is the Product of Practical Activity 1844 Manuscripts. Please see the attached. Best regards Haydi?? On Saturday, November 3, 2018, 6:49:37 AM GMT+3:30, Andy Blunden wrote: I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching...? They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. -greg ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt Beth, This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple Best of luck! -greg On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: - The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm - Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 - And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability".? Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/3a109ce7/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MARX ON HEGELIAN LOGIC.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24455 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/3a109ce7/attachment-0001.bin From mpacker@cantab.net Sat Nov 3 09:01:19 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 11:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> Message-ID: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by their activity. Martin > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching... >> They should be publicly accessible. >> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). >> >> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. >> >> -greg >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Greg Thompson < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com > >> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? >> To: Beth Ferholt > >> >> Beth, >> >> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >> >> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. >> >> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). >> >> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: >> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >> >> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: >> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >> >> Best of luck! >> -greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt > wrote: >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden < andyb@marxists.org > wrote: >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt > wrote: >>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>> >>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>> >>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". >>> >>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Beth >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 -2889 >>> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/9ccda4af/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Sat Nov 3 10:58:07 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> Message-ID: As is the case with many of us, I don't lack time for my work on XMCA and elsewhere, but I do have relatively little flexibility in my work schedule. I am certainly going to make time to educate myself using the resources you all are providing in response to my question. I am very appreciative and will make use of All the responses! But I can not do so immediately. This leads me to another question: In order to find myself the time needed to make full use of this thread, I yesterday proposed an introductory methods course for masters level and doctoral students in urban education, early childhood education and care, and childhood studies. As the proposal is being considered I am putting together the syllabus. If anyone has a related syllabus they'd like to share with me or on XMCA, this would be very helpful, and I am very happy to post whatever I end up putting together once it is finished! Thank you to all of you who have responded so thoughtfully and helpfully thus far, Beth On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:03 PM Martin Packer wrote: > Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that > Carol Gould?s book is available online: > > Gould, C. C. (1978). *Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community > in Marx?s theory of social relations*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > > > > I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx > Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book > defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: > > My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a > method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's > analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual > dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical > form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and > development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the > other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are > themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, > > My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a > logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is > real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by > their activity. > Martin > > > > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was > only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of > "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. > Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's > reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's > formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which > CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (*Die Lehre > vom Sein*) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." > Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the > *Phenomenology*, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of > the Logic. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without > the attachments just in case someone is watching... > They should be publicly accessible. > (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, > behold the power of Google!). > > Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it > has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. > Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx > imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of > it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable > with all readings of Marx. > > -greg > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Greg Thompson < greg.a.thompson@gmail.com > > > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral > students? > To: Beth Ferholt > > Beth, > > This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some > interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html > > I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well > as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an > early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. > > Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). > > And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that > really seems to be a very smart approach: > > https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false > > I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. > I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has > "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might > be of interest depending on your students' projects: > > https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple > > Best of luck! > -greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list >> already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >> so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden < >> andyb@marxists.org> wrote: >> >>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to >>> Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >>> >>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >>> Revolutions >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>> >>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" >>>>>>> and "reliability". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Beth >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art >>>>>>> Education; >>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -2889 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> > > -- > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/7f1fe607/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sat Nov 3 12:04:27 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 19:04:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net>, Message-ID: <1541271791730.62768@ils.uio.no> ?That's a great idea, thanks Beth, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Beth Ferholt Sent: 03 November 2018 18:58 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? As is the case with many of us, I don't lack time for my work on XMCA and elsewhere, but I do have relatively little flexibility in my work schedule. I am certainly going to make time to educate myself using the resources you all are providing in response to my question. I am very appreciative and will make use of All the responses! But I can not do so immediately. This leads me to another question: In order to find myself the time needed to make full use of this thread, I yesterday proposed an introductory methods course for masters level and doctoral students in urban education, early childhood education and care, and childhood studies. As the proposal is being considered I am putting together the syllabus. If anyone has a related syllabus they'd like to share with me or on XMCA, this would be very helpful, and I am very happy to post whatever I end up putting together once it is finished! Thank you to all of you who have responded so thoughtfully and helpfully thus far, Beth On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:03 PM Martin Packer > wrote: Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by their activity. Martin On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching... They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. -greg ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt > Beth, This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple Best of luck! -greg On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt > wrote: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt > wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/62405828/attachment.html From vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Sat Nov 3 15:44:31 2018 From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?Q?=E3=82=A6=E3=82=A3=E3=83=AB=E3=82=AD=E3=83=B3?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=82=BD=E3=83=B3=E3=80=80=E3=83=B4=E3=82=A1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=83=AC=E3=83=AA?=) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 07:44:31 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Beth, I have spent my life in academia (At the Academy). My first graduate school class was methods and resources. That boils down to approaches and tools. I personaly boiled it down to Information and Access. In 2 short sentences: "How do you get to the information you need? The coherent story of that is the research." That time was the beginning of post-structuralism and feminism was on the rise. New departments, new Faculties, new international exchanges. I was defining myself as a Medievalist and Classicist. At least I knew that I couldn't put "philospher" on my "sheepskin" and besides there were too many words there already. Many, many years later, I got the idea that I am a philologist. Anyway, the academic tangle got worse. I entered my PhD program in Comparative Literature (2 Masters required). Some first problems in the doctoral class on research "methods." Define "romanticism" "new criticism" "lebensraum" "aporia." Each student was expected to give a report on their researches on a particular topic, which would definitely have a comparative, meta, cross, or trans perspective. ((By the way, I liked "lebensraum" and think of it basically as context, culture, and so on. (What I need to be able to do my work and live my life!) But then I found out a couple of years ago that it was the biggest excuse for Nazi expansion throughout Europe. I suppose Alexander would have been delighted to know that there was a word like that by which he could take over the whole world.)) Since I got wrapped up in the Ionian Enchantment (Consilience E.O. Wilson) because I read Gregory Bateson's Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, I was looking for a way to interpret literature allegorically with a scientific frame work. In that process I became inevitably a GENERALIST and an allegorist. The best approach to life and literature (for me) is "the case study." A sound unit of analysis is the project. After I "specialized" in Thomas Malory's take on the Saracen Palomides compared to the Prose Romance (Old French) Palomydes I got on with my life as an English teacher in a Faculty of Informatics. Jobs for Medievalists? In Japan? I have been wrestling with the challenge of framing personal life facts and processes with the academic persona writing articles combined with teaching what "they" (interpret "they" as a group of Japanese academics on the board of directors of a Faculty in a National University) wanted me to teach along with what I believed needs to be transmitted/constructed "experientially" to/by students. I have always had to deal with complexity, paradox, hypocrisy. routine, testing, evaluation in the daily administration of my duties, my personal finances, and the higher calling. You already have Kuhn. Experience and Education (John Dewey 1938) The Great Chain of Being (Arthur O. Lovejoy 1964) Consilience (E.O Wilson 1998) The Science of Qualitative Research (Martin Packer 2011/2016) Everyone has to grapple with probablity and statistics, but "they" have put those researchers beyond the reach of the sociologists and humanist and soft sciences because specialization has taken its toll. When I visited University of Alberta in Edmonton in 2007 I was delighted to meet the Chairman of the Graduate School of Comparative Literature. He personally did not have any doctoral candidates to whom I could be introduced. It turned out that we could not really have a connected conversation. It seems that admissions to the program were suspended as July 1, 2016 and I have to got to Transnational and Comparative Literatures in the Department of Modern Languages and Cultural Studies. Every doctoral candidate has become an adult and citizen in an interaction with their own life and society. The measuring out of requirements and disseration work, in the sciences 3 years, in the humanities 3-7or8or9 years makes us quite different in our professional lives while still having to work together on committees. Two more books that I love and value: The Book of Tea (Okakura Kakuzo 1906) The Poem Itself (Stanley Burnshaw 1995) I should say, "Don't get me started!" Doctoral students need to talk to each other with a supervising professor who can critique, encourage, and challenge new direction. We need creative and independent scholars who can hold their own in a relentlessly changing world. It's really hard to keep my web site up to date. Valerie Anne Wilkinson, PhD Professor of Communication Faculty of Informatics The Integrated Graduate School of Science and Technology Shizuoka University email: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp tel.: 81(53)478-1529 WEBPAGE: http://www.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/english/labs/society_detail.html?UC=vwilk Most recent publication: Wilkinson, V. and Marsden, J. (2018) ?Big Data Analytics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Sustainability Science Part of the Bottom Line?,Proceedings of the IEEE Professional Communications Society Conference, July 23 - 25, Toronto, ON, Canada. ------Original Message------ ????"Beth Ferholt" ???"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??? ???[Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? ???2018?11?02?(?) 00:29(+0900) Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: The first chapter of Thinking and Speechhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm Marx's Method of Political Economyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htmWho knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/e7240651/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Sat Nov 3 16:03:23 2018 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 20:03:23 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Valerie, I am amazed that you manage to that kind of stuff in the Japanese academy. Not a small feat for sure. I wish you lots of success. Wagner On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:46 PM ??????? ???? wrote: > Dear Beth, > I have spent my life in academia (At the Academy). My first graduate > school class was methods and resources. That boils down to approaches and > tools. I personaly boiled it down to Information and Access. In 2 short > sentences: "How do you get to the information you need? The coherent story > of that is the research." That time was the beginning of > post-structuralism and feminism was on the rise. New departments, new > Faculties, new international exchanges. I was defining myself as a > Medievalist and Classicist. At least I knew that I couldn't put > "philospher" on my "sheepskin" and besides there were too many words there > already. Many, many years later, I got the idea that I am a philologist. > Anyway, the academic tangle got worse. I entered my PhD program in > Comparative Literature (2 Masters required). > > Some first problems in the doctoral class on research "methods." > Define "romanticism" "new criticism" "lebensraum" "aporia." Each student > was expected to give a report on their researches on a particular topic, > which would definitely have a comparative, meta, cross, or trans > perspective. ((By the way, I liked "lebensraum" and think of it basically > as context, culture, and so on. (What I need to be able to do my work and > live my life!) But then I found out a couple of years ago that it was the > biggest excuse for Nazi expansion throughout Europe. I suppose Alexander > would have been delighted to know that there was a word like that by which > he could take over the whole world.)) > > Since I got wrapped up in the Ionian Enchantment (Consilience E.O. Wilson) > because I read Gregory Bateson's Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, I was > looking for a way to interpret literature allegorically with a scientific > frame work. In that process I became inevitably a GENERALIST and an > allegorist. The best approach to life and literature (for me) is "the case > study." A sound unit of analysis is the project. After I "specialized" in > Thomas Malory's take on the Saracen Palomides compared to the Prose Romance > (Old French) Palomydes I got on with my life as an English teacher in a > Faculty of Informatics. Jobs for Medievalists? In Japan? I have been > wrestling with the challenge of framing personal life facts and processes > with the academic persona writing articles combined with teaching what > "they" (interpret "they" as a group of Japanese academics on the board of > directors of a Faculty in a National University) wanted me to teach along > with what I believed needs to be transmitted/constructed "experientially" > to/by students. I have always had to deal with complexity, paradox, > hypocrisy. routine, testing, evaluation in the daily administration of my > duties, my personal finances, and the higher calling. > > You already have Kuhn. > > Experience and Education (John Dewey 1938) > The Great Chain of Being (Arthur O. Lovejoy 1964) > Consilience (E.O Wilson 1998) > The Science of Qualitative Research (Martin Packer 2011/2016) > > Everyone has to grapple with probablity and statistics, but "they" have > put those researchers beyond the reach of the sociologists and humanist and > soft sciences because specialization has taken its toll. When I visited > University of Alberta in Edmonton in 2007 I was delighted to meet the > Chairman of the Graduate School of Comparative Literature. He personally > did not have any doctoral candidates to whom I could be introduced. It > turned out that we could not really have a connected conversation. It seems > that admissions to the program were suspended as July 1, 2016 and I have to > got to Transnational and Comparative Literatures in the Department of > Modern Languages and Cultural Studies. Every doctoral candidate has become > an adult and citizen in an interaction with their own life and society. The > measuring out of requirements and disseration work, in the sciences 3 > years, in the humanities 3-7or8or9 years makes us quite different in our > professional lives while still having to work together on committees. > > Two more books that I love and value: > The Book of Tea (Okakura Kakuzo 1906) > The Poem Itself (Stanley Burnshaw 1995) > > > I should say, "Don't get me started!" > Doctoral students need to talk to each other with a supervising professor > who can critique, encourage, and challenge new direction. We need creative > and independent scholars who can hold their own in a relentlessly changing > world. > It's really hard to keep my web site up to date. > > Valerie Anne Wilkinson, PhD > Professor of Communication > Faculty of Informatics > The Integrated Graduate School of Science and Technology > Shizuoka University > email: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp > tel.: 81(53)478-1529 > WEBPAGE: > http://www.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/english/labs/society_detail.html?UC=vwilk > Most recent publication: Wilkinson, V. and Marsden, J. (2018) ?Big Data > Analytics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Sustainability > Science Part of the Bottom Line?,*Proceedings of the **IEEE Professional > Communications Society Conference*, July 23 - 25, Toronto, ON, Canada. > > ------Original Message------ > ????"Beth Ferholt" > ???"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > ??? > ???[Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? > ???2018?11?02?(?) 00:29(+0900) > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list > already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks > so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's >> Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions >> >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> >>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >>>>>> "reliability". >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Beth >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>> >>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>> >>>>>> -2889 >>>>>> >>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/1c9c2cf9/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Sat Nov 3 16:11:44 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 19:11:44 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you! I can't wait to begin reading -- Beth On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: > Dear Valerie, > > I am amazed that you manage to that kind of stuff in the Japanese academy. > Not a small feat for sure. > > I wish you lots of success. > > Wagner > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:46 PM ??????? ???? > wrote: > >> Dear Beth, >> I have spent my life in academia (At the Academy). My first graduate >> school class was methods and resources. That boils down to approaches and >> tools. I personaly boiled it down to Information and Access. In 2 short >> sentences: "How do you get to the information you need? The coherent story >> of that is the research." That time was the beginning of >> post-structuralism and feminism was on the rise. New departments, new >> Faculties, new international exchanges. I was defining myself as a >> Medievalist and Classicist. At least I knew that I couldn't put >> "philospher" on my "sheepskin" and besides there were too many words there >> already. Many, many years later, I got the idea that I am a philologist. >> Anyway, the academic tangle got worse. I entered my PhD program in >> Comparative Literature (2 Masters required). >> >> Some first problems in the doctoral class on research "methods." >> Define "romanticism" "new criticism" "lebensraum" "aporia." Each student >> was expected to give a report on their researches on a particular topic, >> which would definitely have a comparative, meta, cross, or trans >> perspective. ((By the way, I liked "lebensraum" and think of it basically >> as context, culture, and so on. (What I need to be able to do my work and >> live my life!) But then I found out a couple of years ago that it was the >> biggest excuse for Nazi expansion throughout Europe. I suppose Alexander >> would have been delighted to know that there was a word like that by which >> he could take over the whole world.)) >> >> Since I got wrapped up in the Ionian Enchantment (Consilience E.O. >> Wilson) because I read Gregory Bateson's Mind and Nature: A Necessary >> Unity, I was looking for a way to interpret literature allegorically with a >> scientific frame work. In that process I became inevitably a GENERALIST >> and an allegorist. The best approach to life and literature (for me) is >> "the case study." A sound unit of analysis is the project. After I >> "specialized" in Thomas Malory's take on the Saracen Palomides compared to >> the Prose Romance (Old French) Palomydes I got on with my life as an >> English teacher in a Faculty of Informatics. Jobs for Medievalists? In >> Japan? I have been wrestling with the challenge of framing personal life >> facts and processes with the academic persona writing articles combined >> with teaching what "they" (interpret "they" as a group of Japanese >> academics on the board of directors of a Faculty in a National University) >> wanted me to teach along with what I believed needs to be >> transmitted/constructed "experientially" to/by students. I have always had >> to deal with complexity, paradox, hypocrisy. routine, testing, evaluation >> in the daily administration of my duties, my personal finances, and the >> higher calling. >> >> You already have Kuhn. >> >> Experience and Education (John Dewey 1938) >> The Great Chain of Being (Arthur O. Lovejoy 1964) >> Consilience (E.O Wilson 1998) >> The Science of Qualitative Research (Martin Packer 2011/2016) >> >> Everyone has to grapple with probablity and statistics, but "they" have >> put those researchers beyond the reach of the sociologists and humanist and >> soft sciences because specialization has taken its toll. When I visited >> University of Alberta in Edmonton in 2007 I was delighted to meet the >> Chairman of the Graduate School of Comparative Literature. He personally >> did not have any doctoral candidates to whom I could be introduced. It >> turned out that we could not really have a connected conversation. It seems >> that admissions to the program were suspended as July 1, 2016 and I have to >> got to Transnational and Comparative Literatures in the Department of >> Modern Languages and Cultural Studies. Every doctoral candidate has become >> an adult and citizen in an interaction with their own life and society. The >> measuring out of requirements and disseration work, in the sciences 3 >> years, in the humanities 3-7or8or9 years makes us quite different in our >> professional lives while still having to work together on committees. >> >> Two more books that I love and value: >> The Book of Tea (Okakura Kakuzo 1906) >> The Poem Itself (Stanley Burnshaw 1995) >> >> >> I should say, "Don't get me started!" >> Doctoral students need to talk to each other with a supervising professor >> who can critique, encourage, and challenge new direction. We need creative >> and independent scholars who can hold their own in a relentlessly changing >> world. >> It's really hard to keep my web site up to date. >> >> Valerie Anne Wilkinson, PhD >> Professor of Communication >> Faculty of Informatics >> The Integrated Graduate School of Science and Technology >> Shizuoka University >> email: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp >> tel.: 81(53)478-1529 >> WEBPAGE: >> http://www.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/english/labs/society_detail.html?UC=vwilk >> Most recent publication: Wilkinson, V. and Marsden, J. (2018) ?Big Data >> Analytics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Sustainability >> Science Part of the Bottom Line?,*Proceedings of the **IEEE Professional >> Communications Society Conference*, July 23 - 25, Toronto, ON, Canada. >> >> ------Original Message------ >> ????"Beth Ferholt" >> ???"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> ??? >> ???[Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? >> ???2018?11?02?(?) 00:29(+0900) >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list >> already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >> so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to >>> Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >>> >>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >>> Revolutions >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>> >>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>>>>>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>>>>>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>>>>>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the >>>>>>> value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the >>>>>>> issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" >>>>>>> and "reliability". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA >>>>>>> have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>>>>>> teach a methods class? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Beth >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art >>>>>>> Education; >>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>>>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -2889 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181103/20fbd9a6/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Nov 3 18:08:47 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 12:08:47 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3f8a9ed9-796a-10ed-2a96-5d6d3ae969a5@marxists.org> Haydi, that Marx obeyed a great philosophical debt to Hegel and based the structure of his /Capital/ on Hegel's Logic is very well documented nowadays and I say what I say with very thorough knowledge of both writers. I think the issue may be best dealt with by helping to clarify the meaning of "idealism". See my article: "In what sense was Hegel an Idealist?" - which deals with the relation between Marx and Engels succinctly. https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 2:53 AM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: > Hi Andy, > I think Marx and Engels both ridicule Hegel's reduction of > "Ontology" to "Logic". And theirs was not a matter of > "formulation" , rather , a matter of a Philosopher's state > of thinking while he has his head stuck to soil shying the > air away of him under strict pressure :-) needing to be > upheld erect again so that the head retrieves his > capability of ordinary thinking. > > Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die Lehre vom Sein/) is usually > translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." yes , > but of "Being of the Idea" self-generating (suis generis) > counterpart of Nothing co-existing with it on the very > instant leaving no space for any creation other than his > governing the whole universe divinely looking down on the > Material World as having been alienated from him relapsed > into his warm bosom if desired to find Originality > provided averts materiality. > > If we take "ontology" as the Being of any phenomena and > thoughts and and ideas and ideals and even fantasies and > imaginary creatures and speculations , won't you think we > get involved in vicious circles , any sublations and > derivations as new existences , any leaps and bounds as > newer and newer qualities as new existences? Then what > becomes of Dualism and Pluralism and the one single matter > in motion? > > Thought has its origin in reality but is not one with it. > > Can we generalize "what exists in mind" as what ARE? Take > onto mind Condition and the Conditioned. Greg's first > statement sounds well! > > Marx says : Science is the Product of Practical Activity > 1844 Manuscripts. > > Please see the attached. > > Best regards > > Haydi > > On Saturday, November 3, 2018, 6:49:37 AM GMT+3:30, Andy > Blunden wrote: > > > I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day > "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the > countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I > think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can > you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's > reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had > differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous > "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people > like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die Lehre > vom Sein/) is usually translated into English as "The > Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic > is explained in the Preface to the /Phenomenology/, > already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of > the Logic. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send >> it here without the attachments just in case someone is >> watching... >> They should be publicly accessible. >> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book >> that I did, behold the power of Google!). >> >> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at >> least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now >> speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of >> them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx >> imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get >> to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this >> move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. >> >> -greg >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Greg Thompson* > > >> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to >> start doctoral students? >> To: Beth Ferholt > > >> >> Beth, >> >> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has >> been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this >> issue, reported secondarily here: >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >> >> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out >> of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do >> you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation >> of this particular (re)articulation of his position. >> >> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also >> attached). >> >> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found >> this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: >> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >> >> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer >> to your question. I googled and found that I've already >> been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous >> storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might >> be of interest depending on your students' projects: >> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >> >> Best of luck! >> -greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt >> > wrote: >> >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the >> few things on my list already and I?ll start reading >> the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to >> recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, >> being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure >> of Scientific Revolutions >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original >> thinker? >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm starting to take the role of >>> advisor on doctoral >>> dissertations and wonder how >>> best to begin to discuss "what >>> is science?" with students who >>> will need to respond concisely >>> when asked about the rigor and >>> reliability of their formative >>> intervention, narrative and/or >>> autobiographical studies. >>> >>> I'm looking for an overview or >>> paper that does more than argue >>> the value of one approach -- >>> something to start them off >>> thinking about the issues, not >>> immerse them in one perspective >>> quite yet. >>> >>> If not an overview then maybe a >>> paper that contextualizes >>> "rigor" and "reliability". >>> >>> Obviously this is an endless >>> topic but do some people reading >>> XMCA have some favorite papers >>> that they give to their advisees >>> or use when they teach a methods >>> class? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Beth >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department >>> of Early Childhood and Art >>> Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY >>> Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City >>> University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>> -2889 >>> >>> Email: >>> bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood >> and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/8a9c1564/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Nov 3 18:22:23 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 12:22:23 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <3f8a9ed9-796a-10ed-2a96-5d6d3ae969a5@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> <3f8a9ed9-796a-10ed-2a96-5d6d3ae969a5@marxists.org> Message-ID: <499e9823-6384-bf62-b70d-c4770b12bd01@marxists.org> Er: "owed" not "obeyed" ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 12:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Haydi, that Marx obeyed a great philosophical debt to > Hegel and based the structure of his /Capital/ on Hegel's > Logic is very well documented nowadays and I say what I > say with very thorough knowledge of both writers. I think > the issue may be best dealt with by helping to clarify the > meaning of "idealism". See my article: "In what sense was > Hegel an Idealist?" - which deals with the relation > between Marx and Engels succinctly. > > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 4/11/2018 2:53 AM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> I think Marx and Engels both ridicule Hegel's reduction >> of "Ontology" to "Logic". And theirs was not a matter of >> "formulation" , rather , a matter of a Philosopher's >> state of thinking while he has his head stuck to soil >> shying the air away of him under strict pressure :-) >> needing to be upheld erect again so that the head >> retrieves his capability of ordinary thinking. >> >> Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die Lehre vom Sein/) is usually >> translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." yes , >> but of "Being of the Idea" self-generating (suis generis) >> counterpart of Nothing co-existing with it on the very >> instant leaving no space for any creation other than his >> governing the whole universe divinely looking down on the >> Material World as having been alienated from him relapsed >> into his warm bosom if desired to find Originality >> provided averts materiality. >> >> If we take "ontology" as the Being of any phenomena and >> thoughts and and ideas and ideals and even fantasies and >> imaginary creatures and speculations , won't you think we >> get involved in vicious circles , any sublations and >> derivations as new existences , any leaps and bounds as >> newer and newer qualities as new existences? Then what >> becomes of Dualism and Pluralism and the one single >> matter in motion? >> >> Thought has its origin in reality but is not one with it. >> >> Can we generalize "what exists in mind" as what ARE? Take >> onto mind Condition and the Conditioned. Greg's first >> statement sounds well! >> >> Marx says : Science is the Product of Practical Activity >> 1844 Manuscripts. >> >> Please see the attached. >> >> Best regards >> >> Haydi >> >> On Saturday, November 3, 2018, 6:49:37 AM GMT+3:30, Andy >> Blunden wrote: >> >> >> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day >> "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the >> countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I >> think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can >> you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's >> reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had >> differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous >> "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people >> like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die >> Lehre vom Sein/) is usually translated into English as >> "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to >> Logic is explained in the Preface to the /Phenomenology/, >> already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of >> the Logic. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send >>> it here without the attachments just in case someone is >>> watching... >>> They should be publicly accessible. >>> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same >>> book that I did, behold the power of Google!). >>> >>> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at >>> least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now >>> speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of >>> them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx >>> imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get >>> to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this >>> move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of >>> Marx. >>> >>> -greg >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: *Greg Thompson* >>> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to >>> start doctoral students? >>> To: Beth Ferholt >> > >>> >>> Beth, >>> >>> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has >>> been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this >>> issue, reported secondarily here: >>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >>> >>> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out >>> of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do >>> you believe in reality?") which was an early >>> articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his >>> position. >>> >>> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also >>> attached). >>> >>> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found >>> this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: >>> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >>> >>> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer >>> to your question. I googled and found that I've already >>> been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous >>> storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might >>> be of interest depending on your students' projects: >>> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >>> >>> Best of luck! >>> -greg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the >>> few things on my list already and I?ll start reading >>> the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth >>> >>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to >>> recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, >>> being sensible I would still recommend: >>> >>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure >>> of Scientific Revolutions >>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>> >>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original >>> thinker? >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role >>>> of advisor on doctoral >>>> dissertations and wonder how >>>> best to begin to discuss "what >>>> is science?" with students who >>>> will need to respond concisely >>>> when asked about the rigor and >>>> reliability of their formative >>>> intervention, narrative and/or >>>> autobiographical studies. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for an overview or >>>> paper that does more than argue >>>> the value of one approach -- >>>> something to start them off >>>> thinking about the issues, not >>>> immerse them in one perspective >>>> quite yet. >>>> >>>> If not an overview then maybe a >>>> paper that contextualizes >>>> "rigor" and "reliability". >>>> >>>> Obviously this is an endless >>>> topic but do some people >>>> reading XMCA have some favorite >>>> papers that they give to their >>>> advisees or use when they teach >>>> a methods class? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Beth >>>> -- >>>> Beth Ferholt >>>> Associate Professor, Department >>>> of Early Childhood and Art >>>> Education; >>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY >>>> Graduate Center >>>> Brooklyn College, City >>>> University of New York >>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>> >>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>> -2889 >>>> >>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood >>> and Art Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >>> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/f5e66a2e/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Nov 3 18:42:35 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 12:42:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <499e9823-6384-bf62-b70d-c4770b12bd01@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <213026492.298300.1541260380864@mail.yahoo.com> <3f8a9ed9-796a-10ed-2a96-5d6d3ae969a5@marxists.org> <499e9823-6384-bf62-b70d-c4770b12bd01@marxists.org> Message-ID: <4c5fbde0-5938-7afa-8e7c-a01a30cc43c7@marxists.org> Er: "relation between Marx and Hegel" (sorry, not fully awake.) andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 12:22 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Er: "owed" not "obeyed" > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 4/11/2018 12:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Haydi, that Marx obeyed a great philosophical debt to >> Hegel and based the structure of his /Capital/ on Hegel's >> Logic is very well documented nowadays and I say what I >> say with very thorough knowledge of both writers. I think >> the issue may be best dealt with by helping to clarify >> the meaning of "idealism". See my article: "In what sense >> was Hegel an Idealist?" - which deals with the relation >> between Marx and Engels succinctly. >> >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 4/11/2018 2:53 AM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: >>> Hi Andy, >>> I think Marx and Engels both ridicule Hegel's reduction >>> of "Ontology" to "Logic". And theirs was not a matter of >>> "formulation" , rather , a matter of a Philosopher's >>> state of thinking while he has his head stuck to soil >>> shying the air away of him under strict pressure :-) >>> needing to be upheld erect again so that the head >>> retrieves his capability of ordinary thinking. >>> >>> Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die Lehre vom Sein/) is usually >>> translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." yes >>> , but of "Being of the Idea" self-generating (suis >>> generis) counterpart of Nothing co-existing with it on >>> the very instant leaving no space for any creation other >>> than his governing the whole universe divinely looking >>> down on the Material World as having been alienated from >>> him relapsed into his warm bosom if desired to find >>> Originality provided averts materiality. >>> >>> If we take "ontology" as the Being of any phenomena and >>> thoughts and and ideas and ideals and even fantasies and >>> imaginary creatures and speculations , won't you think >>> we get involved in vicious circles , any sublations and >>> derivations as new existences , any leaps and bounds as >>> newer and newer qualities as new existences? Then what >>> becomes of Dualism and Pluralism and the one single >>> matter in motion? >>> >>> Thought has its origin in reality but is not one with it. >>> >>> Can we generalize "what exists in mind" as what ARE? >>> Take onto mind Condition and the Conditioned. Greg's >>> first statement sounds well! >>> >>> Marx says : Science is the Product of Practical Activity >>> 1844 Manuscripts. >>> >>> Please see the attached. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Haydi >>> >>> On Saturday, November 3, 2018, 6:49:37 AM GMT+3:30, Andy >>> Blunden wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day >>> "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the >>> countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product >>> I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? >>> can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with >>> Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also >>> had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the >>> famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT >>> people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" >>> (/Die Lehre vom Sein/) is usually translated into >>> English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of >>> Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the >>> /Phenomenology/, already mentioned, and implemented in >>> the first book of the Logic. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll >>>> send it here without the attachments just in case >>>> someone is watching... >>>> They should be publicly accessible. >>>> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same >>>> book that I did, behold the power of Google!). >>>> >>>> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at >>>> least, is that it has been pluralized so that people >>>> now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one >>>> of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx >>>> imagined just one ontology (and science was going to >>>> get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that >>>> this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all >>>> readings of Marx. >>>> >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: *Greg Thompson* >>>> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to >>>> start doctoral students? >>>> To: Beth Ferholt >>>> >>>> Beth, >>>> >>>> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has >>>> been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this >>>> issue, reported secondarily here: >>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >>>> >>>> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out >>>> of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do >>>> you believe in reality?") which was an early >>>> articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his >>>> position. >>>> >>>> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also >>>> attached). >>>> >>>> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found >>>> this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: >>>> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >>>> >>>> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer >>>> to your question. I googled and found that I've already >>>> been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous >>>> storytelling" based on her work with food justice. >>>> Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: >>>> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >>>> >>>> Best of luck! >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the >>>> few things on my list already and I?ll start >>>> reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >>>> so much, Beth >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to >>>> recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, >>>> being sensible I would still recommend: >>>> >>>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's >>>> Structure of Scientific Revolutions >>>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>>> >>>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original >>>> thinker? >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm starting to take the role >>>>> of advisor on doctoral >>>>> dissertations and wonder how >>>>> best to begin to discuss "what >>>>> is science?" with students who >>>>> will need to respond concisely >>>>> when asked about the rigor and >>>>> reliability of their formative >>>>> intervention, narrative and/or >>>>> autobiographical studies. >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking for an overview or >>>>> paper that does more than >>>>> argue the value of one >>>>> approach -- something to start >>>>> them off thinking about the >>>>> issues, not immerse them in >>>>> one perspective quite yet. >>>>> >>>>> If not an overview then maybe >>>>> a paper that contextualizes >>>>> "rigor" and "reliability". >>>>> >>>>> Obviously this is an endless >>>>> topic but do some people >>>>> reading XMCA have some >>>>> favorite papers that they give >>>>> to their advisees or use when >>>>> they teach a methods class? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> Beth >>>>> -- >>>>> Beth Ferholt >>>>> Associate >>>>> Professor, Department of Early >>>>> Childhood and Art Education; >>>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY >>>>> Graduate Center >>>>> Brooklyn College, City >>>>> University of New York >>>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>>> >>>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>>> -2889 >>>>> >>>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Beth Ferholt >>>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood >>>> and Art Education; >>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >>>> >>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/bf017ad8/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Nov 3 19:01:43 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 13:01:43 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> Message-ID: <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without translation! The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by Lenin in 1914: ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's /Capital/, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the /whole/ of Hegel's /Logic/. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! ? https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: > Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and > discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: > > Gould, C. C. (1978). /Marx?s social ontology: > Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social > relations/. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > > > > I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould > credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the > theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she > summarizes the first two as follows: > > My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical > logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of > history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in > accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual > dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have > such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx > derives the specific structure and development of social > forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other > hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the > concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete > social developmenL, > > My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of > concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes > an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely > existing individuals who constitute this social reality by > their activity. > > Martin > > > >> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day >> "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the >> countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I >> think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can >> you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's >> reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had >> differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous >> "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people >> like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (/Die >> Lehre vom Sein/) is usually translated into English as >> "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to >> Logic is explained in the Preface to the /Phenomenology/, >> already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of >> the Logic. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send >>> it here without the attachments just in case someone is >>> watching... >>> They should be publicly accessible. >>> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same >>> book that I did, behold the power of Google!). >>> >>> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at >>> least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now >>> speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of >>> them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx >>> imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get >>> to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this >>> move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of >>> Marx. >>> >>> -greg >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: *Greg Thompson* >>> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to >>> start doctoral students? >>> To: Beth Ferholt >> > >>> >>> Beth, >>> >>> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has >>> been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this >>> issue, reported secondarily here: >>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >>> >>> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out >>> of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do >>> you believe in reality?") which was an early >>> articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his >>> position. >>> >>> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also >>> attached). >>> >>> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found >>> this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: >>> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >>> >>> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer >>> to your question. I googled and found that I've already >>> been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous >>> storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might >>> be of interest depending on your students' projects: >>> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >>> >>> Best of luck! >>> -greg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the >>> few things on my list already and I?ll start reading >>> the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth >>> >>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden >>> wrote: >>> >>> Beth, much as a part of me would like to >>> recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, >>> being sensible I would still recommend: >>> >>> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >>> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >>> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure >>> of Scientific Revolutions >>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >>> >>> Who knows? You might be fostering an original >>> thinker? >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm starting to take the role >>>> of advisor on doctoral >>>> dissertations and wonder how >>>> best to begin to discuss "what >>>> is science?" with students who >>>> will need to respond concisely >>>> when asked about the rigor and >>>> reliability of their formative >>>> intervention, narrative and/or >>>> autobiographical studies. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for an overview or >>>> paper that does more than argue >>>> the value of one approach -- >>>> something to start them off >>>> thinking about the issues, not >>>> immerse them in one perspective >>>> quite yet. >>>> >>>> If not an overview then maybe a >>>> paper that contextualizes >>>> "rigor" and "reliability". >>>> >>>> Obviously this is an endless >>>> topic but do some people >>>> reading XMCA have some favorite >>>> papers that they give to their >>>> advisees or use when they teach >>>> a methods class? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Beth >>>> -- >>>> Beth Ferholt >>>> Associate Professor, Department >>>> of Early Childhood and Art >>>> Education; >>>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY >>>> Graduate Center >>>> Brooklyn College, City >>>> University of New York >>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>>> >>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >>>> -2889 >>>> >>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood >>> and Art Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >>> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/06576eba/attachment.html From vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Sun Nov 4 02:04:01 2018 From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?Q?=E3=82=A6=E3=82=A3=E3=83=AB=E3=82=AD=E3=83=B3?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=82=BD=E3=83=B3=E3=80=80=E3=83=B4=E3=82=A1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=83=AC=E3=83=AA?=) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 19:04:01 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5fd4599d8c0fa6140a9c935e2dce992c@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Beth, Your first question: What is Science? has led you to Methods. A collection of articles (pdfs) that you assign students to report and discuss will make it happen. You can start where you are with what you love, that brought you to this position and opportunity. Then add one at a time. You got tons of advice. I want to read some more - when I can get my hands on it and and find the time. The real trick is presenting an idea to some students who have time to entertain the idea, discuss it, come back to it again. Graduate school puts a kind of pressure on us. I skimmed books so that I could say that I read them, but I didn't really. I wasn't really lying but I also wasn't really able to spend enough time on the books that I needed to. I remember the teachers I most paid attention to. I remember the articles that I read slowly and carefully with connection. That was usually connected to a class. Best wishes in your quest! Vandy (AKA Valerie) ------Original Message------ ????"Beth Ferholt" ???"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??? ???[Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? ???2018?11?04?(?) 08:11(+0900) Thank you! I can't wait to begin reading -- Beth On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM Wagner Luiz Schmit wrote: Dear Valerie, I am amazed that you manage to that kind of stuff in the Japanese academy. Not a small feat for sure. I wish you lots of success. Wagner On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:46 PM ???????????? wrote: Dear Beth, I have spent my life in academia (At the Academy). My first graduate school class was methods and resources. That boils down to approaches and tools. I personaly boiled it down to Information and Access. In 2 short sentences: "How do you get to the information you need? The coherent story of that is the research." That time was the beginning of post-structuralism and feminism was on the rise. New departments, new Faculties, new international exchanges. I was defining myself as a Medievalist and Classicist. At least I knew that I couldn't put "philospher" on my "sheepskin" and besides there were too many words there already. Many, many years later, I got the idea that I am a philologist. Anyway, the academic tangle got worse. I entered my PhD program in Comparative Literature (2 Masters required). Some first problems in the doctoral class on research "methods." Define "romanticism" "new criticism" "lebensraum" "aporia." Each student was expected to give a report on their researches on a particular topic, which would definitely have a comparative, meta, cross, or trans perspective. ((By the way, I liked "lebensraum" and think of it basically as context, culture, and so on. (What I need to be able to do my work and live my life!) But then I found out a couple of years ago that it was the biggest excuse for Nazi expansion throughout Europe. I suppose Alexander would have been delighted to know that there was a word like that by which he could take over the whole world.)) Since I got wrapped up in the Ionian Enchantment (Consilience E.O. Wilson) because I read Gregory Bateson's Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, I was looking for a way to interpret literature allegorically with a scientific frame work. In that process I became inevitably a GENERALIST and an allegorist. The best approach to life and literature (for me) is "the case study." A sound unit of analysis is the project. After I "specialized" in Thomas Malory's take on the Saracen Palomides compared to the Prose Romance (Old French) Palomydes I got on with my life as an English teacher in a Faculty of Informatics. Jobs for Medievalists? In Japan? I have been wrestling with the challenge of framing personal life facts and processes with the academic persona writing articles combined with teaching what "they" (interpret "they" as a group of Japanese academics on the board of directors of a Faculty in a National University) wanted me to teach along with what I believed needs to be transmitted/constructed "experientially" to/by students. I have always had to deal with complexity, paradox, hypocrisy. routine, testing, evaluation in the daily administration of my duties, my personal finances, and the higher calling. You already have Kuhn. Experience and Education (John Dewey 1938) The Great Chain of Being (Arthur O. Lovejoy 1964) Consilience (E.O Wilson 1998) The Science of Qualitative Research (Martin Packer 2011/2016) Everyone has to grapple with probablity and statistics, but "they" have put those researchers beyond the reach of the sociologists and humanist and soft sciences because specialization has taken its toll. When I visited University of Alberta in Edmonton in 2007 I was delighted to meet the Chairman of the Graduate School of Comparative Literature. He personally did not have any doctoral candidates to whom I could be introduced. It turned out that we could not really have a connected conversation. It seems that admissions to the program were suspended as July 1, 2016 and I have to got to Transnational and Comparative Literatures in the Department of Modern Languages and Cultural Studies. Every doctoral candidate has become an adult and citizen in an interaction with their own life and society. The measuring out of requirements and disseration work, in the sciences 3 years, in the humanities 3-7or8or9 years makes us quite different in our professional lives while still having to work together on committees. Two more books that I love and value: The Book of Tea (Okakura Kakuzo 1906) The Poem Itself (Stanley Burnshaw 1995) I should say, "Don't get me started!" Doctoral students need to talk to each other with a supervising professor who can critique, encourage, and challenge new direction. We need creative and independent scholars who can hold their own in a relentlessly changing world. It's really hard to keep my web site up to date. Valerie Anne Wilkinson, PhD Professor of Communication Faculty of Informatics The Integrated Graduate School of Science and Technology Shizuoka University email: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp tel.: 81(53)478-1529 WEBPAGE: http://www.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/english/labs/society_detail.html?UC=vwilk Most recent publication: Wilkinson, V. and Marsden, J. (2018) ?Big Data Analytics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Sustainability Science Part of the Bottom Line?,Proceedings of the IEEE Professional Communications Society Conference, July 23 - 25, Toronto, ON, Canada. ------Original Message------ ????"Beth Ferholt" ???"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??? ???[Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? ???2018?11?02?(?) 00:29(+0900) Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: The first chapter of Thinking and Speechhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm Marx's Method of Political Economyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htmWho knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email:bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/b49a19d7/attachment.html From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Nov 4 02:22:26 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 10:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> Message-ID: <1539421890.595118.1541326946981@mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Respectable Beth say they've been booked abundantly and that's true and one fault is people , despite recommendations , have not changed the subject Title so that they (Dear Beth) could have probably guessed that in fact a new thread has been opened the reward and benevolence of which goes to their self as the initiator of the discussion which has entailed to this point of excellent debate though I personally do not want to have full participation. Alfredo also kindly put a full stop to the discussion (or perhaps to the introduction of the sources) while in fact they should be so happy to have such a discussion because it is a good opportunity for the Editorial to come up with their new stand (as I think) and the good intro they've provided in the MCA Issue which involves Marx and Marxism and Activity Theory. I've even read the first of the original articles there , too. Alfredo with appraisable patience and hard work have provided a very good comment on the book : Vygotsky A Marxist Perspective. Andy I'm sufficiently clear with your thoughts and nowadays most of what we might want to discuss seem to be redundant and repetitious. But if I appeared here once again after a long time was that you've , in fact , rendered a great accusation onto Marx Proper. Notice that I didn't say they have ridiculed Hegel. I said that they've ridiculed Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic , to the Idea and to the Absolute. For this ridicule I provided evidence from the Originals in length. I over-read them and many others piece by piece and ignored some of the less obvious to the discussion and I didn't find such a thing but to the contrary. I've also read , as you know , Lenin's Critique of Hegel's work. Marx's and Lenin's support and rejection of Hegel have their obvious limits. There are appraisals and there are bare ridicules and all are documented in the original works. I've documented the Ridicule but you've not documented the outright supposed agreement and acceptance (just sent readers to some addresses as usual) ! The one Lenin's quote presented in Red , you well know , does not negate Marx's , Engels' , and Lenin's firm grasp on firstness , precedence , initiality and main stay of Matter over all other phenomena. With all other things we get from Marx and Lenin , we can conjecture that without understanding full Logic in all its features including Hegel's utmost persistence to make concessions between his Indispensable Time-Urgent Supreme and the Material World Surrounding him incapacitated to his limits and capabilities , one cannot reach the doubt-free acceptance of the Last Idealist Hegel and the alright preferences of the Materialist outlook of Marx and the true Marxists. Have you not encountered Lenin's evaluation of Hegel's works as "near materialist" , "smacks of materialism" , "much better than vulgar materialism" , and as well , "mere nonsense" in numerous occasions , "the worst of Idealism" , "I don't understand him here" , etc. By no means and for indubious reasons can Marx's Ontology be the Ontology of the Idea and by no means can a true marxist instill such an Idea with Corporeality (Engels -out of Nothing which means it's Nothing empty of contradictions , differences , moments for Unity-the attached) . What was YOUR take on the Attached? BestHaydi? ?? On Sunday, November 4, 2018, 5:33:41 AM GMT+3:30, Andy Blunden wrote: Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without translation! The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by Lenin in 1914: ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's?Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the?whole?of Hegel's?Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!? https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by their activity.? Martin On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching...? They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. -greg ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt Beth, This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple Best of luck! -greg On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: - The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm - Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 - And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability".? Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181104/4b5e294e/attachment.html From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Mon Nov 5 00:14:20 2018 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:14:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> Message-ID: Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James?s Notes on Dialectics: Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were of course the mainstay of the ?Johnston Forest? Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the USSR. Notes on Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin on Hegel From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 04 November 2018 02:02 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without translation! The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by Lenin in 1914: ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!? https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by their activity. Martin On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching... They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. -greg ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt > Beth, This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple Best of luck! -greg On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt > wrote: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden > wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt > wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181105/ec0b9d63/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Nov 5 00:31:32 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> Message-ID: <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Yes, CLR James brings a very unique reading to Hegel's Logic. I have transcribed only excerpts from it: https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 5/11/2018 7:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James?s Notes on > Dialectics: Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were > of course the mainstay of the ?Johnston Forest? > Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the > State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the > USSR. Notes on Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin > on Hegel > > > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden > *Sent:* 04 November 2018 02:02 > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where > to start doctoral students? > > > > Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as > Aristotleans, though self-evidently only "in a certain > way." Hegel was so much an admirer of Aristotle that > Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned > at a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" > in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and at the completion of > the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, when it > comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel > merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original > Greek, without translation! > > The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism > was begun by Lenin in 1914: > > ?It is impossible completely to understand > Marx's /Capital/, and especially its first chapter, > without having thoroughly studied and understood > the /whole/ of Hegel's /Logic/. Consequently, half a > century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! > ? > https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a > > and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt > School and Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost > with the emergence of "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to > Althusser's structuralism and the East European Stalinist > bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. > > The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views > in Hegel is now a commonplace which only the blind do not > see (if they bother to look). > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: > > Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? > and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available > online: > > > > Gould, C. C. (1978). /Marx?s social ontology: > Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social > relations/. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > > > > > > > > I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that > Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing > the theoretical framework. The book defends five > theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: > > My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical > logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of > history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered > in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the > actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen > to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one > hand, Marx derives the specific structure and > development of social forms from the concepts of these > forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation > as possible because the concepts are themselves > abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, > > My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic > of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx > becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, > concretely existing individuals who constitute this > social reality by their activity. > > Martin > > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > I think it would be more true to say that in > Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the > non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) > form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the > second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you > pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's > reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had > differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the > famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which > CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's > "Ontology" (/Die Lehre vom Sein/) is usually > translated into English as "The Doctrine of > Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is > explained in the Preface to the /Phenomenology/, > already mentioned, and implemented in the first > book of the Logic. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > I sent the following message off-line to Beth. > I'll send it here without the attachments just > in case someone is watching... > > They should be publicly accessible. > > (and funny that Wagner also happened across > the same book that I did, behold the power of > Google!). > > > > Wagner, simple story with ontology, in > anthropology at least, is that it has been > pluralized so that people now speak of > different ontologies. Science is just one of > them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since > Marx imagined just one ontology (and science > was going to get to the bottom of it!), but > I'd like to think that this move isn't > entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. > > > > -greg > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Greg Thompson* > > > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: > Where to start doctoral students? > To: Beth Ferholt > > > > > Beth, > > > > This may be more than you bargained for but > Latour has been doing some interesting > thinking/writing on this issue, reported > secondarily here: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html > > > > I have also attached his essay Why has > critique run out of steam? (as well as the > intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in > reality?") which was an early articulation of > this particular (re)articulation of his position. > > > > Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to > mind (also attached). > > > > And for kicks, I just googled your question > and found this book that really seems to be a > very smart approach: > > https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false > > > > I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as > one answer to your question. I googled and > found that I've already been outdone - Susan > Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" > based on her work with food justice. Might be > of interest depending on your students' projects: > > https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple > > > > Best of luck! > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt > > wrote: > > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are > two of the few things on my list already > and I?ll start reading the other two, > sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy > Blunden > wrote: > > Beth, much as a part of me would like > to recommend the Preface to Hegel's > Phenomenology, being sensible I would > still recommend: > > 1. The first chapter of Thinking and > Speech > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm > 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 > 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's > Structure of Scientific Revolutions > https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm > > Who knows? You might be fostering an > original thinker? > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM > Beth Ferholt > wrote: > > I'm starting to > take the role of > advisor on > doctoral > dissertations and > wonder how best to > begin to discuss > "what is science?" > with students who > will need to > respond concisely > when asked about > the rigor and > reliability of > their formative > intervention, > narrative and/or > autobiographical > studies. > > > > I'm looking for an > overview or paper > that does more > than argue the > value of one > approach -- > something to start > them off thinking > about the issues, > not immerse them > in one perspective > quite yet. > > > > If not an overview > then maybe a paper > that > contextualizes > "rigor" and > "reliability". > > > > Obviously this is > an endless topic > but do some people > reading XMCA have > some favorite > papers that they > give to their > advisees or use > when they teach a > methods class? > > > > Thanks! > > Beth > -- > > Beth Ferholt > Associate > Professor, Department > of Early Childhood > and Art Education; > > Affiliated > Faculty, CUNY > Graduate Center > > Brooklyn College, > City University of > New York > 2900 Bedford > Avenue > > Brooklyn, NY 11210 > -2889 > > Email: > bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early > Childhood and Art Education; > > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > > > > > -- > > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181105/6258a359/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Nov 5 04:37:32 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 05:37:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: Beth, I too would happily second Martin Packer's book The Science of Qualitative Research. Really excellent explanation of what qualitative research is all about. I wrote a review of it for Theory and Psychology and which is up on my Academia page. Really excellent option if you are interested in getting into the history and if you'd like them to have a good answer to the questions: Why qualitative? and What is qualitative research good for? -greg On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:33 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, CLR James brings a very unique reading to Hegel's Logic. I have > transcribed only excerpts from it: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 5/11/2018 7:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James?s Notes on Dialectics: > Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were of course the mainstay of the > ?Johnston Forest? Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the > State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the USSR. Notes on > Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin on Hegel > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden > *Sent:* 04 November 2018 02:02 > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start > doctoral students? > > > > Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though > self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of > Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at > a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of > Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical > Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel > merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without > translation! > > The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by Lenin > in 1914: > > ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's *Capital*, and > especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and > understood the *whole* of Hegel's *Logic*. Consequently, half a century > later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! > > ? > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a > > and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and > Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of > "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East > European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. > > The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now > a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: > > Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that > Carol Gould?s book is available online: > > > > Gould, C. C. (1978). *Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community > in Marx?s theory of social relations*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > > > > > > > > I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx > Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book > defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: > > My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a > method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's > analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual > dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical > form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and > development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the > other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are > themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, > > My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a > logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is > real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by > their activity. > > Martin > > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was > only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of > "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. > Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's > reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's > formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which > CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (*Die Lehre > vom Sein*) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." > Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the > *Phenomenology*, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of > the Logic. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without > the attachments just in case someone is watching... > > They should be publicly accessible. > > (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, > behold the power of Google!). > > > > Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it > has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. > Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx > imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of > it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable > with all readings of Marx. > > > > -greg > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Greg Thompson* > Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral > students? > To: Beth Ferholt > > > > Beth, > > > > This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some > interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html > > > > I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well > as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an > early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. > > > > Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). > > > > And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that > really seems to be a very smart approach: > > > https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false > > > > I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. > I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has > "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might > be of interest depending on your students' projects: > > https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple > > > > Best of luck! > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > > Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list > already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks > so much, Beth > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's > Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: > > 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm > 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 > 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific > Revolutions > https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm > > Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? > Andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > > I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and > wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who > will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability > of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. > > > > I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value > of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, > not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. > > > > If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and > "reliability". > > > > Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have > some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they > teach a methods class? > > > > Thanks! > > Beth > -- > > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > > Brooklyn, NY 11210 > > -2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > > > > > -- > > 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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181105/5a186da8/attachment.html From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Mon Nov 5 06:25:33 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: <1998441876.1709374.1541427933318@mail.yahoo.com> >From method of political economy whichCHAT people like to quote from: Along the first path the full conception was evaporated to yield an abstractdetermination; along the second, the abstract determinations lead towards areproduction of the concrete by way of thought. In this way Hegel fell into the illusionof conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probingits own depths, and unfolding itself out of itself, by itself, whereas the methodof rising from the abstract to the concrete is only the way in which thoughtappropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. [[But this isby no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being.]] Forexample, the simplest economic category, say e.g. exchange value, presupposespopulation, moreover a population producing in specific relations; as well asa certain kind of family, or commune, or state, etc. It can never exist otherthan as an abstract, one-sided relation within an already given, concrete, livingwhole. As a category, by contrast, exchange value leads an antediluvian existence.Therefore, to the kind of consciousness ? and this is characteristic of thephilosophical consciousness ? [[for which conceptual thinking is the real humanbeing, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only reality]], [[themovement of the categories **appears** as the real act of production ? which only,unfortunately, receives a jolt from the outside ? whose product is the world; and? but this is again a tautology ? this is correct in so far as the concretetotality is a totality of thoughts, concrete in thought, in fact a product of thinking andcomprehending; but not in any way a product of the concept which thinks andgenerates itself Karl Marx ? 34 ? outside or above observation and conception; a product, [[rather,of the working-up of observation and conception into concepts.]] [[The totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head,which appropriates the world in the only way it can, a way differentfrom the artistic, religious, practical and mental appropriation of this world.]] [[[Thereal subject retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before]]];namely as long as the head?s conduct is merely speculative, merelytheoretical.]]] **[[Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always bekept in mind as the presupposition.]]** *THE CONCEPT IS NO MORE REAL THAN REAL* Haydi On Monday, November 5, 2018, 4:08:36 PM GMT+3:30, Greg Thompson wrote: Beth,I too would happily second Martin Packer's book The Science of Qualitative Research. Really excellent explanation of what qualitative research is all about.?I wrote a review of it for Theory and Psychology and which is up on my Academia page.?Really excellent option if you are interested in getting into the history and if you'd like them to have a good answer to the questions: Why qualitative? and What is qualitative research good for?-greg? On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:33 AM Andy Blunden wrote: Yes, CLR James brings a very unique reading to Hegel's Logic. I have transcribed only excerpts from it: https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 5/11/2018 7:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James?s Notes on Dialectics: Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were of course the mainstay of the ?Johnston Forest? Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the USSR. Notes on Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin on Hegel ? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 04 November 2018 02:02 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? ? Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without translation! The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by Lenin in 1914: ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's?Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the?whole?of Hegel's?Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!? https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: ? Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ? ? I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by their activity.? Martin ? ? On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: ? I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching...? They should be publicly accessible. (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). ? Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. ? -greg ? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Greg Thompson Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? To: Beth Ferholt ? Beth, ? This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html ? I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. ? Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). ? And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false ? I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple ? Best of luck! -greg ? ? ? On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: - The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm - Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 - And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. ? I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. ? If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability".? ? Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? ? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 ? ? ? -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor,?Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 ? ? -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson ? ? ? -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball TowerBrigham Young UniversityProvo, UT 84602WEBSITE: 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/20181105/10f3ecf2/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Mon Nov 5 06:55:13 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: It?s kind of you to say this, Greg. Let me mention that the second edition has been extended (for example it now includes a discussion of the various phases of Latour?s work) and includes an additional chapter that gets into the ?how to? of QR, through a detailed examination of Loic Wacquant?s research in South Chicago. A Spanish translation of this second edition will soon by published by Uniandes Press. Martin > On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:37 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Beth, > I too would happily second Martin Packer's book The Science of Qualitative Research. Really excellent explanation of what qualitative research is all about. > I wrote a review of it for Theory and Psychology and which is up on my Academia page. > Really excellent option if you are interested in getting into the history and if you'd like them to have a good answer to the questions: Why qualitative? and What is qualitative research good for? > -greg > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:33 AM Andy Blunden > wrote: > Yes, CLR James brings a very unique reading to Hegel's Logic. I have transcribed only excerpts from it: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 5/11/2018 7:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: >> Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James?s Notes on Dialectics: Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were of course the mainstay of the ?Johnston Forest? Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the USSR. Notes on Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin on Hegel >> >> >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 04 November 2018 02:02 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? >> >> >> >> Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without translation! >> >> The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by Lenin in 1914: >> >> ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's?Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the?whole?of Hegel's?Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! ? >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a >> >> and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. >> >> The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). >> >> Andy >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: >> >> Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that Carol Gould?s book is available online: >> >> >> >> Gould, C. C. (1978). Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and community in Marx?s theory of social relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: >> >> My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, >> >> My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality by their activity. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> >> >> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (Die Lehre vom Sein) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface to the Phenomenology, already mentioned, and implemented in the first book of the Logic. >> >> Andy >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without the attachments just in case someone is watching... >> >> They should be publicly accessible. >> >> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, behold the power of Google!). >> >> >> >> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable with all readings of Marx. >> >> >> >> -greg >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Greg Thompson > >> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? >> To: Beth Ferholt < bferholt@gmail.com > >> >> >> >> Beth, >> >> >> >> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >> >> >> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his position. >> >> >> >> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). >> >> >> >> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that really seems to be a very smart approach: >> >> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >> >> >> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might be of interest depending on your students' projects: >> >> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >> >> >> Best of luck! >> >> -greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt < bferholt@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> The first chapter of Thinking and Speech https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> Marx's Method of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < bferholt@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >> >> >> >> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >> >> >> >> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". >> >> >> >> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Beth >> -- >> >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210 -2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181105/a9288526/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Nov 5 15:33:46 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 23:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: Asking the question "What is Science?" goes beyond the explicit concerns of any particular scientific practice to the concerns of implicit factors in these undertakings. An important factor in the implicit concerns, which especially takes on an explicit concern in attempts to unify science, is a concern for systems. The study of systems, however, is a rich conceptual field in its own right. There are numerous kinds of systems and ways of formulating them. Systems can also be considered in parallel with cognitive complexity, which is part of my own research interest. This then leads to the necessary circumstance of recognising that science may be approached at various levels of complexity or sophistication. The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology) positions the systemic sophistication at a low rung in the ladder of systemic complexity or richness. The problem is not that the entry is at a low level, but rather that so much of social science is stuck or hamstrung at this level. A significant versatility may be achieved in reading between the lines of descriptive accounts and statistical accounts by studying the underlying phenomena as systems. This is the point about Vygotsky's summative statement regarding "systems and their fate" as the alpha and omega of their work (1997). The commendation to take Vygotsky's "Thinking and Speech" as a primer serves an example into various kinds of systemic formulations and studies (but one would need to inquire quite consciously into that to see it). Another aspect to this inquiry is whether you are interested in the rituals or trappings of science or the process of innovation in doing it. If you take a view similar to Peirce, then one might argue that the unfettered enquiry into knowledge is representative of "true science", suggestive that it is more a commitment and an attitude rather than a particular set of methods etc. Best, Huw On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 14:57, Martin Packer wrote: > It?s kind of you to say this, Greg. Let me mention that the second edition > has been extended (for example it now includes a discussion of the various > phases of Latour?s work) and includes an additional chapter that gets into > the ?how to? of QR, through a detailed examination of Loic Wacquant?s > research in South Chicago. A Spanish translation of this second edition > will soon by published by Uniandes Press. > > Martin > > > > On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:37 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > Beth, > I too would happily second Martin Packer's book The Science of Qualitative > Research. Really excellent explanation of what qualitative research is all > about. > I wrote a review of it for Theory and Psychology and which is up on my > Academia page. > Really excellent option if you are interested in getting into the history > and if you'd like them to have a good answer to the questions: Why > qualitative? and What is qualitative research good for? > -greg > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:33 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Yes, CLR James brings a very unique reading to Hegel's Logic. I have >> transcribed only excerpts from it: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 5/11/2018 7:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: >> >> Along with Dunayevskaya we must put C L R James?s Notes on Dialectics: >> Hegel Marx Lenin. James and Dunayevskaya were of course the mainstay of the >> ?Johnston Forest? Tendency(?) They broke from Trotsky in support of the >> State Capitalist v Workers State understanding of the USSR. Notes on >> Dialectics is in part a commentary on Lenin on Hegel >> >> >> >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden >> *Sent:* 04 November 2018 02:02 >> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start >> doctoral students? >> >> >> >> Yes, Martin, Marx and Hegel can both be counted as Aristotleans, though >> self-evidently only "in a certain way." Hegel was so much an admirer of >> Aristotle that Aristotle is the only great philosopher who is not pinned at >> a certain finite point in the "unfolding of the Idea" in Hegel's History of >> Philosophy, and at the completion of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical >> Sciences, when it comes full circle to a fully reconstructed Being, Hegel >> merely quotes a passage from Aristotle in the original Greek, without >> translation! >> >> The restoration of Hegel to his proper place in Marxism was begun by >> Lenin in 1914: >> >> ?It is impossible completely to understand Marx's *Capital*, and >> especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and >> understood the *whole* of Hegel's *Logic*. Consequently, half a century >> later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! >> >> ? >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_180a >> >> and continued via Korsch and Lukacs, the early Frankfurt School and >> Dunayevskaya. It was given a particular boost with the emergence of >> "Marxist Humanism" (in opposition to Althusser's structuralism and the East >> European Stalinist bureaucracies) from Eastern Europe in the 1960s. >> >> The origins of Marx's philosophical (not political) views in Hegel is now >> a commonplace which only the blind do not see (if they bother to look). >> >> Andy >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 4/11/2018 3:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: >> >> Andy, thinking about your question I went aGooglin? and discovered that >> Carol Gould?s book is available online: >> >> >> >> Gould, C. C. (1978). *Marx?s social ontology: Individuality and >> community in Marx?s theory of social relations*. Cambridge, MA: MIT >> Press. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I hadn?t noticed when first reading this book that Gould credits Marx >> Wartofsky for his help developing the theoretical framework. The book >> defends five theses; she summarizes the first two as follows: >> >> My first thesis is that Marx uses Hegel's dialectical logic both as a >> method of inquiry and as a logic of history. That is, not only is Marx's >> analysis ordered in accordance with a Hegelian dialectic, but the actual >> dcvelopment of historical stages itself is seen to have such a dialectical >> form.!Thus, on the one hand, Marx derives the specific structure and >> development of social forms from the concepts of these forms, but, on the >> other hand, he sees this derivation as possible because the concepts are >> themselves abstracted from the concrete social developmenL, >> >> My second thesis is that in construing Hegel's logic of concepts also as >> a logic of social reality, Marx becomes an Aristotelian. He holds that it >> is real, concretely existing individuals who constitute this social reality >> by their activity. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> >> >> I think it would be more true to say that in Marx's day "Ontology" was >> only used in the non-countable form; the countable (i.e. plural) form of >> "Ontology" is a product I think of the second half of the 20th Century. >> Martin? can you pinpoint it? I think that Marx agreed with Hegel's >> reduction of Ontology to Logic, though he also had differences over Hegel's >> formulation of it - the famous "Method of Political Economy" passage which >> CHAT people like to quote, explains it. Hegel's "Ontology" (*Die Lehre >> vom Sein*) is usually translated into English as "The Doctrine of >> Being." Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic is explained in the Preface >> to the *Phenomenology*, already mentioned, and implemented in the first >> book of the Logic. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 3/11/2018 3:28 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> I sent the following message off-line to Beth. I'll send it here without >> the attachments just in case someone is watching... >> >> They should be publicly accessible. >> >> (and funny that Wagner also happened across the same book that I did, >> behold the power of Google!). >> >> >> >> Wagner, simple story with ontology, in anthropology at least, is that it >> has been pluralized so that people now speak of different ontologies. >> Science is just one of them. In many ways this is anti-Marxist since Marx >> imagined just one ontology (and science was going to get to the bottom of >> it!), but I'd like to think that this move isn't entirely irreconcilable >> with all readings of Marx. >> >> >> >> -greg >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Greg Thompson* >> Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral >> students? >> To: Beth Ferholt < bferholt@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> Beth, >> >> >> >> This may be more than you bargained for but Latour has been doing some >> interesting thinking/writing on this issue, reported secondarily here: >> >> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html >> >> >> >> I have also attached his essay Why has critique run out of steam? (as >> well as the intro from Pandora's Hope "Do you believe in reality?") which >> was an early articulation of this particular (re)articulation of his >> position. >> >> >> >> Goodwin's Professional Vision also comes to mind (also attached). >> >> >> >> And for kicks, I just googled your question and found this book that >> really seems to be a very smart approach: >> >> >> >> https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s13tBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=what+is+science%3F&ots=hG7y6xF0gy&sig=DNMs__6vnoZUvXbOelWC8DcL4ns#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20science%3F&f=false >> >> >> >> I was thinking of "rigorous storytelling" as one answer to your question. >> I googled and found that I've already been outdone - Susan Porter has >> "triple-rigorous storytelling" based on her work with food justice. Might >> be of interest depending on your students' projects: >> >> >> https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/fd-triple >> >> >> >> Best of luck! >> >> -greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:33 AM Beth Ferholt < >> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Great. Kuhn and Thinking and Speech are two of the few things on my list >> already and I?ll start reading the other two, sensible or no, now! Thanks >> so much, Beth >> >> On Thursday, November 1, 2018, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Beth, much as a part of me would like to recommend the Preface to Hegel's >> Phenomenology, being sensible I would still recommend: >> >> 1. The first chapter of Thinking and Speech >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch01.htm >> 2. Marx's Method of Political Economy >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 >> 3. And they should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions >> >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm >> >> Who knows? You might be fostering an original thinker? >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 1/11/2018 11:43 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt < >> bferholt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >> >> >> >> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value >> of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, >> not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >> >> >> >> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >> "reliability". >> >> >> >> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have >> some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >> teach a methods class? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Beth >> -- >> >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> >> Brooklyn, NY 11210 >> >> -2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181105/f8c1444a/attachment-0001.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Nov 6 06:59:29 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:59:29 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? Martin > On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology)... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181106/50808c9c/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Nov 6 08:22:30 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 16:22:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the thread. Huw On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer wrote: > And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? > > Martin > > > > > On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and > quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their > implicit ontology)... > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181106/d9055d06/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Nov 6 12:11:34 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:11:34 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! :) Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type of social science does not deal directly and immediately with the social life-world common to us all, but with skillfully and expediently chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is "a fictional nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies and methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis ?lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 12(2), 121-141. Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and how they are assembled. On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology). So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the thread. > > Huw > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer > wrote: > And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? > > Martin > > > > >> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> >> The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology)... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181106/d44ccc02/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Nov 6 16:47:43 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:47:43 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: Interesting, Martin. Purely as an aside (time for my Hegel observation), what Hegel calls his "Ontology", i.e., the first Book of the Logic, is the dialectic of Quality. Quantity and Measure. It is what I call "the observer standpoint," and is thoroughly quantitative. (The quantities must of course be quantities *of something* so that is why the first category is Quality, not Quantity). The rest of the Logic is, on the other hand, characterised by *self-consciousness*, not *observation*. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 7/11/2018 7:11 AM, Martin Packer wrote: > Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that > xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! :) > > Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this > is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for > example) is generally taught as experimental design and > hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical > positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered > ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so > unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative > research pay little or no attention to ontology. The > result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions > are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, > quantitative researchers believe (as the logical > positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally > define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to > decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or > a woman? > > The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained > about: "this type of social science does not deal > directly and immediately with the social life-world common > to us all, but with skillfully and expediently > chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social > world.? The result is "a fictional nonexisting world > constructed by the scientific observer.? > > Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the > worldwide social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous > commitments to the policies and methods of formal analysis > and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the > statistical and formal models built by formal > analysis ?lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? > > I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, > in my view, making essentially the same point, but the > listserv rejects it: > > Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. > /Philosophy of the Social Sciences/, /12/(2), 121-141. > > Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in > the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore > the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s > to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and > how they are assembled. > > On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of > qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I > argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the > ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches > assume that the natural sciences study matter > (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind > (subjectivity). > > The book develops an argument for escaping from this > dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human > being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a > historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to > do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? > in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have > distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - > that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live > in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different > ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. > Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument > about the different institutions in which all of us live - > that each institution has its distinct mode of existence > (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology). > > So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it > would be that qualitative research provides a way for > psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move > beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. > > 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd >> > > wrote: >> >> Best to leave that for the time being, no point >> overcomplicating the thread. >> >> Huw >> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer >> > wrote: >> >> And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> The problem that I was responding to before >>> regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is >>> that the adoption of these labels (and their >>> implicit ontology)... >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181107/76ea78e3/attachment.html From Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn Tue Nov 6 17:34:15 2018 From: Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn (Adam Poole (16517826)) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:34:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> , Message-ID: An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find this out as I have been publishing papers on International education from my doctorate (which I am going to defend in December). As part of this experience, I have found that: The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said! Qualitative researchers need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive researchers because notions of positivism (validity, generalizability, etc) are normalized and therefore do not require explication. However, your typically journal article does not provide enough room for qualitative researches to justify themselves. Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house ontology' in order to get the work out there. An issue I have found is that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If the work does not conform to their framework - if there is ontological dissonance - the work is likely to be rejected or heavily critiqued, leading to substantial rewrites that change the essential nature of the paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the reader. This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is also inextricably linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or legitimize research, depending on where you stand. Ideally, it would be possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control. So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read yesterday and really like) that it is imperative to develop ontologies that do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little space for reflective/reflexive writing. Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to publishing. Adam ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer Sent: 07 November 2018 04:11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! :) Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type of social science does not deal directly and immediately with the social life-world common to us all, but with skillfully and expediently chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is "a fictional nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies and methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis ?lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 12(2), 121-141. Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and how they are assembled. On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology). So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the thread. Huw On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer > wrote: And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? Martin On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology)... This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181107/14e633cb/attachment.html From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Wed Nov 7 03:22:42 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <720dde08-9298-4af7-c2df-166243f76ffd@marxists.org> <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> Message-ID: <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is the whole thing!Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and making the last quote easier: Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as said here also , [Material] Human Beings living and Acting in their respective Material Surrounding out of which process Social Relations arise which in their turn , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , ideas of the Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) which make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural Hard sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , electrons neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract or Hegelian (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies (the World which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some esteemed scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which is O.K. and in full respect.) This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote by "**[[Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition.]]**" Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor the sciences which arise from them.? Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of Mind/Thinking have the same Ontology as the Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the beginning of the worry! In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , but no imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep people in waiting for just a single evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel in full clarity and stance with quite indubious remarks: The best of the very Marx for Hegel: FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, butis its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which,under the name of ?the Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the [[real]] world, and the real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of ?the Idea.? With me, on thecontrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the [[human mind]], andtranslated into forms of thought. The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago,at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of ?DasKapital,? it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? [Epigones ? B?chner, D?hring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the braveMoses Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I [[therefore]] openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in thechapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. Themystification which dialectic suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him from being [[the first topresent its general 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) formof working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing onits head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernelwithin the mystical shell. FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF POLITICALECONOMY But do not these simpler categories also have an independenthistorical or natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones?That depends. Hegel, for example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right withpossession, this being the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there isno possession preceding the family or master-servant relations, which are farmore concrete relations. It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationshipsof men can be derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence ofman, Man. This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himselfconfesses at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has consideredthe progress of the concept only" and has represented in history the"true theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producersof the "concept", to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, andone comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such,have at all times been dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, alreadyexpressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit inhistory (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to the following threeefforts. Critique: "humans create themselves out ofnothing" Far from it being true that "out of nothing" I makemyself, for example, a "[public] speaker", the nothing which formsthe basis here is a very manifold something, the real individual, his speechorgans, a definite stage of physical development, an existing language anddialects, ears capable of hearing and a human environment from which it ispossible to hear something, etc., etc. therefore, in the development of aproperty something is created by something out of something, and by no meanscomes, as in Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. [Th. I.Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 BestHaydi?? On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: #yiv8768114792 #yiv8768114792 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv8768114792 An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find this out as I have been publishing papers on International education?from my doctorate?(which I am going to defend in December). As part of this?experience, I have found that: The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said!?Qualitative?researchers need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive researchers?because notions of positivism (validity,?generalizability, etc) are?normalized and therefore do not require explication.?However, your typically journal article does not?provide enough room for qualitative researches to justify themselves.? Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house ontology' in order to get the work out there.?An issue I have found is that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If the work does not conform to their framework -?if there is?ontological dissonance -?the?work is likely to be rejected or heavily?critiqued, leading to substantial?rewrites that change the essential?nature of the paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the reader.?? This is all a roundabout way to say that?ontology is also inextricably linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or legitimize research, depending on?where you stand. Ideally, it would be possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control.? So whilst?I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read yesterday and really like) that it?is imperative to develop ontologies that do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little space for reflective/reflexive writing. ? Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to publishing. Adam? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer Sent: 07 November 2018 04:11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students??Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! ?:) Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type of social science does not deal directly?and immediately with the social life-world common to us all, but with skillfully?and expediently chosen?idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is "a?fictional?nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide social?science movement??with its??ubiquitous commitments to the policies and?methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis??lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences,12(2), 121-141. ?Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and how they are assembled. On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology).? So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the thread. Huw On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer wrote: And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? Martin On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology)... This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181107/f6c1a23d/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Nov 7 04:10:43 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 23:10:43 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> References: <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the real significance, of what people say often differs from what they say of themselves and their protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my first reading of Marx in 1967. But you are justified in examining what I do and say, rather than taking me at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the well-known criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We also know that he praised Hegel and made criticisms of "the materialists." But the point is to examine the content of his action and in particular his scientific writing. "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is modelled on Hegel's Logic. Marx tells us this in the famous passage (/Method of Political Economy/) where he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know of. As you point out, he went on to make some crucially important criticisms of Hegel in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx is not = Hegel. There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes from Hegel and elements which are in opposition to Hegel's approach. I tried to make this crystal clear in my little article https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf . The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with materialist ontology as it would have been known in the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology of positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which arose from the crisis of natural science at that time which put an end to naive realism. Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in the /Philosophy of Right/) and methodologically also at odds with Hegel in that it was not speculative but had a significant streak of empiricism in it. (I describe this in https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf ). If you look at the MIA Library https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run your eye down the first 80% of so of the writers listed there. Almost all of these writers declared themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and yet you will see a very wide spectrum of views here. No-one has the last word here. My conviction that Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not lightly arrived at. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: > Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is > the whole thing! > Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and > making the last quote easier: > > Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as > said here also , [Material] Human Beings living and Acting > in their respective Material Surrounding out of which > process Social Relations arise which in their turn , give > birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , > ideas of the Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in > Bibler's terminology) which make Real?? Cosmologies (of > course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural Hard > sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , > electrons neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , > planets , etc. in their abstract or Hegelian (concrete as > Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies (the World > which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some > esteemed scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to > claim existence) which is O.K. and in full respect.) > > This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote > by "**[[Hence, in > the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must > always be kept in mind as > the presupposition.]]**" > > Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor > the sciences which arise from them. > > Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of > Mind/Thinking have the same Ontology as the Ontology of > the Substantial/Material/Corporeal Universe does but > ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the > beginning of the worry! > > In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , > but no imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep > people in waiting for just a single evidence to one's Big > Claim :-)). > > Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel > in full clarity and stance with quite indubious remarks: > > The best of the very Marx for Hegel: > > FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: > > My dialectic method is not only different from the > Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, > the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of > thinking, which, under the name of ?the > Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is > the demiurgos of the [[real]] world, and the > real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of > ?the Idea.? With me, on the contrary, the > ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by > the [[human mind]], and translated into > forms of thought. > The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised > nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was > still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first > volume of ?Das Kapital,? it was the good > pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? > [Epigones ? B?chner, D?hring and others] > who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in > same way as the brave Moses > Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a > ?dead dog.? I [[therefore]] openly avowed > myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and > there, in the chapter on the theory of > value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to > him. The mystification which dialectic > suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him > from being [[the first to present its general > 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) > form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. > With him it is standing on its head. It > must be turned right side up again, if you would discover > the rational kernel within the mystical > shell. > > > FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF > POLITICAL ECONOMY > > But do not these simpler categories also have an > independent historical or > natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? That > depends. Hegel, for > example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right with > possession, this being > the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there is no > possession preceding > the family or master-servant relations, which are far more > concrete relations. > > > > > It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships > of men can be derived from the concept of man, man as > conceived, the essence of man, Man. This has been done by > the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses at > the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has > considered the progress of the concept only" and has > represented in history the "true theodicy". (p.446.) Now > one can go back again to the producers of the "concept", > to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one > comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the > thinkers as such, have at all times been dominant in > history: a conclusion, as we see, already expressed by > Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the > spirit in history (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus > confirmed to the following three efforts. > > Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" Far > from it being true that "out of nothing" I make myself, > for example, a "[public] speaker", the nothing which forms > the basis here is a very manifold something, the real > individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of > physical development, an existing language and dialects, > ears capable of hearing and a human environment from which > it is possible to hear something, etc., etc. therefore, in > the development of a property something is created by > something out of something, and by no means comes, as in > Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. > [Th. I. Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 > > Best > Haydi > > > > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam > Poole (16517826) wrote: > > > > An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role > that ontology plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many > disciplines and journals (though thankfully, from my > experience, not MCA). I have started to find this out as I > have been publishing papers on International > education from my doctorate (which I am going to defend in > December). As part of this experience, I have found that: > > > The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged > discussion of ontology due to length restrictions. So much > of what is fundamental to research is left unsaid, but > really needs to be said! Qualitative researchers need to > justify themselves more substantially than quantitive > researchers because notions of positivism > (validity, generalizability, etc) are normalized and > therefore do not require explication. However, your > typically journal article does not provide enough room for > qualitative researches to justify themselves. > > > Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like > funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform > to a certain 'house ontology' in order to get the work out > there. An issue I have found is that reviewer's can impose > their ontology onto the writer - that is, their implicit > assumptions about reality function as a framework for > understanding and most significantly evaluating the work > before them. If the work does not conform to their > framework - if there is ontological dissonance - the work > is likely to be rejected or heavily critiqued, leading to > substantial rewrites that change the essential nature of > the paper. On the other side, writers also impose their > ontology onto the reader. > > > This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is also > inextricably linked to power, and takes on dialogic and > discursive dimensions. Essentially, ontology can be > invoked by either side as a way to demonize or legitimize > research, depending on where you stand. Ideally, it would > be possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking > dualism functions as a convenient mechanism for > gatekeeping and control. > > > So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book I > started to read yesterday and really like) that it is > imperative to develop ontologies that do not split > researchers into partisan camps, actually making this > happen is problematic, not least of all because the > journal article itself (which I would argue is the > paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend > itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic > one: paywalls, limited space in journals, pressure to > publish, and suddenly ontological idealism is compromised. > I do think a new form of academic paper needs to be > developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to > bring out our ontological and epistemological assumptions. > The standard 6000ish words, intro methods, findings, > discussion, conclusion structure leaves little space for > reflective/reflexive writing. > > > Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in > relation to publishing. > > > Adam > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin > Packer > *Sent:* 07 November 2018 04:11:34 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where > to start doctoral students? > > Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that > xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! :) > > Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this > is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for > example) is generally taught as experimental design and > hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical > positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered > ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so > unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative > research pay little or no attention to ontology. The > result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions > are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, > quantitative researchers believe (as the logical > positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally > define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to > decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or > a woman? > > The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained > about: "this type of social science does not deal > directly and immediately with the social life-world common > to us all, but with skillfully and expediently > chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social > world.? The result is "a fictional nonexisting world > constructed by the scientific observer.? > > Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the > worldwide social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous > commitments to the policies and methods of formal analysis > and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the > statistical and formal models built by formal > analysis ?lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? > > I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, > in my view, making essentially the same point, but the > listserv rejects it: > > Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. > /Philosophy of the Social Sciences/, /12/(2), 121-141. > > Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in > the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore > the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s > to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and > how they are assembled. > > On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of > qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I > argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the > ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches > assume that the natural sciences study matter > (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind > (subjectivity). > > The book develops an argument for escaping from this > dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human > being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a > historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to > do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? > in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have > distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - > that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live > in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different > ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. > Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument > about the different institutions in which all of us live - > that each institution has its distinct mode of existence > (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology). > > So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it > would be that qualitative research provides a way for > psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move > beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. > > 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd >> > > wrote: >> >> Best to leave that for the time being, no point >> overcomplicating the thread. >> >> Huw >> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer >> > wrote: >> >> And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> The problem that I was responding to before >>> regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is >>> that the adoption of these labels (and their >>> implicit ontology)... >> > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for > the addressee and may contain confidential information. If > you have received this message in error, please send it > back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, > copy or disclose the information contained in this message > or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by > the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the > views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This > message has been checked for viruses but the contents of > an attachment may still contain software viruses which > could damage your computer system: you are advised to > perform your own checks. Email communications with The > University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as > permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181107/fbe769f3/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Nov 7 13:55:36 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:55:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Andy, I'm interested in the conversation but have very little time to read or dig or do anything other than quickly skim. I was just wondering if you could provide a little bit of the explanation/background for this argument (of yours): "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in the *Philosophy of Right*)" It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from what I would have thought/said about it. So I suspect that I have something to learn... If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be. -greg On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the real significance, of > what people say often differs from what they say of themselves and their > protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my first reading of Marx > in 1967. But you are justified in examining what I do and say, rather than > taking me at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the well-known > criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We also know that he praised Hegel > and made criticisms of "the materialists." But the point is to examine the > content of his action and in particular his scientific writing. > > "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is modelled on Hegel's Logic. > Marx tells us this in the famous passage (*Method of Political Economy*) > where he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know of. As you > point out, he went on to make some crucially important criticisms of Hegel > in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx is not = > Hegel. > > There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes from Hegel and > elements which are in opposition to Hegel's approach. I tried to make this > crystal clear in my little article > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf . > > The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with materialist ontology as > it would have been known in the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology > of positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which arose from > the crisis of natural science at that time which put an end to naive > realism. Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as > elaborated in the *Philosophy of Right*) and methodologically also at > odds with Hegel in that it was not speculative but had a significant streak > of empiricism in it. (I describe this in > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf > ). > > If you look at the MIA Library https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm > and run your eye down the first 80% of so of the writers listed there. > Almost all of these writers declared themselves "Marxists" (not the last > 20% or so) and yet you will see a very wide spectrum of views here. No-one > has the last word here. My conviction that Marxists have much to learn from > Hegel was not lightly arrived at. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: > > Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is the whole thing! > Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and making the last > quote easier: > > Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as said here also , > [Material] Human Beings living and Acting in their respective Material > Surrounding out of which process Social Relations arise which in their turn > , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , ideas of the > Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) which > make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural > Hard sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , electrons > neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract > or Hegelian (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies > (the World which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some esteemed > scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which is > O.K. and in full respect.) > > This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote by "**[[Hence, > in > the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in > mind as > the presupposition.]]**" > > Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor the sciences which > arise from them. > > Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of Mind/Thinking have > the same Ontology as the Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal > Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the > beginning of the worry! > > In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , but no > imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep people in waiting for > just a single evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). > > Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel in full clarity > and stance with quite indubious remarks: > > The best of the very Marx for Hegel: > > FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: > > My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its > direct opposite. To Hegel, > the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, > under the name of ?the > Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of > the [[real]] world, and the > real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of ?the Idea.? With > me, on the contrary, the > ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the [[human > mind]], and translated into > forms of thought. > The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years > ago, at a time when it was > still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of ?Das > Kapital,? it was the good > pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? [Epigones ? B?chner, > D?hring and others] > who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the > brave Moses > Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I > [[therefore]] openly avowed > myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the > chapter on the theory of > value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The > mystification which dialectic > suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him from being [[the > first to present its general > 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) > form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is > standing on its head. It > must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational > kernel within the mystical > shell. > > FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY > > But do not these simpler categories also have an independent historical or > natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? That depends. Hegel, > for > example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right with possession, this > being > the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there is no possession > preceding > the family or master-servant relations, which are far more concrete > relations. > > > > It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships of men can be > derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. > This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses > at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the > progress of the concept only" and has represented in history the "true > theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producers of the > "concept", to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one comes > then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such, have at > all times been dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, already > expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit > in history (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to the following > three efforts. > > Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" Far from it being true > that "out of nothing" I make myself, for example, a "[public] speaker", the > nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold something, the real > individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of physical development, an > existing language and dialects, ears capable of hearing and a human > environment from which it is possible to hear something, etc., etc. > therefore, in the development of a property something is created by > something out of something, and by no means comes, as in Hegel's Logic , > from nothing, through nothing to nothing. [Th. I. Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 > Best > Haydi > > > > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam Poole (16517826) > wrote: > > > > An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology > plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals > (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find > this out as I have been publishing papers on International education from > my doctorate (which I am going to defend in December). As part of this > experience, I have found that: > > > The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of > ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to > research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said! Qualitative researchers > need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive > researchers because notions of positivism (validity, generalizability, etc) > are normalized and therefore do not require explication. However, your > typically journal article does not provide enough room for qualitative > researches to justify themselves. > > > Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding > agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house > ontology' in order to get the work out there. An issue I have found is > that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their > implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for > understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If > the work does not conform to their framework - if there is ontological > dissonance - the work is likely to be rejected or heavily critiqued, > leading to substantial rewrites that change the essential nature of the > paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the > reader. > > > This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is also inextricably > linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. > Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or > legitimize research, depending on where you stand. Ideally, it would be > possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions > as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control. > > > So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read > yesterday and really like) that it is imperative to develop ontologies that > do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen > is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which > I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend > itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, > limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological > idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to > be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our > ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, > intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little > space for reflective/reflexive writing. > > > Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to > publishing. > > > Adam > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin Packer > > *Sent:* 07 November 2018 04:11:34 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start > doctoral students? > > Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too much > about overcomplicating a thread! :) > > Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in > the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as > experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the > logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered > ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. > Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention > to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions > are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers > believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can > ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide > what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? > > The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type of > social science does not deal directly and immediately with the social > life-world common to us all, but with skillfully and expediently > chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is > "a fictional nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? > > Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide > social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies > and methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He > saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis ?lose > the very phenomenon that they profess.? > > I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, > making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: > > Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. *Philosophy of > the Social Sciences*, *12*(2), 121-141. > > Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of > their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they > are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are > and how they are assembled. > > On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative > research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large > Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that > researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and > so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). > > The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, > and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that > Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try > to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in > anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct > cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have > different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply > have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. > Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different > institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its > distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct > ontology). > > So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that > qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other > social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. > > 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the > thread. > > Huw > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer wrote: > > And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? > > Martin > > > > > On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and > quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their > implicit ontology)... > > > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and > may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in > error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not > use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any > attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do > not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo > China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your > computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email > communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be > monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > > > -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181107/85baba23/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Nov 7 18:18:23 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:18:23 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <859dcd16-c1d7-175d-793f-16a27dd7ac8e@marxists.org> <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: See https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PRn62 Hegel sees need (i.e., use-value) as the determinant of need. Although later he says that a commodity cannot have value unless it is the product of labour, he never suggests that the /quantity /of labour needed for its production determines value. Thus Hegel accepts the common sense view of things, that the value of a thing is determined by how useful it is. He did not see the contradiction in this claim. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/11/2018 8:55 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Andy, > I'm interested in the conversation but have very little > time to read or dig or do anything other than quickly > skim. I was just wondering if you could provide a little > bit of the explanation/background for this argument (of > yours): > "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's > (as elaborated in the /Philosophy of Right/)" > It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from > what I would have thought/said about it. So I suspect that > I have something to learn... > If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be. > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the > real significance, of what people say often differs > from what they say of themselves and their > protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my > first reading of Marx in 1967. But you are justified > in examining what I do and say, rather than taking me > at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the > well-known criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We > also know that he praised Hegel and made criticisms of > "the materialists." But the point is to examine the > content of his action and in particular his scientific > writing. > > "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is > modelled on Hegel's Logic. Marx tells us this in the > famous passage (/Method of Political Economy/) where > he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know > of. As you point out, he went on to make some > crucially important criticisms of Hegel in that same > passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx > is not = Hegel. > > There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes > from Hegel and elements which are in opposition to > Hegel's approach. I tried to make this crystal clear > in my little article > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf > . > > The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with > materialist ontology as it would have been known in > the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology of > positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries > which arose from the crisis of natural science at that > time which put an end to naive realism. Marx's theory > of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as > elaborated in the /Philosophy of Right/) and > methodologically also at odds with Hegel in that it > was not speculative but had a significant streak of > empiricism in it. (I describe this in > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf > ). > > If you look at the MIA Library > https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run > your eye down the first 80% of so of the writers > listed there. Almost all of these writers declared > themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and yet > you will see a very wide spectrum of views here. > No-one has the last word here. My conviction that > Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not lightly > arrived at. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: >> Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the >> discussion!This is the whole thing! >> Because if Marx is involved in his original writing >> and making the last quote easier: >> >> Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , >> as said here also , [Material] Human Beings living >> and Acting in their respective Material Surrounding >> out of which process Social Relations arise which in >> their turn , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , >> concepts and categories , ideas of the Idea , Logic >> and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) >> which make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as >> META-physics beyond Physical Natural Hard sciences as >> these latter sciences deal also with atoms , >> electrons neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , >> planets , etc. in their abstract or Hegelian >> (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? >> dependencies (the World which is outside Mind through >> Lenin's quote by some esteemed scholars and the >> World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which >> is O.K. and in full respect.) >> >> This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last >> quote by "**[[Hence, in >> the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, >> must always be kept in mind as >> the presupposition.]]**" >> >> Neither the Social Relations have independent Being >> nor the sciences which arise from them. >> >> Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of >> Mind/Thinking have the same Ontology as the Ontology >> of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal Universe does >> but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This >> was the beginning of the worry! >> >> In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" >> first , but no imposition on Marx the more so that >> one might keep people in waiting for just a single >> evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). >> >> Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards >> Hegel in full clarity and stance with quite indubious >> remarks: >> >> The best of the very Marx for Hegel: >> >> FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: >> >> My dialectic method is not only different from the >> Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, >> the life process of the human brain, i.e., the >> process of thinking, which, under the name of ?the >> Idea,? he even transforms into an independent >> subject, is the demiurgos of the [[real]] world, and the >> real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] >> of ?the Idea.? With me, on the contrary, the >> ideal is nothing else than the material world >> reflected by the [[human mind]], and translated into >> forms of thought. >> The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I >> criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was >> still the fashion. But just as I was working at the >> first volume of ?Das Kapital,? it was the good >> pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? >> [Epigones ? B?chner, D?hring and others] >> who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat >> Hegel in same way as the brave Moses >> Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., >> as a ?dead dog.? I [[therefore]] openly avowed >> myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even >> here and there, in the chapter on the theory of >> value, coquetted with the modes of expression >> peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic >> suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents >> him from being [[the first to present its general >> 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) >> form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious >> manner. With him it is standing on its head. It >> must be turned right side up again, if you would >> discover the rational kernel within the mystical >> shell. >> >> >> FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF >> POLITICAL ECONOMY >> >> But do not these simpler categories also have an >> independent historical or >> natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? >> That depends. Hegel, for >> example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right >> with possession, this being >> the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there >> is no possession preceding >> the family or master-servant relations, which are far >> more concrete relations. >> >> >> >> >> It follows then naturally, too, that all the >> relationships of men can be derived from the concept >> of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. >> This has been done by the speculative philosophers. >> Hegel himself confesses at the end of the >> Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the >> progress of the concept only" and has represented in >> history the "true theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go >> back again to the producers of the "concept", to the >> theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one >> comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, >> the thinkers as such, have at all times been dominant >> in history: a conclusion, as we see, already >> expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the >> hegemony of the spirit in history (hierarchy Stirner >> calls it) is thus confirmed to the following three >> efforts. >> >> Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" >> Far from it being true that "out of nothing" I make >> myself, for example, a "[public] speaker", the >> nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold >> something, the real individual, his speech organs, a >> definite stage of physical development, an existing >> language and dialects, ears capable of hearing and a >> human environment from which it is possible to hear >> something, etc., etc. therefore, in the development >> of a property something is created by something out >> of something, and by no means comes, as in Hegel's >> Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. >> [Th. I. Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 >> >> Best >> Haydi >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, >> Adam Poole (16517826) >> wrote: >> >> >> >> An interesting point to add to the discussion is the >> role that ontology plays as a tacit form of >> gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals (though >> thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have >> started to find this out as I have been publishing >> papers on International education from my >> doctorate (which I am going to defend in December). >> As part of this experience, I have found that: >> >> >> The journal article form does not lend itself to >> prolonged discussion of ontology due to length >> restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to >> research is left unsaid, but really needs to be >> said! Qualitative researchers need to justify >> themselves more substantially than quantitive >> researchers because notions of positivism >> (validity, generalizability, etc) are normalized and >> therefore do not require explication. However, your >> typically journal article does not provide enough >> room for qualitative researches to justify themselves. >> >> >> Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just >> like funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary >> to conform to a certain 'house ontology' in order to >> get the work out there. An issue I have found is that >> reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer >> - that is, their implicit assumptions about reality >> function as a framework for understanding and most >> significantly evaluating the work before them. If the >> work does not conform to their framework - if there >> is ontological dissonance - the work is likely to be >> rejected or heavily critiqued, leading to >> substantial rewrites that change the essential nature >> of the paper. On the other side, writers also impose >> their ontology onto the reader. >> >> >> This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is >> also inextricably linked to power, and takes on >> dialogic and discursive dimensions. Essentially, >> ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to >> demonize or legitimize research, depending on where >> you stand. Ideally, it would be possible to transcend >> dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions >> as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control. >> >> >> So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book >> I started to read yesterday and really like) that >> it is imperative to develop ontologies that do not >> split researchers into partisan camps, actually >> making this happen is problematic, not least of all >> because the journal article itself (which I would >> argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) >> does not lend itself to this endeavor. The issue is >> also an economic one: paywalls, limited space in >> journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly >> ontological idealism is compromised. I do think a new >> form of academic paper needs to be developed that can >> support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our >> ontological and epistemological assumptions. The >> standard 6000ish words, intro methods, findings, >> discussion, conclusion structure leaves little space >> for reflective/reflexive writing. >> >> >> Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in >> relation to publishing. >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> >> on behalf of >> Martin Packer >> >> *Sent:* 07 November 2018 04:11:34 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: >> Where to start doctoral students? >> >> Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that >> xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a >> thread! :) >> >> Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way >> this is construed in the social sciences, not in >> physics, for example) is generally taught as >> experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is >> largely the model the logical positivists laid out a >> hundred years ago. They considered ontological >> (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so >> unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative >> research pay little or no attention to ontology. The >> result is that the researcher?s ontological >> assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. >> After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the >> logical positivists taught them) that they can >> ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to >> say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or >> poverty, or a student, or a woman? >> >> The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained >> about: "this type of social science does not deal >> directly and immediately with the social life-world >> common to us all, but with skillfully and expediently >> chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social >> world.? The result is "a fictional nonexisting world >> constructed by the scientific observer.? >> >> Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected >> "the worldwide social science movement? with >> its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies >> and methods of formal analysis and general >> representational theorizing.? He saw that the >> statistical and formal models built by formal >> analysis ?lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? >> >> I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) >> that is, in my view, making essentially the same >> point, but the listserv rejects it: >> >> Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social >> science. /Philosophy of the Social Sciences/, >> /12/(2), 121-141. >> >> Typically, social scientists are completely caught >> up in the ontology of their discipline, and >> completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they >> are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what >> its constituents are and how they are assembled. >> >> On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology >> of qualitative research is the central theme of my >> book. I argue there that by and large Qual has bought >> into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that >> researches assume that the natural sciences study >> matter (objectivity), and so qualitative research >> must study mind (subjectivity). >> >> The book develops an argument for escaping from this >> dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to >> human being - a kind of research that Foucault called >> ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I >> try to do justice to what has been called the >> ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument that >> different cultures have distinct cosmologies, rather >> than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have >> different ontologies; they live in distinct >> realities; they don?t simply have different ways of >> conceptualizing a single underlying reality. Latour?s >> most recent work is making a similar argument about >> the different institutions in which all of us live - >> that each institution has its distinct mode of >> existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct >> ontology). >> >> So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, >> it would be that qualitative research provides a way >> for psychology (and perhaps the other social >> sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple >> ontologies. >> >> 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Best to leave that for the time being, no point >>> overcomplicating the thread. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer >>> > wrote: >>> >>> And what do you take their implicit ontology to >>> be, Huw? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem that I was responding to before >>>> regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels >>>> is that the adoption of these labels (and their >>>> implicit ontology)... >>> >> >> This message and any attachment are intended solely >> for the addressee and may contain confidential >> information. If you have received this message in >> error, please send it back to me, and immediately >> delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the >> information contained in this message or in any >> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the >> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the >> views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. >> This message has been checked for viruses but the >> contents of an attachment may still contain software >> viruses which could damage your computer system: you >> are advised to perform your own checks. Email >> communications with The University of Nottingham >> Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and >> Chinese legislation. > > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181108/ecce1fc2/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Nov 7 18:41:23 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:41:23 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02009d91-5721-fffe-5613-3e606383df59@marxists.org> er: "determinant of value" ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/11/2018 1:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > See > https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PRn62 > > Hegel sees need (i.e., use-value) as the determinant of > need. Although later he says that a commodity cannot have > value unless it is the product of labour, he never > suggests that the /quantity /of labour needed for its > production determines value. Thus Hegel accepts the common > sense view of things, that the value of a thing is > determined by how useful it is. He did not see the > contradiction in this claim. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 8/11/2018 8:55 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Andy, >> I'm interested in the conversation but have very little >> time to read or dig or do anything other than quickly >> skim. I was just wondering if you could provide a little >> bit of the explanation/background for this argument (of >> yours): >> "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's >> (as elaborated in the /Philosophy of Right/)" >> It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from >> what I would have thought/said about it. So I suspect >> that I have something to learn... >> If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be. >> -greg >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden >> wrote: >> >> Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the >> real significance, of what people say often differs >> from what they say of themselves and their >> protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my >> first reading of Marx in 1967. But you are justified >> in examining what I do and say, rather than taking me >> at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the >> well-known criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We >> also know that he praised Hegel and made criticisms >> of "the materialists." But the point is to examine >> the content of his action and in particular his >> scientific writing. >> >> "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is >> modelled on Hegel's Logic. Marx tells us this in the >> famous passage (/Method of Political Economy/) where >> he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I >> know of. As you point out, he went on to make some >> crucially important criticisms of Hegel in that same >> passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx >> is not = Hegel. >> >> There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes >> from Hegel and elements which are in opposition to >> Hegel's approach. I tried to make this crystal clear >> in my little article >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf >> . >> >> The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with >> materialist ontology as it would have been known in >> the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology of >> positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries >> which arose from the crisis of natural science at >> that time which put an end to naive realism. Marx's >> theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as >> elaborated in the /Philosophy of Right/) and >> methodologically also at odds with Hegel in that it >> was not speculative but had a significant streak of >> empiricism in it. (I describe this in >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf >> ). >> >> If you look at the MIA Library >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run >> your eye down the first 80% of so of the writers >> listed there. Almost all of these writers declared >> themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and >> yet you will see a very wide spectrum of views here. >> No-one has the last word here. My conviction that >> Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not >> lightly arrived at. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: >>> Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the >>> discussion!This is the whole thing! >>> Because if Marx is involved in his original writing >>> and making the last quote easier: >>> >>> Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , >>> as said here also , [Material] Human Beings living >>> and Acting in their respective Material Surrounding >>> out of which process Social Relations arise which in >>> their turn , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , >>> concepts and categories , ideas of the Idea , Logic >>> and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's >>> terminology) which make Real?? Cosmologies (of >>> course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural Hard >>> sciences as these latter sciences deal also with >>> atoms , electrons neutrons , positrons , quarks , >>> galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract or >>> Hegelian (concrete as Concept) >>> ontological/existential?? dependencies (the World >>> which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some >>> esteemed scholars and the World/s which need a Mind >>> to claim existence) which is O.K. and in full respect.) >>> >>> This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last >>> quote by "**[[Hence, in >>> the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, >>> must always be kept in mind as >>> the presupposition.]]**" >>> >>> Neither the Social Relations have independent Being >>> nor the sciences which arise from them. >>> >>> Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" >>> of Mind/Thinking have the same Ontology as the >>> Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal >>> Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be >>> problematic. This was the beginning of the worry! >>> >>> In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" >>> first , but no imposition on Marx the more so that >>> one might keep people in waiting for just a single >>> evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). >>> >>> Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards >>> Hegel in full clarity and stance with quite >>> indubious remarks: >>> >>> The best of the very Marx for Hegel: >>> >>> FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: >>> >>> My dialectic method is not only different from the >>> Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, >>> the life process of the human brain, i.e., the >>> process of thinking, which, under the name of ?the >>> Idea,? he even transforms into an independent >>> subject, is the demiurgos of the [[real]] world, and the >>> real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] >>> of ?the Idea.? With me, on the contrary, the >>> ideal is nothing else than the material world >>> reflected by the [[human mind]], and translated into >>> forms of thought. >>> The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I >>> criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when >>> it was >>> still the fashion. But just as I was working at the >>> first volume of ?Das Kapital,? it was the good >>> pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? >>> [Epigones ? B?chner, D?hring and others] >>> who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat >>> Hegel in same way as the brave Moses >>> Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., >>> as a ?dead dog.? I [[therefore]] openly avowed >>> myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even >>> here and there, in the chapter on the theory of >>> value, coquetted with the modes of expression >>> peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic >>> suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents >>> him from being [[the first to present its general >>> 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) >>> form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious >>> manner. With him it is standing on its head. It >>> must be turned right side up again, if you would >>> discover the rational kernel within the mystical >>> shell. >>> >>> >>> FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF >>> POLITICAL ECONOMY >>> >>> But do not these simpler categories also have an >>> independent historical or >>> natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? >>> That depends. Hegel, for >>> example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right >>> with possession, this being >>> the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there >>> is no possession preceding >>> the family or master-servant relations, which are >>> far more concrete relations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It follows then naturally, too, that all the >>> relationships of men can be derived from the concept >>> of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. >>> This has been done by the speculative philosophers. >>> Hegel himself confesses at the end of the >>> Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the >>> progress of the concept only" and has represented in >>> history the "true theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go >>> back again to the producers of the "concept", to the >>> theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one >>> comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, >>> the thinkers as such, have at all times been >>> dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, >>> already expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of >>> proving the hegemony of the spirit in history >>> (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to >>> the following three efforts. >>> >>> Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" >>> Far from it being true that "out of nothing" I make >>> myself, for example, a "[public] speaker", the >>> nothing which forms the basis here is a very >>> manifold something, the real individual, his speech >>> organs, a definite stage of physical development, an >>> existing language and dialects, ears capable of >>> hearing and a human environment from which it is >>> possible to hear something, etc., etc. therefore, in >>> the development of a property something is created >>> by something out of something, and by no means >>> comes, as in Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through >>> nothing to nothing. [Th. I. Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 >>> >>> Best >>> Haydi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, >>> Adam Poole (16517826) >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> An interesting point to add to the discussion is the >>> role that ontology plays as a tacit form of >>> gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals (though >>> thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have >>> started to find this out as I have been publishing >>> papers on International education from my >>> doctorate (which I am going to defend in December). >>> As part of this experience, I have found that: >>> >>> >>> The journal article form does not lend itself to >>> prolonged discussion of ontology due to length >>> restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to >>> research is left unsaid, but really needs to be >>> said! Qualitative researchers need to justify >>> themselves more substantially than quantitive >>> researchers because notions of positivism >>> (validity, generalizability, etc) are normalized and >>> therefore do not require explication. However, your >>> typically journal article does not provide enough >>> room for qualitative researches to justify themselves. >>> >>> >>> Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just >>> like funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary >>> to conform to a certain 'house ontology' in order to >>> get the work out there. An issue I have found is >>> that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the >>> writer - that is, their implicit assumptions about >>> reality function as a framework for understanding >>> and most significantly evaluating the work before >>> them. If the work does not conform to their >>> framework - if there is ontological dissonance >>> - the work is likely to be rejected or >>> heavily critiqued, leading to substantial rewrites >>> that change the essential nature of the paper. On >>> the other side, writers also impose their ontology >>> onto the reader. >>> >>> >>> This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is >>> also inextricably linked to power, and takes on >>> dialogic and discursive dimensions. Essentially, >>> ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to >>> demonize or legitimize research, depending on where >>> you stand. Ideally, it would be possible to >>> transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism >>> functions as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping >>> and control. >>> >>> >>> So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book >>> I started to read yesterday and really like) that >>> it is imperative to develop ontologies that do not >>> split researchers into partisan camps, actually >>> making this happen is problematic, not least of all >>> because the journal article itself (which I would >>> argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) >>> does not lend itself to this endeavor. The issue is >>> also an economic one: paywalls, limited space in >>> journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly >>> ontological idealism is compromised. I do think a >>> new form of academic paper needs to be developed >>> that can support greater reflexivity in order to >>> bring out our ontological and epistemological >>> assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, intro >>> methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure >>> leaves little space for reflective/reflexive writing. >>> >>> >>> Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology >>> in relation to publishing. >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>> on behalf >>> of Martin Packer >>> *Sent:* 07 November 2018 04:11:34 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: >>> Where to start doctoral students? >>> >>> Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that >>> xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a >>> thread! :) >>> >>> Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way >>> this is construed in the social sciences, not in >>> physics, for example) is generally taught as >>> experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is >>> largely the model the logical positivists laid out a >>> hundred years ago. They considered ontological >>> (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so >>> unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative >>> research pay little or no attention to ontology. The >>> result is that the researcher?s ontological >>> assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. >>> After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the >>> logical positivists taught them) that they can >>> ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to >>> say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or >>> poverty, or a student, or a woman? >>> >>> The result is something that Alfred Schutz >>> complained about: "this type of social science does >>> not deal directly and immediately with the social >>> life-world common to us all, but with skillfully and >>> expediently chosen idealizations and formalizations >>> of the social world.? The result is >>> "a fictional nonexisting world constructed by the >>> scientific observer.? >>> >>> Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected >>> "the worldwide social science movement? with >>> its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies >>> and methods of formal analysis and general >>> representational theorizing.? He saw that the >>> statistical and formal models built by formal >>> analysis ?lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? >>> >>> I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) >>> that is, in my view, making essentially the same >>> point, but the listserv rejects it: >>> >>> Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social >>> science. /Philosophy of the Social Sciences/, >>> /12/(2), 121-141. >>> >>> Typically, social scientists are completely caught >>> up in the ontology of their discipline, and >>> completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon >>> they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: >>> what its constituents are and how they are assembled. >>> >>> On the other hand, the issue of the implicit >>> ontology of qualitative research is the central >>> theme of my book. I argue there that by and large >>> Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of >>> mind-matter, so that researches assume that the >>> natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and so >>> qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). >>> >>> The book develops an argument for escaping from this >>> dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to >>> human being - a kind of research that Foucault >>> called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along >>> the way I try to do justice to what has been called >>> the ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument >>> that different cultures have distinct cosmologies, >>> rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, >>> they have different ontologies; they live in >>> distinct realities; they don?t simply have different >>> ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. >>> Latour?s most recent work is making a similar >>> argument about the different institutions in which >>> all of us live - that each institution has its >>> distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of >>> being; its distinct ontology). >>> >>> So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, >>> it would be that qualitative research provides a way >>> for psychology (and perhaps the other social >>> sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace >>> multiple ontologies. >>> >>> 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Best to leave that for the time being, no point >>>> overcomplicating the thread. >>>> >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> And what do you take their implicit ontology to >>>> be, Huw? >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The problem that I was responding to before >>>>> regarding "qualitative and quantitative" >>>>> labels is that the adoption of these labels >>>>> (and their implicit ontology)... >>>> >>> >>> This message and any attachment are intended solely >>> for the addressee and may contain confidential >>> information. If you have received this message in >>> error, please send it back to me, and immediately >>> delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the >>> information contained in this message or in any >>> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the >>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the >>> views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. >>> This message has been checked for viruses but the >>> contents of an attachment may still contain software >>> viruses which could damage your computer system: you >>> are advised to perform your own checks. Email >>> communications with The University of Nottingham >>> Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and >>> Chinese legislation. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181108/dd4d8ed2/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Nov 7 19:50:21 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:50:21 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: <02009d91-5721-fffe-5613-3e606383df59@marxists.org> References: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> <02009d91-5721-fffe-5613-3e606383df59@marxists.org> Message-ID: Whew Mike On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:43 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > er: "determinant of value" > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 8/11/2018 1:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > See > https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PRn62 > > Hegel sees need (i.e., use-value) as the determinant of need. Although > later he says that a commodity cannot have value unless it is the product > of labour, he never suggests that the *quantity *of labour needed for its > production determines value. Thus Hegel accepts the common sense view of > things, that the value of a thing is determined by how useful it is. He did > not see the contradiction in this claim. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 8/11/2018 8:55 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Andy, > I'm interested in the conversation but have very little time to read or > dig or do anything other than quickly skim. I was just wondering if you > could provide a little bit of the explanation/background for this argument > (of yours): > "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in > the *Philosophy of Right*)" > It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from what I would have > thought/said about it. So I suspect that I have something to learn... > If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be. > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the real significance, of >> what people say often differs from what they say of themselves and their >> protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my first reading of Marx >> in 1967. But you are justified in examining what I do and say, rather than >> taking me at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the well-known >> criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We also know that he praised Hegel >> and made criticisms of "the materialists." But the point is to examine the >> content of his action and in particular his scientific writing. >> >> "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is modelled on Hegel's Logic. >> Marx tells us this in the famous passage (*Method of Political Economy*) >> where he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know of. As you >> point out, he went on to make some crucially important criticisms of Hegel >> in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx is not = >> Hegel. >> >> There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes from Hegel and >> elements which are in opposition to Hegel's approach. I tried to make this >> crystal clear in my little article >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf . >> >> The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with materialist ontology as >> it would have been known in the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology >> of positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which arose from >> the crisis of natural science at that time which put an end to naive >> realism. Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as >> elaborated in the *Philosophy of Right*) and methodologically also at >> odds with Hegel in that it was not speculative but had a significant streak >> of empiricism in it. (I describe this in >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf >> ). >> >> If you look at the MIA Library >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run your eye down the >> first 80% of so of the writers listed there. Almost all of these writers >> declared themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and yet you will >> see a very wide spectrum of views here. No-one has the last word here. My >> conviction that Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not lightly >> arrived at. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: >> >> Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is the whole >> thing! >> Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and making the last >> quote easier: >> >> Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as said here also , >> [Material] Human Beings living and Acting in their respective Material >> Surrounding out of which process Social Relations arise which in their turn >> , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , ideas of the >> Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) which >> make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural >> Hard sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , electrons >> neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract >> or Hegelian (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies >> (the World which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some esteemed >> scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which is >> O.K. and in full respect.) >> >> This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote by "**[[Hence, >> in >> the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in >> mind as >> the presupposition.]]**" >> >> Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor the sciences >> which arise from them. >> >> Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of Mind/Thinking have >> the same Ontology as the Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal >> Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the >> beginning of the worry! >> >> In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , but no >> imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep people in waiting for >> just a single evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). >> >> Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel in full clarity >> and stance with quite indubious remarks: >> >> The best of the very Marx for Hegel: >> >> FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: >> >> My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its >> direct opposite. To Hegel, >> the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, >> which, under the name of ?the >> Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos >> of the [[real]] world, and the >> real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of ?the Idea.? With >> me, on the contrary, the >> ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the [[human >> mind]], and translated into >> forms of thought. >> The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty >> years ago, at a time when it was >> still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of ?Das >> Kapital,? it was the good >> pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? [Epigones ? >> B?chner, D?hring and others] >> who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the >> brave Moses >> Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I >> [[therefore]] openly avowed >> myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the >> chapter on the theory of >> value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The >> mystification which dialectic >> suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him from being [[the >> first to present its general >> 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) >> form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is >> standing on its head. It >> must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational >> kernel within the mystical >> shell. >> >> FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY >> >> But do not these simpler categories also have an independent historical or >> natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? That depends. Hegel, >> for >> example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right with possession, this >> being >> the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there is no possession >> preceding >> the family or master-servant relations, which are far more concrete >> relations. >> >> >> >> It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships of men can be >> derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. >> This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses >> at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the >> progress of the concept only" and has represented in history the "true >> theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producers of the >> "concept", to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one comes >> then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such, have at >> all times been dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, already >> expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit >> in history (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to the following >> three efforts. >> >> Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" Far from it being >> true that "out of nothing" I make myself, for example, a "[public] >> speaker", the nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold >> something, the real individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of >> physical development, an existing language and dialects, ears capable of >> hearing and a human environment from which it is possible to hear >> something, etc., etc. therefore, in the development of a property something >> is created by something out of something, and by no means comes, as in >> Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. [Th. I. Abt. 2 of >> Hegel] p. 162 >> Best >> Haydi >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam Poole >> (16517826) >> wrote: >> >> >> >> An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology >> plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals >> (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find >> this out as I have been publishing papers on International education from >> my doctorate (which I am going to defend in December). As part of this >> experience, I have found that: >> >> >> The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of >> ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to >> research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said! Qualitative researchers >> need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive >> researchers because notions of positivism (validity, generalizability, etc) >> are normalized and therefore do not require explication. However, your >> typically journal article does not provide enough room for qualitative >> researches to justify themselves. >> >> >> Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding >> agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house >> ontology' in order to get the work out there. An issue I have found is >> that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their >> implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for >> understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If >> the work does not conform to their framework - if there is ontological >> dissonance - the work is likely to be rejected or heavily critiqued, >> leading to substantial rewrites that change the essential nature of the >> paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the >> reader. >> >> >> This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is also inextricably >> linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. >> Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or >> legitimize research, depending on where you stand. Ideally, it would be >> possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions >> as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control. >> >> >> So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read >> yesterday and really like) that it is imperative to develop ontologies that >> do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen >> is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which >> I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend >> itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, >> limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological >> idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to >> be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our >> ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, >> intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little >> space for reflective/reflexive writing. >> >> >> Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to >> publishing. >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Martin Packer >> >> *Sent:* 07 November 2018 04:11:34 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start >> doctoral students? >> >> Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too >> much about overcomplicating a thread! :) >> >> Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in >> the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as >> experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the >> logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered >> ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. >> Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention >> to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions >> are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers >> believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can >> ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide >> what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? >> >> The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type >> of social science does not deal directly and immediately with the social >> life-world common to us all, but with skillfully and expediently >> chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is >> "a fictional nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? >> >> Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide >> social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies >> and methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He >> saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis ?lose >> the very phenomenon that they profess.? >> >> I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, >> making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: >> >> Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. *Philosophy of >> the Social Sciences*, *12*(2), 121-141. >> >> Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of >> their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they >> are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are >> and how they are assembled. >> >> On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative >> research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large >> Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that >> researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and >> so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). >> >> The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, >> and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that >> Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try >> to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in >> anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct >> cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have >> different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply >> have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. >> Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different >> institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its >> distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct >> ontology). >> >> So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that >> qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other >> social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. >> >> 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd < >> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the >> thread. >> >> Huw >> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer < >> mpacker@cantab.net> wrote: >> >> And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd < >> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and >> quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their >> implicit ontology)... >> >> >> >> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and >> may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in >> error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not >> use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any >> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do >> not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo >> China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an >> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your >> computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email >> communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be >> monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >> >> >> > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181107/6e02ee51/attachment.html From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Wed Nov 7 22:50:20 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 06:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> <02009d91-5721-fffe-5613-3e606383df59@marxists.org> Message-ID: <1710643693.1224112.1541659820621@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Andy, Thank you for the reply! When I gave you the best of Marx for Hegel in full clarity, it seems so superfluous to repeatedly rely on greatness of the "powerful thinker" or he being partially the modeled and the followed.?? Discussions and debates are very fruitful and now that you say "he went on to make some "crucially important criticisms of Hegel in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc)" rather than "I think Marx agreed with Hegel's reduction of Ontology to Logic particularly in the "Method of Political Economy", getting support from sources other than Marx's himself , one gets satisfied and indebted to a thinker's legitimate and timely flexibility and sense of justice .? And I'm not in a position , or anyone's for that matter as you say , to futilely and absurdly claim for some Prophecy or fortune-telling or Orthodoxy whether in background or apprentice-hood. If I say I have my foot on giants' shoulders , that will not mean I'm in servitude and unfettered submission.? Thanks and happy dear Greg's re-arrival! Haydi? P.S. And one might please say why I lose the prior posts when I press "all" , thanks!?? On Thursday, November 8, 2018, 7:21:49 AM GMT+3:30, mike cole wrote: WhewMike On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:43 PM Andy Blunden wrote: er: "determinant of value" Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/11/2018 1:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: See https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PRn62 Hegel sees need (i.e., use-value) as the determinant of need. Although later he says that a commodity cannot have value unless it is the product of labour, he never suggests that the quantity of labour needed for its production determines value. Thus Hegel accepts the common sense view of things, that the value of a thing is determined by how useful it is. He did not see the contradiction in this claim. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/11/2018 8:55 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: Andy,? I'm interested in the conversation but have very little time to read or dig or do anything other than quickly skim. I was just wondering if you could provide a little bit of the explanation/background for this argument (of yours): "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in the?Philosophy of Right)" It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from what I would have thought/said about it. So I suspect that I have something to learn... If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be.? -greg On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden wrote: Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the real significance, of what people say often differs from what they say of themselves and their protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my first reading of Marx in 1967. But you are justified in examining what I do and say, rather than taking me at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the well-known criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We also know that he praised Hegel and made criticisms of "the materialists." But the point is to examine the content of his action and in particular his scientific writing. "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is modelled on Hegel's Logic. Marx tells us this in the famous passage (Method of Political Economy) where he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know of. As you point out, he went on to make some crucially important criticisms of Hegel in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx is not = Hegel. There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes from Hegel and elements which are in opposition to Hegel's approach. I tried to make this crystal clear in my little article https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf . The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with materialist ontology as it would have been known in the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology of positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which arose from the crisis of natural science at that time which put an end to naive realism. Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in the Philosophy of Right) and methodologically also at odds with Hegel in that it was not speculative but had a significant streak of empiricism in it. (I describe this in https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf ). If you look at the MIA Library https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run your eye down the first 80% of so of the writers listed there. Almost all of these writers declared themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and yet you will see a very wide spectrum of views here. No-one has the last word here. My conviction that Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not lightly arrived at. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is the whole thing! Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and making the last quote easier: Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as said here also , [Material] Human Beings living and Acting in their respective Material Surrounding out of which process Social Relations arise which in their turn , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , ideas of the Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) which make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural Hard sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , electrons neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract or Hegelian (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies (the World which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some esteemed scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which is O.K. and in full respect.) This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote by "**[[Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition.]]**" Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor the sciences which arise from them.? Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of Mind/Thinking have the same Ontology as the Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the beginning of the worry! In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , but no imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep people in waiting for just a single evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel in full clarity and stance with quite indubious remarks: The best of the very Marx for Hegel: FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ?the Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the [[real]] world, and the real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of ?the Idea.? With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the [[human mind]], and translated into forms of thought. The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of ?Das Kapital,? it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? [Epigones ? B?chner, D?hring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I [[therefore]] openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him from being [[the first to present its general 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY But do not these simpler categories also have an independent historical or natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? That depends. Hegel, for example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right with possession, this being the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there is no possession preceding the family or master-servant relations, which are far more concrete relations. It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships of men can be derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the progress of the concept only" and has represented in history the "true theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producers of the "concept", to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such, have at all times been dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, already expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit in history (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to the following three efforts. Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" Far from it being true that "out of nothing" I make myself, for example, a "[public] speaker", the nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold something, the real individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of physical development, an existing language and dialects, ears capable of hearing and a human environment from which it is possible to hear something, etc., etc. therefore, in the development of a property something is created by something out of something, and by no means comes, as in Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. [Th. I. Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 Best Haydi ? ? On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find this out as I have been publishing papers on International education?from my doctorate?(which I am going to defend in December). As part of this?experience, I have found that: The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said!?Qualitative?researchers need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive researchers?because notions of positivism (validity,?generalizability, etc) are?normalized and therefore do not require explication.?However, your typically journal article does not?provide enough room for qualitative researches to justify themselves.? Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house ontology' in order to get the work out there.?An issue I have found is that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If the work does not conform to their framework -?if there is?ontological dissonance -?the?work is likely to be rejected or heavily?critiqued, leading to substantial?rewrites that change the essential?nature of the paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the reader.?? This is all a roundabout way to say that?ontology is also inextricably linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or legitimize research, depending on?where you stand. Ideally, it would be possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control.? So whilst?I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read yesterday and really like) that it?is imperative to develop ontologies that do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little space for reflective/reflexive writing. ? Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to publishing. Adam? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer Sent: 07 November 2018 04:11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? ? Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! ?:) Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type of social science does not deal directly?and immediately with the social life-world common to us all, but with skillfully?and expediently chosen?idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is "a?fictional?nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide social?science movement??with its??ubiquitous commitments to the policies and?methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis??lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 12(2), 121-141. ?Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and how they are assembled. On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology).? So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the thread. Huw On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer wrote: And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? Martin On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology)... This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181108/4ec70316/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Nov 8 17:16:55 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:16:55 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> <02009d91-5721-fffe-5613-3e606383df59@marxists.org> Message-ID: I just got this from my sister. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/metric-system-overhaul-will-dethrone-one-true-kilogram My sister's smart as hell, but her intelligence is kind of corporeal: she was a ballet dancer and then a very successful figure skating coach: she has MS now, and some brain lesions and she is very worried about losing it, i.e. intelligence. She considers me (correctly) as maladroit, which is a kind of stupidity as far as she is concerned, but she knows I do intelligence of a rather different, less somatic and more semantic, sort. So she sometimes writes me when she is puzzled by things like this. >From the corporeal point of view, it is rather puzzling. But from the semantic point of view, it's a little like the gold standard. I am old enough to remember a time when the dollar was defined by a certain quantity of gold in Fort Knox. Now, it's the other way around: gold is defined by the value of dollars. This change is a little similar: after the French revolution, kilogrammes were defined by a certain quantity of metal in Sevres, and now it's the other way around: we define the kilogramme using math constants from physics, and that metal in Sevres is defined by the value of the kilogramme. But I am thinking that Andy's example is actually a good example of Hegel's idealism. You might think that since Hegel is insisting on use value as the measure of value he is being more materialist, or at least more corporeal, than Marx. In fact, he is being less semantic and hence less historical. Value changes. In early societies it was indeed defined centrally by use values and only marginally by exchange values. But when you look at real estate in Seoul, which can cost more than a lifetime of an average worker's income, you have to say this is no longer the case, even for articles of every day use like housing. One reason that we cannot equate tools with signs, is that while tools are centrally use value and only peripherally exchange value, signs are always the other way around: their value is established first through exchange and only then through their utility. My sister understood my "gold standard" explanation immediately. And that was really good enough for me. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:52 PM mike cole wrote: > Whew > Mike > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:43 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> er: "determinant of value" >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 8/11/2018 1:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> See >> https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PRn62 >> >> Hegel sees need (i.e., use-value) as the determinant of need. Although >> later he says that a commodity cannot have value unless it is the product >> of labour, he never suggests that the *quantity *of labour needed for >> its production determines value. Thus Hegel accepts the common sense view >> of things, that the value of a thing is determined by how useful it is. He >> did not see the contradiction in this claim. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 8/11/2018 8:55 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Andy, >> I'm interested in the conversation but have very little time to read or >> dig or do anything other than quickly skim. I was just wondering if you >> could provide a little bit of the explanation/background for this argument >> (of yours): >> "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated >> in the *Philosophy of Right*)" >> It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from what I would have >> thought/said about it. So I suspect that I have something to learn... >> If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be. >> -greg >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the real significance, >>> of what people say often differs from what they say of themselves and their >>> protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my first reading of Marx >>> in 1967. But you are justified in examining what I do and say, rather than >>> taking me at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the well-known >>> criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We also know that he praised Hegel >>> and made criticisms of "the materialists." But the point is to examine the >>> content of his action and in particular his scientific writing. >>> >>> "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is modelled on Hegel's >>> Logic. Marx tells us this in the famous passage (*Method of Political >>> Economy*) where he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know >>> of. As you point out, he went on to make some crucially important >>> criticisms of Hegel in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc). >>> Obviously Marx is not = Hegel. >>> >>> There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes from Hegel and >>> elements which are in opposition to Hegel's approach. I tried to make this >>> crystal clear in my little article >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf . >>> >>> The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with materialist ontology >>> as it would have been known in the 1860s and equally at odds with the >>> ontology of positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which >>> arose from the crisis of natural science at that time which put an end to >>> naive realism. Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as >>> elaborated in the *Philosophy of Right*) and methodologically also at >>> odds with Hegel in that it was not speculative but had a significant streak >>> of empiricism in it. (I describe this in >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf >>> ). >>> >>> If you look at the MIA Library >>> >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run your eye down the >>> first 80% of so of the writers listed there. Almost all of these writers >>> declared themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and yet you will >>> see a very wide spectrum of views here. No-one has the last word here. My >>> conviction that Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not lightly >>> arrived at. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: >>> >>> Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is the whole >>> thing! >>> Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and making the last >>> quote easier: >>> >>> Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as said here also , >>> [Material] Human Beings living and Acting in their respective Material >>> Surrounding out of which process Social Relations arise which in their turn >>> , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , ideas of the >>> Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) which >>> make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural >>> Hard sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , electrons >>> neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract >>> or Hegelian (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies >>> (the World which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some esteemed >>> scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which is >>> O.K. and in full respect.) >>> >>> This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote by "**[[Hence, >>> in >>> the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept >>> in mind as >>> the presupposition.]]**" >>> >>> Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor the sciences >>> which arise from them. >>> >>> Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of Mind/Thinking have >>> the same Ontology as the Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal >>> Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the >>> beginning of the worry! >>> >>> In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , but no >>> imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep people in waiting for >>> just a single evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). >>> >>> Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel in full >>> clarity and stance with quite indubious remarks: >>> >>> The best of the very Marx for Hegel: >>> >>> FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: >>> >>> My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its >>> direct opposite. To Hegel, >>> the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, >>> which, under the name of ?the >>> Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos >>> of the [[real]] world, and the >>> real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of ?the Idea.? With >>> me, on the contrary, the >>> ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the [[human >>> mind]], and translated into >>> forms of thought. >>> The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty >>> years ago, at a time when it was >>> still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of ?Das >>> Kapital,? it was the good >>> pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? [Epigones ? >>> B?chner, D?hring and others] >>> who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as >>> the brave Moses >>> Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I >>> [[therefore]] openly avowed >>> myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the >>> chapter on the theory of >>> value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The >>> mystification which dialectic >>> suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him from being [[the >>> first to present its general >>> 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) >>> form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it >>> is standing on its head. It >>> must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational >>> kernel within the mystical >>> shell. >>> >>> FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY >>> >>> But do not these simpler categories also have an independent historical >>> or >>> natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? That depends. >>> Hegel, for >>> example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right with possession, this >>> being >>> the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there is no possession >>> preceding >>> the family or master-servant relations, which are far more concrete >>> relations. >>> >>> >>> >>> It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships of men can be >>> derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. >>> This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses >>> at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the >>> progress of the concept only" and has represented in history the "true >>> theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producers of the >>> "concept", to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one comes >>> then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such, have at >>> all times been dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, already >>> expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit >>> in history (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to the following >>> three efforts. >>> >>> Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" Far from it being >>> true that "out of nothing" I make myself, for example, a "[public] >>> speaker", the nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold >>> something, the real individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of >>> physical development, an existing language and dialects, ears capable of >>> hearing and a human environment from which it is possible to hear >>> something, etc., etc. therefore, in the development of a property something >>> is created by something out of something, and by no means comes, as in >>> Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. [Th. I. Abt. 2 of >>> Hegel] p. 162 >>> Best >>> Haydi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam Poole >>> (16517826) >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology >>> plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals >>> (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find >>> this out as I have been publishing papers on International education from >>> my doctorate (which I am going to defend in December). As part of this >>> experience, I have found that: >>> >>> >>> The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of >>> ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to >>> research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said! Qualitative researchers >>> need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive >>> researchers because notions of positivism (validity, generalizability, etc) >>> are normalized and therefore do not require explication. However, your >>> typically journal article does not provide enough room for qualitative >>> researches to justify themselves. >>> >>> >>> Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding >>> agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house >>> ontology' in order to get the work out there. An issue I have found is >>> that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their >>> implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for >>> understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If >>> the work does not conform to their framework - if there is ontological >>> dissonance - the work is likely to be rejected or heavily critiqued, >>> leading to substantial rewrites that change the essential nature of the >>> paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the >>> reader. >>> >>> >>> This is all a roundabout way to say that ontology is also inextricably >>> linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. >>> Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or >>> legitimize research, depending on where you stand. Ideally, it would be >>> possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions >>> as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control. >>> >>> >>> So whilst I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read >>> yesterday and really like) that it is imperative to develop ontologies that >>> do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen >>> is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which >>> I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend >>> itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, >>> limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological >>> idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to >>> be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our >>> ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, >>> intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little >>> space for reflective/reflexive writing. >>> >>> >>> Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to >>> publishing. >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on >>> behalf of Martin Packer >>> >>> *Sent:* 07 November 2018 04:11:34 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start >>> doctoral students? >>> >>> Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too >>> much about overcomplicating a thread! :) >>> >>> Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed >>> in the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as >>> experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the >>> logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered >>> ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. >>> Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention >>> to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions >>> are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers >>> believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can >>> ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide >>> what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? >>> >>> The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type >>> of social science does not deal directly and immediately with the social >>> life-world common to us all, but with skillfully and expediently >>> chosen idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is >>> "a fictional nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? >>> >>> Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide >>> social science movement? with its ?ubiquitous commitments to the policies >>> and methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He >>> saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis ?lose >>> the very phenomenon that they profess.? >>> >>> I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, >>> making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: >>> >>> Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. *Philosophy of >>> the Social Sciences*, *12*(2), 121-141. >>> >>> Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology >>> of their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon >>> they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents >>> are and how they are assembled. >>> >>> On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative >>> research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large >>> Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that >>> researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and >>> so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). >>> >>> The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, >>> and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that >>> Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try >>> to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in >>> anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct >>> cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have >>> different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply >>> have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. >>> Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different >>> institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its >>> distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct >>> ontology). >>> >>> So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that >>> qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other >>> social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. >>> >>> 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd < >>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the >>> thread. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer < >>> mpacker@cantab.net> wrote: >>> >>> And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd < >>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and >>> quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their >>> implicit ontology)... >>> >>> >>> >>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee >>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message >>> in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do >>> not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in >>> any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email >>> do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo >>> China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an >>> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your >>> computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email >>> communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be >>> monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/440bd12e/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Nov 8 20:39:41 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 20:39:41 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Strict definitions of qualitative research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interestingly different, but thematically identical,discussion about qual/quant binary is going on and there are overlapping members on the two lists. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lubomir Savov Popov Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:08 PM Subject: Re: Strict definitions of qualitative research To: Dear Colleagues, This is an interesting thread and deserves some thoughts. There are a lot of misconceptions about the Qualitative. The major reason is that the Qualitative is an umbrella term for several paradigms from the realm of humanities and social sciences. If people understand this, everything will come in its place. Then the issues about methodological fidelity will be construed by paradigm rather than regarding the vast and nebulous entity we call qualitative research. In addition, people who are not happy with the current deformations in the mass understanding of the qualitative, those people would not express their dissatisfaction in terms of the Post-Qualitative. We can?t have Post-Qualitative when the Qualitative is in its infancy stage and worst of all, it is grossly deformed. So, instead of claiming we are doing qualitative research, let?s study a paradigm, let?s understand it, let?s master this way of thinking, and then follow its epistemology and methodology. If we share these positions, many things will come in their places, and with ease. One of the reasons not to start with a literature review is to bracket out (I don?t refer to Phenomenology here) past experience, to prevent contamination of researcher?s consciousness. Hermeneutical scholars might disagree with this, but they have to show they are doing Hermeneutics. And one other exception: rapid qualitative research. Saturation: Qualitative research is not intended to provide information that is generalizable for a vast population. If you want such generalizations, make a survey, learn how Positivists work. In order to go in-depth, and to be feasible regarding time and budget, we select cases that are representative only for their class. The less, the better. We can go deeper and deeper. But work till saturation. In order to achieve saturation, narrow down the population to a very homogeneous group. Exceptions: if you need to use ?compare and contrast? approach, with negative cases. But even in such situations, the target population should be narrowed down to a highly homogeneous composition. In the qualitative paradigms, do not try to take a case from each subgroup. If you see a subgroup, treat it as a target population. Then make several studies; then ? we can talk later how to proceed. In the qualitative paradigms, the researcher is the tool. This is a very authoritative area, like the arts. Only the best artist knows best. And who is the best artist is terra incognita. It is about intuition and zeitgeist. And if we misjudge, it is our problem. The experienced researcher might (I say might) be more trustworthy than the undergraduate student. Disagreement: This is natural. Each paradigm is (supposed to be) a coherent system of thinking. Everything that doesn?t fit into that system is rejected violently and experienced painfully. History of science and the major writings on the concept of paradigm show that clearly. Changing paradigms to fit the project: Shopping for paradigms is not like shopping for methods. The paradigm is a state of mind. If you change paradigms like we change cars and still drive, there is something wrong here. Changing paradigms is associated with confusion, cognitive dissonance, and pain. People need a life time to master a paradigm of thinking. Well, let?s say a very long time, many years, decades. The switch is confusing because all the right things in one paradigm are the wrong things in the other paradigm. On top of all, mix and match creates even more discord. And when people read publications predominantly from one paradigm, they get tuned to it subconsciously and then have problems thinking properly in the other paradigm. Then they start subconsciously mixing epistemological and methodological requirements. Some people become aware of this and try to bracket out contaminating idea; other people believe they create better science this way. You guess what is my opinion about this. A bit more about paradigmatic fidelity: If a researcher is using a hermeneutical approach, they should not claim they are making phenomenology. And Grounded Theory ? it is high time to disclose that this is the field research offspring of Symbolic Interactionism. I have reviewed articles that claim a phenomenological approach, and half of the article is filled with statistics. These are extreme cases, but they are also pretty common. Starting with one interview question: Well, let?s start with an interview GUIDE and be ready to modify the guide as we receive new information. Using the concept and term ?research question:? Well there is too much Positivism here. If we cannot align with some basic conceptualizations in the qualitative paradigms, we cannot claim we are doing good ?qualitative? research. If we understand the concept of paradigm, we would not fight about what is the right way of doing qualitative research. Our problem will be what is the right way of doing research within this or that paradigm. There will be less irrelevant discussions and less animosity. I mean less, rather than no more. I am also stressed when I read a title like: Qualitative Research: Several Traditions/Approaches/Ways?Well, let?s refer to several paradigms. And then the issue will be ? why put all these paradigms in one book? Why not produce instructions by paradigm, in more depth, with more understanding. Then it will become clear that there not several ways to do qualitative research, but there are several paradigms that can be used for studying social reality. In this regard, I would say ? there are not many ways of doing qualitative research. They are only several. The rest is not serious. By the way, all these paradigms are unfinished business. I am astonished that no one thinks about developing further their epistemologies and developing field research tools commensurate with these epistemologies. Instead, we jumped to the Qualitative and now, even to the Post-qualitative (as if the Qualitative is a done deal). If there is something that is more abused than ?qualitative research,? it is ?phenomenology.? I don?t know why everyone claims they are doing phenomenology while they simply make a hodge-podge of what they have read in several books with the title Qualitative? It is not uncommon to see ?Teacher?s Emotional Labor in the Classroom: a Phenomenology? and then elaboration of number of interviewees (from 20 to 70?), percentages, and even more than descriptive statistics. I have always claimed that the phenomenological method cannot be learned by reading books. It takes more than that ? discussions and deliberations over a glass of cognac or a cup of coffee. It is not like Positivism and Arithmetic: open a book, read, go, and solve the problem ? 2+2=4. And when we talk so much about Phenomenology, I am astonished that everyone is doing it in their own way (the wrong way), rather than learning Ethnomethodology. This is a clear indication that people have no idea what is Phenomenology, never read, and never heard beyond the name by itself. At the end, to be honest, I use the term Qualitative. Simply because it is easier to communicate with the outside World. It saves me lots of disputes and angry reviewers. The umbrella keeps me from the rain, in some way. When everyone uses the qualitative jargon, it is easier to communicate with the faithful population, even when I understand the precarious inaccuracies and misconceptions. But in the long run, we have a talk, which is most important. Thank you for attention, Lubomir Lubomir Popov, PhD Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences American Culture Studies affiliated faculty N217 North Eppler Hall, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 Lspopov@bgsu.edu 419.372.7835 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181108/a7074847/attachment.html From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Fri Nov 9 02:25:34 2018 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (Haydi Zulfei) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:25:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: <84914C5B-279D-4E1D-898E-DF94ABE08D6A@cantab.net> <354df796-fd63-0b8f-c9aa-abdbc5d64967@marxists.org> <7b729eff-d9a0-aa15-0cef-ebf81b43db68@marxists.org> <125454107.373336.1541589762334@mail.yahoo.com> <02009d91-5721-fffe-5613-3e606383df59@marxists.org> Message-ID: <565216053.2492026.1541759134268@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks David!! after this long time !! This is my finish! I had all digestibles and was so excited that for a moment I tried at the price of all exhaustion and reflection and conception and theorization and creative imagination and the best of communication and the New Metrics to create another good respectable and very esteemed honourable? ?sister as?they actually are?for you and one for myself (they say as a proverb no dispute , treachery or impoliteness in allegories) through semantics of full weight of 75 years , alas !! the result was nil!! and I'm now heavily weeping in full strains!! :-)) But I'm not to show more arrogance as I'm convinced that what is lacking in me is the way to understanding!!! No intention in font change. Happy our close friendship! Haydi? On Friday, November 9, 2018, 4:50:04 AM GMT+3:30, David Kellogg wrote: I just got this from my sister. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/metric-system-overhaul-will-dethrone-one-true-kilogram My sister's smart as hell, but her intelligence is kind of corporeal: she was a ballet dancer and then a very successful figure skating coach: she has MS now, and some brain lesions and she is very worried about losing it, i.e. intelligence. She considers me (correctly) as maladroit, which is a kind of stupidity as far as she is concerned, but she knows I do intelligence of a rather different, less somatic and more semantic, sort. So she sometimes writes me when she is puzzled by things like this. >From the corporeal point of view, it is rather puzzling. But from the semantic point of view, it's a little like the gold standard. I am old enough to remember a time when the dollar was defined by a certain quantity of gold in Fort Knox. Now, it's the other way around: gold is defined by the value of dollars. This change is a little similar: after the French revolution, kilogrammes were defined by a certain quantity of metal in Sevres, and now it's the other way around: we define the kilogramme using math constants from physics, and that metal in Sevres is defined by the value of the kilogramme. But I am thinking that Andy's example is actually a good example of Hegel's idealism. You might think that since Hegel is insisting on use value as the measure of value he is being more materialist, or at least more corporeal,?than Marx. In fact, he is being less semantic and hence less?historical. Value changes. In early societies it was indeed defined centrally by use values and only marginally by exchange values. But when you look at real estate in Seoul, which can cost more than a lifetime of an average worker's income, you have to say this is no longer the case, even for articles of every day use like housing. One reason that we cannot equate tools with signs, is that while tools are centrally use value and only peripherally exchange value, signs are always the other way around: their value is established first through exchange and only then through their utility.? My sister understood my "gold standard" explanation immediately. And that was really good enough for me. David KelloggSangmyung University New in Early Years, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue? Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:52 PM mike cole wrote: WhewMike On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:43 PM Andy Blunden wrote: er: "determinant of value" Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/11/2018 1:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: See https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PRn62 Hegel sees need (i.e., use-value) as the determinant of need. Although later he says that a commodity cannot have value unless it is the product of labour, he never suggests that the quantity of labour needed for its production determines value. Thus Hegel accepts the common sense view of things, that the value of a thing is determined by how useful it is. He did not see the contradiction in this claim. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 8/11/2018 8:55 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: Andy,? I'm interested in the conversation but have very little time to read or dig or do anything other than quickly skim. I was just wondering if you could provide a little bit of the explanation/background for this argument (of yours): "Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in the?Philosophy of Right)" It sounds interesting but it also sounds different from what I would have thought/said about it. So I suspect that I have something to learn... If you have no time either, no worries, I'll leave it be.? -greg On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:14 AM Andy Blunden wrote: Haydi, you must agree with me that the content, the real significance, of what people say often differs from what they say of themselves and their protagonists. I am a Marxist, and have been since my first reading of Marx in 1967. But you are justified in examining what I do and say, rather than taking me at my word. Everyone knows that Marx made the well-known criticisms of Hegel that you mention. We also know that he praised Hegel and made criticisms of "the materialists." But the point is to examine the content of his action and in particular his scientific writing. "Capital" (particularly its early sections) is modelled on Hegel's Logic. Marx tells us this in the famous passage (Method of Political Economy) where he gives the best explanation of the Logic that I know of. As you point out, he went on to make some crucially important criticisms of Hegel in that same passage ("the real subject ..." etc). Obviously Marx is not = Hegel. There are elements of Marx's approach which he takes from Hegel and elements which are in opposition to Hegel's approach. I tried to make this crystal clear in my little article https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel-idealist.pdf . The ontology of "Capital" is sharply at odds with materialist ontology as it would have been known in the 1860s and equally at odds with the ontology of positivism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which arose from the crisis of natural science at that time which put an end to naive realism. Marx's theory of value is sharply at odds with Hegel's (as elaborated in the Philosophy of Right) and methodologically also at odds with Hegel in that it was not speculative but had a significant streak of empiricism in it. (I describe this in https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-Hegel-Marx_public.pdf ). If you look at the MIA Library https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm and run your eye down the first 80% of so of the writers listed there. Almost all of these writers declared themselves "Marxists" (not the last 20% or so) and yet you will see a very wide spectrum of views here. No-one has the last word here. My conviction that Marxists have much to learn from Hegel was not lightly arrived at. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 7/11/2018 10:22 PM, Haydi Zulfei wrote: Nice !! Not to get Marx involved in the discussion!This is the whole thing! Because if Marx is involved in his original writing and making the last quote easier: Concepts need Conceptioners and conceptioners are , as said here also , [Material] Human Beings living and Acting in their respective Material Surrounding out of which process Social Relations arise which in their turn , give birth to Thoughts and Ideas , concepts and categories , ideas of the Idea , Logic and the Absolute , cultures (in Bibler's terminology) which make Real?? Cosmologies (of course as META-physics beyond Physical Natural Hard sciences as these latter sciences deal also with atoms , electrons neutrons , positrons , quarks , galaxies , planets , etc. in their abstract or Hegelian (concrete as Concept) ontological/existential?? dependencies (the World which is outside Mind through Lenin's quote by some esteemed scholars and the World/s which need a Mind to claim existence) which is O.K. and in full respect.) This is what Marx meant in the last word of the last quote by "**[[Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition.]]**" Neither the Social Relations have independent Being nor the sciences which arise from them.? Every body has the right to think that "phenomena" of Mind/Thinking have the same Ontology as the Ontology of the Substantial/Material/Corporeal Universe does but ascribing this to Marx would be problematic. This was the beginning of the worry! In the same vein , no problem with "Any Category" first , but no imposition on Marx the more so that one might keep people in waiting for just a single evidence to one's Big Claim :-)). Marx is quite Robust in his Materialism and towards Hegel in full clarity and stance with quite indubious remarks: The best of the very Marx for Hegel: FROM CAPITAL VOLUME ONE: My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ?the Idea,? he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the [[real]] world, and the real world is only the external, [[phenomenal form]] of ?the Idea.? With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the [[human mind]], and translated into forms of thought. The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of ?Das Kapital,? it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ???????? [Epigones ? B?chner, D?hring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing?s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ?dead dog.? I [[therefore]] openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in [[Hegel?s hands]], by no means prevents him from being [[the first to present its general 15 Afterword to the Second German Edition (1873) form of working]] in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. FROM GRUDERISSE WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE METHOD OF POLITICAL ECONOMY But do not these simpler categories also have an independent historical or natural existence pre-dating the more concrete ones? That depends. Hegel, for example, correctly begins the Philosophy of Right with possession, this being the subject?s simplest juridical relation. But there is no possession preceding the family or master-servant relations, which are far more concrete relations. It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships of men can be derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he "has considered the progress of the concept only" and has represented in history the "true theodicy". (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producers of the "concept", to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such, have at all times been dominant in history: a conclusion, as we see, already expressed by Hegel. The whole trick of proving the hegemony of the spirit in history (hierarchy Stirner calls it) is thus confirmed to the following three efforts. Critique: "humans create themselves out of nothing" Far from it being true that "out of nothing" I make myself, for example, a "[public] speaker", the nothing which forms the basis here is a very manifold something, the real individual, his speech organs, a definite stage of physical development, an existing language and dialects, ears capable of hearing and a human environment from which it is possible to hear something, etc., etc. therefore, in the development of a property something is created by something out of something, and by no means comes, as in Hegel's Logic , from nothing, through nothing to nothing. [Th. I. Abt. 2 of Hegel] p. 162 Best Haydi ? ? On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 5:05:58 AM GMT+3:30, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: An interesting point to add to the discussion is the role that ontology plays as a tacit form of gatekeeping in many disciplines and journals (though thankfully, from my experience, not MCA). I have started to find this out as I have been publishing papers on International education?from my doctorate?(which I am going to defend in December). As part of this?experience, I have found that: The journal article form does not lend itself to prolonged discussion of ontology due to length restrictions. So much of what is fundamental to research is left unsaid, but really needs to be said!?Qualitative?researchers need to justify themselves more substantially than quantitive researchers?because notions of positivism (validity,?generalizability, etc) are?normalized and therefore do not require explication.?However, your typically journal article does not?provide enough room for qualitative researches to justify themselves.? Reviewers and journals function as gatekeepers (just like funding agencies) so it is sometimes necessary to conform to a certain 'house ontology' in order to get the work out there.?An issue I have found is that reviewer's can impose their ontology onto the writer - that is, their implicit assumptions about reality function as a framework for understanding and most significantly evaluating the work before them. If the work does not conform to their framework -?if there is?ontological dissonance -?the?work is likely to be rejected or heavily?critiqued, leading to substantial?rewrites that change the essential?nature of the paper. On the other side, writers also impose their ontology onto the reader.?? This is all a roundabout way to say that?ontology is also inextricably linked to power, and takes on dialogic and discursive dimensions. Essentially, ontology can be invoked by either side as a way to demonize or legitimize research, depending on?where you stand. Ideally, it would be possible to transcend dualism, but practically speaking dualism functions as a convenient mechanism for gatekeeping and control.? So whilst?I agree completely with Martin (whose book I started to read yesterday and really like) that it?is imperative to develop ontologies that do not split researchers into partisan camps, actually making this happen is problematic, not least of all because the journal article itself (which I would argue is the paradigmatic academic form these days) does not lend itself to this endeavor. The issue is also an economic one: paywalls, limited space in journals, pressure to publish, and suddenly ontological idealism is compromised. I do think a new form of academic paper needs to be developed that can support greater reflexivity in order to bring out our ontological and epistemological assumptions. The standard 6000ish words, intro methods, findings, discussion, conclusion structure leaves little space for reflective/reflexive writing. ? Anyway, just a doctoral student's take on ontology in relation to publishing. Adam? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer Sent: 07 November 2018 04:11:34 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? ? Well Huw I?ll take a shot! I?ve never thought that xmca-ers worry too much about overcomplicating a thread! ?:) Quantitative research (and I?m talking about the way this is construed in the social sciences, not in physics, for example) is generally taught as experimental design and hypothesis testing, which is largely the model the logical positivists laid out a hundred years ago. They considered ontological (metaphysical) claims to be untestable, and so unscientific. Consequently, courses in quantitative research pay little or no attention to ontology. The result is that the researcher?s ontological assumptions are tacitly imposed on the phenomenon. After all, quantitative researchers believe (as the logical positivists taught them) that they can ?operationally define? their variables. That?s to say, *they* get to decide what is intelligence, or poverty, or a student, or a woman? The result is something that Alfred Schutz complained about: "this type of social science does not deal directly?and immediately with the social life-world common to us all, but with skillfully?and expediently chosen?idealizations and formalizations of the social world.? The result is "a?fictional?nonexisting world constructed by the scientific observer.? Harold Garfinkel made a similar point: he rejected "the worldwide social?science movement??with its??ubiquitous commitments to the policies and?methods of formal analysis and general representational theorizing.? He saw that the statistical and formal models built by formal analysis??lose the very phenomenon that they profess.? I?ve tried to attach an article by Spencer (1982) that is, in my view, making essentially the same point, but the listserv rejects it: Spencer, M. E. (1982). The ontologies of social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 12(2), 121-141. ?Typically, social scientists are completely caught up in the ontology of their discipline, and completely ignore the ontology of the phenomenon they are studying - that?s to say, its constitution: what its constituents are and how they are assembled. On the other hand, the issue of the implicit ontology of qualitative research is the central theme of my book. I argue there that by and large Qual has bought into the ontological dualism of mind-matter, so that researches assume that the natural sciences study matter (objectivity), and so qualitative research must study mind (subjectivity). The book develops an argument for escaping from this dualistic ontology, and actually paying attention to human being - a kind of research that Foucault called ?a historical ontology of ourselves.? Along the way I try to do justice to what has been called the ?ontological turn? in anthropology, the argument that different cultures have distinct cosmologies, rather than distinct cosmovisions - that?s to say, they have different ontologies; they live in distinct realities; they don?t simply have different ways of conceptualizing a single underlying reality. Latour?s most recent work is making a similar argument about the different institutions in which all of us live - that each institution has its distinct mode of existence (its distinct way of being; its distinct ontology).? So if I had my way, or my ideal winter holiday gift, it would be that qualitative research provides a way for psychology (and perhaps the other social sciences) to move beyond dualism and embrace multiple ontologies. 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 Nov 6, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: Best to leave that for the time being, no point overcomplicating the thread. Huw On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 15:02, Martin Packer wrote: And what do you take their implicit ontology to be, Huw? Martin On Nov 5, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: The problem that I was responding to before regarding "qualitative and quantitative" labels is that the adoption of these labels (and their implicit ontology)... This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/c60805c9/attachment.html From yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi Fri Nov 9 05:21:43 2018 From: yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi (=?utf-8?B?RW5nZXN0csO2bSwgWXJqw7YgSCBN?=) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:21:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Sub-theme 'Activity theory and formative interventions in organizing' at EGOS 2019 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, we are convening a sub-theme on ?Activity theory and formative interventions in organizing' at the forthcoming EGOS-2019 conference that will take place in Edinburgh, UK, on July 4?6, 2019. The sub-theme format allows the participants interested in activity theory not only to present their papers but also to discuss their works in a continuous manner over the three days of the conference. This has been very productive in the past and we intend to make it even more productive in Edinburgh. We attach the description of our sub-theme. We very much hope that you use this opportunity to come and present your work and discuss with colleagues who also use activity theory in their research. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact anyone or all of us. The conference website is: https://www.egosnet.org/2019_edinburgh/colloquium The deadline for submission of short papers is Monday, January 14, 2019, 23:59 CET. The short paper should contain 3000 words. The instructions for preparing and submitting a short paper are attached. With best regards, Yrj? Engestr?m (CRADLE, University of Helsinki, Finland; yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi ) David Allen (Leeds University, UK; D.Allen@lubs.leeds.ac.uk ) Annalisa Sannino (University of Tampere, Finland; annalisa.sannino@uta.fi ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/a488fefd/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EGOS sub-theme 41-Activity theory and formative interventions.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42069 bytes Desc: EGOS sub-theme 41-Activity theory and formative interventions.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/a488fefd/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EGOS short papers.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 182110 bytes Desc: EGOS short papers.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/a488fefd/attachment-0003.pdf From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Fri Nov 9 08:31:42 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:31:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Strict definitions of qualitative research In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My feeling is that qualitative researchers need to do three things better (and we need to do a better job of training our students in these): 1. Articulate much more clearly what it is that qual research is UNIQUELY positioned to do (I think that this has to do with, among other things, the processual, the practical, the interactional, the material(!)(?) and the contextual). 2. Recognize that there are questions/issues that qual research cannot address. 3. Recognize that there are questions/issues that quant research cannot address. Most qual researchers seem unable to do #1 well (this is why I like Martin's book so much). Instead they/we tend to say "... and qualitative research could help too" - in the process uncritically accepting the positivist paradigm of counting first and then adding on qual research as a kind of non-essential topping or add-on, an unnecessary flourish in the event that you want to do this. As a result, we don't notice that many important questions REQUIRE qual research (and quant research can be added on in cases where it is needed). And, on the other hand, some qual researchers go a bit too far and say that all questions can be answered with qual research (not recognizing #2). The trouble here is (to use Lubomir's term) paradigmatic overreach. What is really needed is a strong articulation of what qual research is distinctively poised to do (again, see Martin's book). We need to be training our students to do is to know how to ask the right questions. I find that my students always come in asking questions that are answerable by quant methods. They don't know how to ask qual questions - even though these are much much more interesting! I suspect the reason why they initially insist on quant questions has something to do with what they understand "science" to be (i.e., a thing that provides definitive answers to yes/no questions (how boring!)), so Beth, my sense is you are asking the right question (and note that Martin's first chapter is titled "What is Science?" (and in case you are wondering, yes Martin is paying me by the mention!)). And Beth, once things slow down for you I'd love to hear what you make of this conversation and to hear some of your insights since I know that you are extremely knowledgeable about qualitative research. Very best, greg On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:44 PM mike cole wrote: > An interestingly different, but thematically identical,discussion about > qual/quant binary is going on and there are overlapping members > on the two lists. > mike > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Lubomir Savov Popov > Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:08 PM > Subject: Re: Strict definitions of qualitative research > To: > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > This is an interesting thread and deserves some thoughts. > > > > There are a lot of misconceptions about the Qualitative. The major reason > is that the Qualitative is an umbrella term for several paradigms from the > realm of humanities and social sciences. If people understand this, > everything will come in its place. Then the issues about methodological > fidelity will be construed by paradigm rather than regarding the vast and > nebulous entity we call qualitative research. In addition, people who are > not happy with the current deformations in the mass understanding of the > qualitative, those people would not express their dissatisfaction in terms > of the Post-Qualitative. We can?t have Post-Qualitative when the > Qualitative is in its infancy stage and worst of all, it is grossly > deformed. > > > > So, instead of claiming we are doing qualitative research, let?s study a > paradigm, let?s understand it, let?s master this way of thinking, and then > follow its epistemology and methodology. > > > > If we share these positions, many things will come in their places, and > with ease. > > > > One of the reasons not to start with a literature review is to bracket out > (I don?t refer to Phenomenology here) past experience, to prevent > contamination of researcher?s consciousness. Hermeneutical scholars might > disagree with this, but they have to show they are doing Hermeneutics. And > one other exception: rapid qualitative research. > > > > Saturation: Qualitative research is not intended to provide information > that is generalizable for a vast population. If you want such > generalizations, make a survey, learn how Positivists work. In order to go > in-depth, and to be feasible regarding time and budget, we select cases > that are representative only for their class. The less, the better. We can > go deeper and deeper. But work till saturation. > > > > In order to achieve saturation, narrow down the population to a very > homogeneous group. Exceptions: if you need to use ?compare and contrast? > approach, with negative cases. But even in such situations, the target > population should be narrowed down to a highly homogeneous composition. In > the qualitative paradigms, do not try to take a case from each subgroup. If > you see a subgroup, treat it as a target population. Then make several > studies; then ? we can talk later how to proceed. > > > > In the qualitative paradigms, the researcher is the tool. This is a very > authoritative area, like the arts. Only the best artist knows best. And who > is the best artist is terra incognita. It is about intuition and zeitgeist. > And if we misjudge, it is our problem. The experienced researcher might (I > say might) be more trustworthy than the undergraduate student. > > > > Disagreement: This is natural. Each paradigm is (supposed to be) a > coherent system of thinking. Everything that doesn?t fit into that system > is rejected violently and experienced painfully. History of science and the > major writings on the concept of paradigm show that clearly. > > > > Changing paradigms to fit the project: Shopping for paradigms is not like > shopping for methods. The paradigm is a state of mind. If you change > paradigms like we change cars and still drive, there is something wrong > here. Changing paradigms is associated with confusion, cognitive > dissonance, and pain. People need a life time to master a paradigm of > thinking. Well, let?s say a very long time, many years, decades. The switch > is confusing because all the right things in one paradigm are the wrong > things in the other paradigm. On top of all, mix and match creates even > more discord. And when people read publications predominantly from one > paradigm, they get tuned to it subconsciously and then have problems > thinking properly in the other paradigm. Then they start subconsciously > mixing epistemological and methodological requirements. Some people become > aware of this and try to bracket out contaminating idea; other people > believe they create better science this way. You guess what is my opinion > about this. > > > > A bit more about paradigmatic fidelity: If a researcher is using a > hermeneutical approach, they should not claim they are making > phenomenology. And Grounded Theory ? it is high time to disclose that this > is the field research offspring of Symbolic Interactionism. I have reviewed > articles that claim a phenomenological approach, and half of the article is > filled with statistics. These are extreme cases, but they are also pretty > common. > > > > Starting with one interview question: Well, let?s start with an interview > GUIDE and be ready to modify the guide as we receive new information. > > > > Using the concept and term ?research question:? Well there is too much > Positivism here. If we cannot align with some basic conceptualizations in > the qualitative paradigms, we cannot claim we are doing good ?qualitative? > research. > > > > If we understand the concept of paradigm, we would not fight about what is > the right way of doing qualitative research. Our problem will be what is > the right way of doing research within this or that paradigm. There will be > less irrelevant discussions and less animosity. I mean less, rather than no > more. > > > > I am also stressed when I read a title like: Qualitative Research: Several > Traditions/Approaches/Ways?Well, let?s refer to several paradigms. And then > the issue will be ? why put all these paradigms in one book? Why not > produce instructions by paradigm, in more depth, with more understanding. > Then it will become clear that there not several ways to do qualitative > research, but there are several paradigms that can be used for studying > social reality. In this regard, I would say ? there are not many ways of > doing qualitative research. They are only several. The rest is not serious. > > > > By the way, all these paradigms are unfinished business. I am astonished > that no one thinks about developing further their epistemologies and > developing field research tools commensurate with these epistemologies. > Instead, we jumped to the Qualitative and now, even to the Post-qualitative > (as if the Qualitative is a done deal). > > > > If there is something that is more abused than ?qualitative research,? it > is ?phenomenology.? I don?t know why everyone claims they are doing > phenomenology while they simply make a hodge-podge of what they have read > in several books with the title Qualitative? It is not uncommon to see > ?Teacher?s Emotional Labor in the Classroom: a Phenomenology? and then > elaboration of number of interviewees (from 20 to 70?), percentages, and > even more than descriptive statistics. > > > > I have always claimed that the phenomenological method cannot be learned > by reading books. It takes more than that ? discussions and deliberations > over a glass of cognac or a cup of coffee. It is not like Positivism and > Arithmetic: open a book, read, go, and solve the problem ? 2+2=4. > > > > And when we talk so much about Phenomenology, I am astonished that > everyone is doing it in their own way (the wrong way), rather than learning > Ethnomethodology. This is a clear indication that people have no idea what > is Phenomenology, never read, and never heard beyond the name by itself. > > > > At the end, to be honest, I use the term Qualitative. Simply because it is > easier to communicate with the outside World. It saves me lots of disputes > and angry reviewers. The umbrella keeps me from the rain, in some way. When > everyone uses the qualitative jargon, it is easier to communicate with the > faithful population, even when I understand the precarious inaccuracies and > misconceptions. But in the long run, we have a talk, which is most > important. > > > > Thank you for attention, > > > > Lubomir > > > > Lubomir Popov, PhD > > Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences > > American Culture Studies affiliated faculty > > N217 North Eppler Hall, > > Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 > > Lspopov@bgsu.edu > > 419.372.7835 > > > > > > > -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/1b23036c/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Nov 9 10:14:45 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:14:45 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [commfac] [commdept] Fwd: Data & Society Openings: Researchers, Postdocs, Faculty Fellows In-Reply-To: References: <20C8E71F-DD0A-4238-8C01-A17182ED264B@danah.org> Message-ID: FYI... ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: danah boyd Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:06 PM Subject: Data & Society Openings: Researchers, Postdocs, Faculty Fellows To: ::bounce:: I'm giddy to share that Data & Society has a cluster of new openings that may be attractive to a range of junior and senior scholars. Can you please please please share these as widely as possible? Even better: let me know of someone that I should actively encourage to apply because you se them as perfect for one of these opportunities. We want to make sure this call reaches scholars who may not already be a part of our network. *Postdoctoral Scholars: * https://datasociety.net/blog/2018/11/07/call-for-postdoctoral-scholars/ Data & Society is recruiting one to three Postdoctoral Scholars whose work complements research projects currently underway at the Institute and advances our mission. Postdoctoral Scholars will be expected to work with senior research leadership to construct a viable research project that will both advance scholarly knowledge and contribute to the broader goals of Data & Society. These are 2-year positions based in NYC starting in September 2019. Applications are due December 6, 2018. *Researchers (Social Instabilities in Labor Futures): * https://datasociety.net/blog/2018/11/08/researcher-social-instabilities-in-labor-futures-initiative-2-positions/ Data & Society is hiring for two research positions in Data & Society?s Social Instabilities in Labor Futures Initiative. Candidates would design and conduct research into one of two topics: "Public Sector Labor and Technology Disruption" or "Franchise Entrepreneurship and Financialization." Ideally, one of these positions will go to someone who can take on the role of "Research Lead" for the initiative. The other position would be a researcher position. These are two-year positions with the possibility of renewal. Applications due December 17, 2018. *Faculty Fellows: * https://datasociety.net/blog/2018/11/07/call-for-faculty-fellows/ Data & Society is seeking two to three Faculty Fellows for our 2019-20 Class of Fellows. Faculty fellows work on independent or collaborative research projects that contribute to the mission of the organization. These are 10-month paid fellowships and fellows are expected to be in residence two days a week. Applications are due December 17, 2018. I've also attached PDF versions of the calls in case that's easier. The full call provides much greater detail into each of these opportunities. Thank you sooooo much for helping us spread the word! danah ------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to the MSRNE-SMC mailing list as christosims@GMAIL.COM. Subscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-subscribe-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Unsubscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-signoff-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Please see our Privacy Statement ------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to the MSRNE-SMC mailing list as christosims@GMAIL.COM. Subscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-subscribe-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Unsubscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-signoff-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Please see our Privacy Statement ------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to the MSRNE-SMC mailing list as christosims@GMAIL.COM. Subscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-subscribe-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Unsubscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-signoff-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Please see our Privacy Statement ------ us people are just poems / we're 90% metaphor / with a leanness of meaning / approaching hyper-distillation - Ani Difranco, "Self Evident" ------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to the MSRNE-SMC mailing list as christosims@GMAIL.COM. Subscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-subscribe-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Unsubscribing: Send a blank message to: MSRNE-SMC-signoff-request@LISTS.RESEARCH.MICROSOFT.COM Please see our Privacy Statement -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/e068ec1c/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FacultyFellows.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 225328 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/e068ec1c/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LaborResearcherOpenings.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 139787 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/e068ec1c/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PostdocOpenings.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 187484 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/e068ec1c/attachment-0002.pdf From mpacker@cantab.net Fri Nov 9 10:58:10 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:58:10 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: What is science? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3581D777-A66F-45B8-9817-D9FFC3892D0E@cantab.net> As Greg mentions, the first chapter of The Science of Qualitative Research is indeed titled "What Is Science?? Since that was the title of this thread I?m attaching a copy (from the corrected proofs, not the final pdf). Normally the listserv removes the attachments from my messages, so let?s see? Martin > On Nov 9, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > My feeling is that qualitative researchers need to do three things better (and we need to do a better job of training our students in these): > > 1. Articulate much more clearly what it is that qual research is UNIQUELY positioned to do (I think that this has to do with, among other things, the processual, the practical, the interactional, the material(!)(?) and the contextual). > 2. Recognize that there are questions/issues that qual research cannot address. > 3. Recognize that there are questions/issues that quant research cannot address. > > Most qual researchers seem unable to do #1 well (this is why I like Martin's book so much). Instead they/we tend to say "... and qualitative research could help too" - in the process uncritically accepting the positivist paradigm of counting first and then adding on qual research as a kind of non-essential topping or add-on, an unnecessary flourish in the event that you want to do this. As a result, we don't notice that many important questions REQUIRE qual research (and quant research can be added on in cases where it is needed). > > And, on the other hand, some qual researchers go a bit too far and say that all questions can be answered with qual research (not recognizing #2). The trouble here is (to use Lubomir's term) paradigmatic overreach. > > What is really needed is a strong articulation of what qual research is distinctively poised to do (again, see Martin's book). We need to be training our students to do is to know how to ask the right questions. I find that my students always come in asking questions that are answerable by quant methods. They don't know how to ask qual questions - even though these are much much more interesting! > > I suspect the reason why they initially insist on quant questions has something to do with what they understand "science" to be (i.e., a thing that provides definitive answers to yes/no questions (how boring!)), so Beth, my sense is you are asking the right question (and note that Martin's first chapter is titled "What is Science?" (and in case you are wondering, yes Martin is paying me by the mention!)). > > And Beth, once things slow down for you I'd love to hear what you make of this conversation and to hear some of your insights since I know that you are extremely knowledgeable about qualitative research. > > Very best, > greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:44 PM mike cole > wrote: > An interestingly different, but thematically identical,discussion about qual/quant binary is going on and there are overlapping members > on the two lists. > mike > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Lubomir Savov Popov > > Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:08 PM > Subject: Re: Strict definitions of qualitative research > To: > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > This is an interesting thread and deserves some thoughts. > > > > There are a lot of misconceptions about the Qualitative. The major reason is that the Qualitative is an umbrella term for several paradigms from the realm of humanities and social sciences. If people understand this, everything will come in its place. Then the issues about methodological fidelity will be construed by paradigm rather than regarding the vast and nebulous entity we call qualitative research. In addition, people who are not happy with the current deformations in the mass understanding of the qualitative, those people would not express their dissatisfaction in terms of the Post-Qualitative. We can?t have Post-Qualitative when the Qualitative is in its infancy stage and worst of all, it is grossly deformed. > > > > So, instead of claiming we are doing qualitative research, let?s study a paradigm, let?s understand it, let?s master this way of thinking, and then follow its epistemology and methodology. > > > > If we share these positions, many things will come in their places, and with ease. > > > > One of the reasons not to start with a literature review is to bracket out (I don?t refer to Phenomenology here) past experience, to prevent contamination of researcher?s consciousness. Hermeneutical scholars might disagree with this, but they have to show they are doing Hermeneutics. And one other exception: rapid qualitative research. > > > > Saturation: Qualitative research is not intended to provide information that is generalizable for a vast population. If you want such generalizations, make a survey, learn how Positivists work. In order to go in-depth, and to be feasible regarding time and budget, we select cases that are representative only for their class. The less, the better. We can go deeper and deeper. But work till saturation. > > > > In order to achieve saturation, narrow down the population to a very homogeneous group. Exceptions: if you need to use ?compare and contrast? approach, with negative cases. But even in such situations, the target population should be narrowed down to a highly homogeneous composition. In the qualitative paradigms, do not try to take a case from each subgroup. If you see a subgroup, treat it as a target population. Then make several studies; then ? we can talk later how to proceed. > > > > In the qualitative paradigms, the researcher is the tool. This is a very authoritative area, like the arts. Only the best artist knows best. And who is the best artist is terra incognita. It is about intuition and zeitgeist. And if we misjudge, it is our problem. The experienced researcher might (I say might) be more trustworthy than the undergraduate student. > > > > Disagreement: This is natural. Each paradigm is (supposed to be) a coherent system of thinking. Everything that doesn?t fit into that system is rejected violently and experienced painfully. History of science and the major writings on the concept of paradigm show that clearly. > > > > Changing paradigms to fit the project: Shopping for paradigms is not like shopping for methods. The paradigm is a state of mind. If you change paradigms like we change cars and still drive, there is something wrong here. Changing paradigms is associated with confusion, cognitive dissonance, and pain. People need a life time to master a paradigm of thinking. Well, let?s say a very long time, many years, decades. The switch is confusing because all the right things in one paradigm are the wrong things in the other paradigm. On top of all, mix and match creates even more discord. And when people read publications predominantly from one paradigm, they get tuned to it subconsciously and then have problems thinking properly in the other paradigm. Then they start subconsciously mixing epistemological and methodological requirements. Some people become aware of this and try to bracket out contaminating idea; other people believe they create better science this way. You guess what is my opinion about this. > > > > A bit more about paradigmatic fidelity: If a researcher is using a hermeneutical approach, they should not claim they are making phenomenology. And Grounded Theory ? it is high time to disclose that this is the field research offspring of Symbolic Interactionism. I have reviewed articles that claim a phenomenological approach, and half of the article is filled with statistics. These are extreme cases, but they are also pretty common. > > > > Starting with one interview question: Well, let?s start with an interview GUIDE and be ready to modify the guide as we receive new information. > > > > Using the concept and term ?research question:? Well there is too much Positivism here. If we cannot align with some basic conceptualizations in the qualitative paradigms, we cannot claim we are doing good ?qualitative? research. > > > > If we understand the concept of paradigm, we would not fight about what is the right way of doing qualitative research. Our problem will be what is the right way of doing research within this or that paradigm. There will be less irrelevant discussions and less animosity. I mean less, rather than no more. > > > > I am also stressed when I read a title like: Qualitative Research: Several Traditions/Approaches/Ways?Well, let?s refer to several paradigms. And then the issue will be ? why put all these paradigms in one book? Why not produce instructions by paradigm, in more depth, with more understanding. Then it will become clear that there not several ways to do qualitative research, but there are several paradigms that can be used for studying social reality. In this regard, I would say ? there are not many ways of doing qualitative research. They are only several. The rest is not serious. > > > > By the way, all these paradigms are unfinished business. I am astonished that no one thinks about developing further their epistemologies and developing field research tools commensurate with these epistemologies. Instead, we jumped to the Qualitative and now, even to the Post-qualitative (as if the Qualitative is a done deal). > > > > If there is something that is more abused than ?qualitative research,? it is ?phenomenology.? I don?t know why everyone claims they are doing phenomenology while they simply make a hodge-podge of what they have read in several books with the title Qualitative? It is not uncommon to see ?Teacher?s Emotional Labor in the Classroom: a Phenomenology? and then elaboration of number of interviewees (from 20 to 70?), percentages, and even more than descriptive statistics. > > > > I have always claimed that the phenomenological method cannot be learned by reading books. It takes more than that ? discussions and deliberations over a glass of cognac or a cup of coffee. It is not like Positivism and Arithmetic: open a book, read, go, and solve the problem ? 2+2=4. > > > > And when we talk so much about Phenomenology, I am astonished that everyone is doing it in their own way (the wrong way), rather than learning Ethnomethodology. This is a clear indication that people have no idea what is Phenomenology, never read, and never heard beyond the name by itself. > > > > At the end, to be honest, I use the term Qualitative. Simply because it is easier to communicate with the outside World. It saves me lots of disputes and angry reviewers. The umbrella keeps me from the rain, in some way. When everyone uses the qualitative jargon, it is easier to communicate with the faithful population, even when I understand the precarious inaccuracies and misconceptions. But in the long run, we have a talk, which is most important. > > > > Thank you for attention, > > > > Lubomir > > > > Lubomir Popov, PhD > > Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences > > American Culture Studies affiliated faculty > > N217 North Eppler Hall, > > Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 > > Lspopov@bgsu.edu > 419.372.7835 > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/251c2f95/attachment-0002.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Packer ch1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 958749 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/251c2f95/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/251c2f95/attachment-0003.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Nov 9 13:50:12 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:50:12 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: What is science? In-Reply-To: <3581D777-A66F-45B8-9817-D9FFC3892D0E@cantab.net> References: <3581D777-A66F-45B8-9817-D9FFC3892D0E@cantab.net> Message-ID: Got it. Martin Thnx Mike On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:01 AM Martin Packer wrote: > As Greg mentions, the first chapter of The Science of Qualitative Research > is indeed titled "What Is Science?? Since that was the title of this thread > I?m attaching a copy (from the corrected proofs, not the final pdf). > Normally the listserv removes the attachments from my messages, so let?s > see? > > Martin > > > On Nov 9, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > My feeling is that qualitative researchers need to do three things better > (and we need to do a better job of training our students in these): > > 1. Articulate much more clearly what it is that qual research is UNIQUELY > positioned to do (I think that this has to do with, among other things, the > processual, the practical, the interactional, the material(!)(?) and the > contextual). > 2. Recognize that there are questions/issues that qual research cannot > address. > 3. Recognize that there are questions/issues that quant research cannot > address. > > Most qual researchers seem unable to do #1 well (this is why I like > Martin's book so much). Instead they/we tend to say "... and qualitative > research could help too" - in the process uncritically accepting the > positivist paradigm of counting first and then adding on qual research as a > kind of non-essential topping or add-on, an unnecessary flourish in the > event that you want to do this. As a result, we don't notice that many > important questions REQUIRE qual research (and quant research can be added > on in cases where it is needed). > > And, on the other hand, some qual researchers go a bit too far and say > that all questions can be answered with qual research (not recognizing #2). > The trouble here is (to use Lubomir's term) paradigmatic overreach. > > What is really needed is a strong articulation of what qual research is > distinctively poised to do (again, see Martin's book). We need to be > training our students to do is to know how to ask the right questions. I > find that my students always come in asking questions that are answerable > by quant methods. They don't know how to ask qual questions - even though > these are much much more interesting! > > I suspect the reason why they initially insist on quant questions has > something to do with what they understand "science" to be (i.e., a thing > that provides definitive answers to yes/no questions (how boring!)), so > Beth, my sense is you are asking the right question (and note that Martin's > first chapter is titled "What is Science?" (and in case you are wondering, > yes Martin is paying me by the mention!)). > > And Beth, once things slow down for you I'd love to hear what you make of > this conversation and to hear some of your insights since I know that you > are extremely knowledgeable about qualitative research. > > Very best, > greg > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:44 PM mike cole wrote: > >> An interestingly different, but thematically identical,discussion about >> qual/quant binary is going on and there are overlapping members >> on the two lists. >> mike >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Lubomir Savov Popov >> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:08 PM >> Subject: Re: Strict definitions of qualitative research >> To: >> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> This is an interesting thread and deserves some thoughts. >> >> >> >> There are a lot of misconceptions about the Qualitative. The major reason >> is that the Qualitative is an umbrella term for several paradigms from the >> realm of humanities and social sciences. If people understand this, >> everything will come in its place. Then the issues about methodological >> fidelity will be construed by paradigm rather than regarding the vast and >> nebulous entity we call qualitative research. In addition, people who are >> not happy with the current deformations in the mass understanding of the >> qualitative, those people would not express their dissatisfaction in terms >> of the Post-Qualitative. We can?t have Post-Qualitative when the >> Qualitative is in its infancy stage and worst of all, it is grossly >> deformed. >> >> >> >> So, instead of claiming we are doing qualitative research, let?s study a >> paradigm, let?s understand it, let?s master this way of thinking, and then >> follow its epistemology and methodology. >> >> >> >> If we share these positions, many things will come in their places, and >> with ease. >> >> >> >> One of the reasons not to start with a literature review is to bracket >> out (I don?t refer to Phenomenology here) past experience, to prevent >> contamination of researcher?s consciousness. Hermeneutical scholars might >> disagree with this, but they have to show they are doing Hermeneutics. And >> one other exception: rapid qualitative research. >> >> >> >> Saturation: Qualitative research is not intended to provide information >> that is generalizable for a vast population. If you want such >> generalizations, make a survey, learn how Positivists work. In order to go >> in-depth, and to be feasible regarding time and budget, we select cases >> that are representative only for their class. The less, the better. We can >> go deeper and deeper. But work till saturation. >> >> >> >> In order to achieve saturation, narrow down the population to a very >> homogeneous group. Exceptions: if you need to use ?compare and contrast? >> approach, with negative cases. But even in such situations, the target >> population should be narrowed down to a highly homogeneous composition. In >> the qualitative paradigms, do not try to take a case from each subgroup. If >> you see a subgroup, treat it as a target population. Then make several >> studies; then ? we can talk later how to proceed. >> >> >> >> In the qualitative paradigms, the researcher is the tool. This is a very >> authoritative area, like the arts. Only the best artist knows best. And who >> is the best artist is terra incognita. It is about intuition and zeitgeist. >> And if we misjudge, it is our problem. The experienced researcher might (I >> say might) be more trustworthy than the undergraduate student. >> >> >> >> Disagreement: This is natural. Each paradigm is (supposed to be) a >> coherent system of thinking. Everything that doesn?t fit into that system >> is rejected violently and experienced painfully. History of science and the >> major writings on the concept of paradigm show that clearly. >> >> >> >> Changing paradigms to fit the project: Shopping for paradigms is not like >> shopping for methods. The paradigm is a state of mind. If you change >> paradigms like we change cars and still drive, there is something wrong >> here. Changing paradigms is associated with confusion, cognitive >> dissonance, and pain. People need a life time to master a paradigm of >> thinking. Well, let?s say a very long time, many years, decades. The switch >> is confusing because all the right things in one paradigm are the wrong >> things in the other paradigm. On top of all, mix and match creates even >> more discord. And when people read publications predominantly from one >> paradigm, they get tuned to it subconsciously and then have problems >> thinking properly in the other paradigm. Then they start subconsciously >> mixing epistemological and methodological requirements. Some people become >> aware of this and try to bracket out contaminating idea; other people >> believe they create better science this way. You guess what is my opinion >> about this. >> >> >> >> A bit more about paradigmatic fidelity: If a researcher is using a >> hermeneutical approach, they should not claim they are making >> phenomenology. And Grounded Theory ? it is high time to disclose that this >> is the field research offspring of Symbolic Interactionism. I have reviewed >> articles that claim a phenomenological approach, and half of the article is >> filled with statistics. These are extreme cases, but they are also pretty >> common. >> >> >> >> Starting with one interview question: Well, let?s start with an interview >> GUIDE and be ready to modify the guide as we receive new information. >> >> >> >> Using the concept and term ?research question:? Well there is too much >> Positivism here. If we cannot align with some basic conceptualizations in >> the qualitative paradigms, we cannot claim we are doing good ?qualitative? >> research. >> >> >> >> If we understand the concept of paradigm, we would not fight about what >> is the right way of doing qualitative research. Our problem will be what is >> the right way of doing research within this or that paradigm. There will be >> less irrelevant discussions and less animosity. I mean less, rather than no >> more. >> >> >> >> I am also stressed when I read a title like: Qualitative Research: >> Several Traditions/Approaches/Ways?Well, let?s refer to several paradigms. >> And then the issue will be ? why put all these paradigms in one book? Why >> not produce instructions by paradigm, in more depth, with more >> understanding. Then it will become clear that there not several ways to do >> qualitative research, but there are several paradigms that can be used for >> studying social reality. In this regard, I would say ? there are not many >> ways of doing qualitative research. They are only several. The rest is not >> serious. >> >> >> >> By the way, all these paradigms are unfinished business. I am astonished >> that no one thinks about developing further their epistemologies and >> developing field research tools commensurate with these epistemologies. >> Instead, we jumped to the Qualitative and now, even to the Post-qualitative >> (as if the Qualitative is a done deal). >> >> >> >> If there is something that is more abused than ?qualitative research,? it >> is ?phenomenology.? I don?t know why everyone claims they are doing >> phenomenology while they simply make a hodge-podge of what they have read >> in several books with the title Qualitative? It is not uncommon to see >> ?Teacher?s Emotional Labor in the Classroom: a Phenomenology? and then >> elaboration of number of interviewees (from 20 to 70?), percentages, and >> even more than descriptive statistics. >> >> >> >> I have always claimed that the phenomenological method cannot be learned >> by reading books. It takes more than that ? discussions and deliberations >> over a glass of cognac or a cup of coffee. It is not like Positivism and >> Arithmetic: open a book, read, go, and solve the problem ? 2+2=4. >> >> >> >> And when we talk so much about Phenomenology, I am astonished that >> everyone is doing it in their own way (the wrong way), rather than learning >> Ethnomethodology. This is a clear indication that people have no idea what >> is Phenomenology, never read, and never heard beyond the name by itself. >> >> >> >> At the end, to be honest, I use the term Qualitative. Simply because it >> is easier to communicate with the outside World. It saves me lots of >> disputes and angry reviewers. The umbrella keeps me from the rain, in some >> way. When everyone uses the qualitative jargon, it is easier to communicate >> with the faithful population, even when I understand the precarious >> inaccuracies and misconceptions. But in the long run, we have a talk, which >> is most important. >> >> >> >> Thank you for attention, >> >> >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> Lubomir Popov, PhD >> >> Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences >> >> American Culture Studies affiliated faculty >> >> N217 North Eppler Hall, >> >> Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 >> >> Lspopov@bgsu.edu >> >> 419.372.7835 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/44187d91/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Fri Nov 9 13:57:57 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: What is science? In-Reply-To: <3581D777-A66F-45B8-9817-D9FFC3892D0E@cantab.net> References: <3581D777-A66F-45B8-9817-D9FFC3892D0E@cantab.net> Message-ID: Thank you! Beth On Friday, November 9, 2018, Martin Packer wrote: > As Greg mentions, the first chapter of The Science of Qualitative Research > is indeed titled "What Is Science?? Since that was the title of this thread > I?m attaching a copy (from the corrected proofs, not the final pdf). > Normally the listserv removes the attachments from my messages, so let?s > see? > > Martin > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, Program in Urban Education, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu (CC gmail address when writing to CUNY address, please.) Phone: (718) 951-5205 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/b6ba91e0/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Nov 9 14:54:43 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 14:54:43 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] MindCORE Postdoctoral Fellowships at the University of Pennsylvania In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Potentially interesting post-doc. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marcus, Jessica L Date: Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 9:19 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] MindCORE Postdoctoral Fellowships at the University of Pennsylvania To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org *MindCORE Postdoctoral Fellowships - review begins 1/2/19* The University of Pennsylvania MindCORE seeks to recruit outstanding postdoctoral researchers for our Research Fellowship for Postdoctoral Scholars. Designed for individuals who have recently obtained a PhD degree in psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy or other cognitive science discipline, the MindCORE Fellowship is a springboard for young researchers as they establish their own research program. Fellows are also encouraged to pursue collaborative research with faculty working across disciplines at Penn. MindCORE seeks to award 2 Fellowships per year. A flyer announcement is attached; more information is available online at: https://mindcore.sas.upenn.edu/post-doctoral-research-fellowship/. Application review begins January 2, 2019. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/04d57df7/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MindCORE Fellowship Description FY19.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 194147 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181109/04d57df7/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Nov 13 20:23:41 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:23:41 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant professor position in Developmental Psychology (cognitive development) at UH In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hawaii anyone? mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yiyuan Xu Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 8:05 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant professor position in Developmental Psychology (cognitive development) at UH To: Title: Assistant Professor (Psychology) Position Number: 0084416 Hiring Unit: College of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology Location: Manoa Date Posted: October 25, 2018 Closing Date: Continuous - application review begins November 26, 2018 Salary Information: Commensurate with training and experience. Monthly Type: 9 Month Tenure Track: Tenure Full Time/Part Time: Full Time Temporary/Permanent: Permanent ------------------------------ Other Conditions: - To begin August 1, 2019, general funds, subject to position clearance and availability of funds. The Department of Psychology, College of Social Sciences, University of Hawai`i at Manoa (UHM) in Honolulu, Hawaii, invites applications for an Assistant Professor who will add to the department?s strengths in Developmental Psychology, with an area of specialization in cognitive development and with demonstrated innovative methodological and quantitative skills. Duties and Responsibilities 1. Teach undergraduate and graduate courses in cognitive development and statistics, establish an active scholarly research program, supervise and mentor undergraduates, MA and PhD students, seek extramural funding, and participate in department, university, and community service. Other duties as assigned by the chair. Minimum Qualifications 1. 1. PhD in Psychology (developmental psychology, cognitive development, developmental cognitive neuroscience, or similar) from an accredited college or university or foreign equivalent. ABDs will be considered but PhD must be conferred before August 1, 2019. 2. 2. A record of research achievement in Developmental Psychology commensurate with time in field 3. 3. Demonstrates the potential for securing external funding 4. 4. Ability to teach undergraduate and graduate courses in developmental psychology and statistics, including cognitive development and introductory statistics; and mentor students in the applicant?s area of expertise. 5. 5. Ability to provide statistical consultation to graduate students. Desirable Qualifications 1. Although the area of expertise in cognitive development is open, we are especially interested in applicants who apply advanced quantitative methods to understand key issues in cognitive development. 2. Given the multicultural and diverse context of UHM, we also seek candidates with a demonstrated interest in, or the potential to contribute to, equity, inclusion, and diversity. ------------------------------ To Apply: Application materials should be submitted electronically at https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo/jobs/12529. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Review of applications will begin on November 26, 2018 and will continue until the position is filled. Inquiries: 1. Dr. Yiyuan Xu, Search Committee Chair; 808-956-6268; yiyuan@hawaii.edu The University of Hawai?i is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender identity and expression, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, disability, genetic information, marital status, breastfeeding, income assignment for child support, arrest and court record (except as permissible under State law), sexual orientation, domestic or sexual violence victim status, national guard absence, or status as a covered veteran. Employment is contingent on satisfying employment eligibility verification requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; reference checks of previous employers; and for certain positions, criminal history record checks. In accordance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, annual campus crime statistics for the University of Hawaii may be viewed at: http://ope.ed.gov/security/, or a paper copy may be obtained upon request from the respective UH Campus Security or Administrative Services Office. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181113/f75e8645/attachment.html From arturo.escandon@gmail.com Wed Nov 14 23:17:43 2018 From: arturo.escandon@gmail.com (Arturo Escandon) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:17:43 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Asking for PhD programme (research) in cultural-historical pedagogy Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Apologies for bothering you. A colleague of mine just completed her MA on teaching Spanish as an L2. Now she wants to do her PhD in cultural-historical pedagogies of L2 teaching/learning. There is one problem, though. She is Peruvian living and working in Japan and therefore she cannot apply to the scholarships offered by the Japanese Ministry of Education (she would have to live in Peru in order to file a proposal). She cannot leave work, so the only way to go is to do a PhD overseas on a research basis. Does anyone know about an affordable programme that allows the student to do her research on a part-time basis? She is realy good. Competent English-Spanish-Portuguese and Japanese speaker. All the best, Arturo Escand?n, PhD Professor of Foreign Language Education Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies Nanzan University 18 Yamazato-cho, Showa-ku Nagoya, 466-8673 JAPAN Tel: +81 (52) 832 3111 (extension 3604) Mobile: +81 (908) 796 4220 E-mail: escandon@nanzan-u.ac.jp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181115/3c63a55a/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Nov 15 02:27:23 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:27:23 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Asking for PhD programme (research) in cultural-historical pedagogy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Arturo-- Macquarie University does distance PhDs. The department is (in my opinion) the finest on earth. They have special funding for foreign students too, if she wants to go and live in Sydney (Sydney is not exactly a hardship posting, as my super used to say--it was recently voted the most livable city on earth....). Phil Chappell, is somewhere on this list, teaches there. And it is Ruqaiya Hasan's old university, still staffed by her immediate disciples and students. They have a very strong interest in Spanish, because of Annabelle Lukin. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:20 PM Arturo Escandon wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Apologies for bothering you. > > A colleague of mine just completed her MA on teaching Spanish as an L2. > Now she wants to do her PhD in cultural-historical pedagogies of L2 > teaching/learning. > > There is one problem, though. She is Peruvian living and working in Japan > and therefore she cannot apply to the scholarships offered by the Japanese > Ministry of Education (she would have to live in Peru in order to file a > proposal). She cannot leave work, so the only way to go is to do a PhD > overseas on a research basis. > > Does anyone know about an affordable programme that allows the student to > do her research on a part-time basis? > > She is realy good. Competent English-Spanish-Portuguese and Japanese > speaker. > > All the best, > > > Arturo Escand?n, PhD > Professor of Foreign Language Education > Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies > Nanzan University > 18 Yamazato-cho, Showa-ku > Nagoya, 466-8673 JAPAN > > Tel: +81 (52) 832 3111 (extension 3604) > Mobile: +81 (908) 796 4220 > E-mail: escandon@nanzan-u.ac.jp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181115/16c0418b/attachment.html From arturo.escandon@gmail.com Thu Nov 15 03:25:29 2018 From: arturo.escandon@gmail.com (Arturo Escandon) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:25:29 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Asking for PhD programme (research) in cultural-historical pedagogy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear David, Thank you very much for the information you have given me. I will pass it on to Lorena. Sure Macquarie is a good option Down Under. I lived in Sydney myself at the beginning of the 90s. Thanks again. Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181115/febc2736/attachment.html From arturo.escandon@gmail.com Thu Nov 15 17:58:56 2018 From: arturo.escandon@gmail.com (Arturo Escandon) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:58:56 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/451995a2/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Nov 15 18:19:22 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:19:22 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 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 > > Best > > Arturo > > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/abcbcb08/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Nov 16 05:36:37 2018 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 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 > > 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 > > > Best > > Arturo > > > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/3903e01a/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Nov 16 05:47:48 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 00:47:48 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> Message-ID: <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> 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 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 > > 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 > > > 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 >> >> >> Best >> >> Arturo >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181117/a05427d4/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Nov 16 06:00:11 2018 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:00:11 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 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 > > 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 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 >> >> 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 >> >> >> Best >> >> Arturo >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/56067304/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Nov 16 08:56:22 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:56:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> Message-ID: <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> 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] 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 >> 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 >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/077e24f5/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Nov 16 09:29:06 2018 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:29:06 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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] > 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 > 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 >> 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 > 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 >>> 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 >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> Director, >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/0cca17e8/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Nov 16 10:58:19 2018 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:58:19 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Helena. A good source on the topic you describe is R. Keith Sawyer's book *Pretend Play As Improvisation: Conversation in the Preschool Classroom* (Erlbaum, 1997). A musician turned psychologist, Keith applies the metaphor of musical improvisation to children's conversations, making a strong case for viewing speech decisions (lexical, grammatical, intentional, pragmatic, etc.) as essentially free-wheeling and improvised. With a large word stock and a fixed set of rules for combining them into hierarchical structures, an infinite number of utterances are possible. Thus, we are almost compelled to improvise our utterances. I often ask myself why, given the above, we end up having the same conversations and repeating the same words and phrases over and over again. But then I recall that it is the recurring situations that are responsible. And situations play a defining role in specifying the types of speech collaborations we enter into. Having written this, I realize it doesn't address your interest in the musical qualities of speech itself. To that point, what comes to mind is the observation of my mentor, John Dore, a linguist who applied the concept of speech acts to the analysis of children's conversations: He said that emotion is introduced into speech largely through intonation, which *rides on the back of words*. Cheers, Peter On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:31 PM 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 > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 >> >> 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 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 >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/090a1dd1/attachment.html From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Fri Nov 16 11:01:18 2018 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:01:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> 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 > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > 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] >>> > 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 >> > 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Arturo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> Director, >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> Director, >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> Fordham University >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/207b6384/attachment.html From simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za Sat Nov 17 11:05:31 2018 From: simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za (Simangele Mayisela) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 19:05:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> Message-ID: <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> 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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; Helena Worthen 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181117/1ab93f1f/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sat Nov 17 14:13:01 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 22:13:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Message-ID: 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: ???? - singing and dancing rapturously ???? - dancing village and singing club ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk > *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; Helena > Worthen > *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 > > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 > > > 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 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 > > > 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 > > > > > Best > > > > Arturo > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > > > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > > > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181117/3b54804c/attachment.html From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Sat Nov 17 09:47:51 2018 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 19:47:51 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Psychology of learning - USSR Message-ID: Dear all, The summary of D.N.BOGOIAVLENSKI AND N.A.MENCHINSKAIA in this book is excellent. The Psychology of Learning, 1900?1960 by D.N.BOGOIAVLENSKI and N.A.MENCHINSKAIA, Institute of Psychology, Moscow (1960) I would like to find further of this research in USSR on psychology of learning, in english, where should I look please? Books, journals etc. Thank you Ulvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181117/ec2a36d4/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SIMON B&J - Educational Psychology in the USSR_ International Library of Sociology (2003).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 988213 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181117/ec2a36d4/attachment-0001.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Nov 18 16:03:58 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:03:58 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Psychology of learning - USSR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ulvi Checkout the website of the Journal of Russian and East European Psych. There might be translations there. Mike On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ulvi ??il wrote: > Dear all, > The summary of D.N.BOGOIAVLENSKI AND N.A.MENCHINSKAIA in this book is > excellent. The Psychology of Learning, 1900?1960 by D.N.BOGOIAVLENSKI > and N.A.MENCHINSKAIA, Institute of Psychology, > Moscow (1960) > I would like to find further of this research in USSR on psychology of > learning, in english, where should I look please? Books, journals etc. > > Thank you > Ulvi > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181118/2a0a8e1b/attachment.html From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Tue Nov 20 13:29:45 2018 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:29:45 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Message-ID: Hi Helena, Simangele and and eXtended family, I love the direction this is going in as well ! I am working on a publication that includes this topic as a corollary to an overarching theme. I can not go into detail since it is not submitted to the publisher yet. but there is a strong case to be made that music and language co-evolved. See these... Schulkin, J. & Gjerdingen, R. O. (2013). *Reflections on the musical mind: An evolutionary perspective.* Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bernstein, L. (1976). *The unanswered question: Six talks at Harvard.* Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:07 PM Simangele Mayisela < 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk > *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; Helena > Worthen > *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 > > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 > > > 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 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 > > > 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 > > > > > Best > > > > Arturo > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > > > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > > > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: 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. > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Professor of Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181120/af1f4391/attachment.html From simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za Tue Nov 20 14:11:36 2018 From: simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za (Simangele Mayisela) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:11:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Message-ID: <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA801299095E5@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Hi Rob and All Thank you Rob, I am looking forward to read your publication, reading these recommended text in the meantime as starter. Your previous communication on Chinese idiomatic expressions demonstrating the inseparability of music and dance rather the embodiment of musical expression was quite fascinating. It made me further think about Western music ? say an orchestra that is conducted by the director/conductor. Isn?t it that it is still the same phenomenon? However in this case the conductor is the embodiment of the of the rhythm and interpretation of the notation, with the orchestra performing in sync with the conductors? body movement ? with the purpose to co-construct the produced music. Regards, Simangele From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lake Sent: 20 November 2018 11:30 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; Helena Worthen Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis Hi Helena, Simangele and and eXtended family, I love the direction this is going in as well ! I am working on a publication that includes this topic as a corollary to an overarching theme. I can not go into detail since it is not submitted to the publisher yet. but there is a strong case to be made that music and language co-evolved. See these... Schulkin, J. & Gjerdingen, R. O. (2013). Reflections on the musical mind: An evolutionary perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bernstein, L. (1976). The unanswered question: Six talks at Harvard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:07 PM Simangele Mayisela > 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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: 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. -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Professor of Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181120/688a60ae/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Nov 20 20:05:19 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:05:19 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Message-ID: 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 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: > > > ???? - singing and dancing rapturously > > > ???? - dancing village and singing club > > > ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, > hence referring to wonderful songs and dances > > > ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; Helena >> Worthen >> *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 >> >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 >> >> >> 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 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 >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Arturo >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> >> Director, >> >> Office of Institutional Research >> >> >> Fordham University >> >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> >> Director, >> >> Office of Institutional Research >> >> >> Fordham University >> >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> >> email: 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. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181120/3cf35b01/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Nov 20 21:22:28 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:22:28 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Message-ID: <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> 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 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 > 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: > > ???? - singing and dancing rapturously > > ???? <> - dancing village and singing club > > ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances > > ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk > Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > > 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 > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > > > Best > > > > Arturo > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181120/71bef579/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Wed Nov 21 00:07:31 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:07:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> , <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> 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 on behalf of HENRY SHONERD 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 > 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 > 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: ???? - singing and dancing rapturously ???? - dancing village and singing club ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances ???? - 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 > 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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/269f3edb/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bateson 1953 why do things have outlines.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 486243 bytes Desc: Bateson 1953 why do things have outlines.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/269f3edb/attachment.pdf From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Nov 21 07:00:21 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:00:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Hear Hear Alfredo! And it seems like making sense of this muddle requires some notion of something like "intersubjectivity" (and "attention", as in "joint attention"). https://www.academia.edu/37226776/_2018_Intersubjectivity (note Rommetveit's work is considered quite a bit in the above, also Jack Sidnell, as well as a little of But that really depends on how you look at it. -greg On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:09 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > *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 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 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>> Helena Worthen >>> *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 >>> >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: 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. >>> >> > -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/8000fe19/attachment-0001.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Nov 21 08:21:22 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:21:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <4914A62D-C322-45B1-8606-3B9745078FF7@gmail.com> Juicy, Alfredo! When Andy cited Corballis at the outset of the subject line on Corballis, there was certainly no telling we would get to Bateson. Discourse does have structure, grammar. But where does that grammar, that outline, the units reside? It is as much ?out there? as in the heads of the interactants. Is there a center, or is it all resonance, constantly unfolding? Newtonian or quantum? Or both? I?d like to throw improvisational comedy into this this mix of discourses. Henry > On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > > 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 > 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 > 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >> 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 >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >> 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 > 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 >> 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 >> >> Best >> >> Arturo >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/88a5a3be/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Nov 21 08:40:31 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:40:31 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <6C1C6D19-6E01-4F83-9079-551EABE20681@gmail.com> Greg, From the first few pages the Tierra Edwards article looks great. Reminds me so much of Vera John-Steiner?s seminars on language and thinking and her book Creative Collaboration. Henry > On Nov 21, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Hear Hear Alfredo! > > And it seems like making sense of this muddle requires some notion of something like "intersubjectivity" (and "attention", as in "joint attention"). > https://www.academia.edu/37226776/_2018_Intersubjectivity > (note Rommetveit's work is considered quite a bit in the above, also Jack Sidnell, as well as a little of > > But that really depends on how you look at it. > -greg > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:09 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > > 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 > 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 > 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >> 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 >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >> 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 > 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 >> 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 >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Arturo >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> >> Director, >> >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> >> Director, >> >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> >> email: 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. > > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/bad393a7/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Nov 21 11:34:11 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:34:11 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure-track Position: University of Ottawa (Canada) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another perhaps-relevant job. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Christopher Fennell Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:22 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure-track Position: University of Ottawa (Canada) To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Greetings colleagues, The Psychology department at the University of Ottawa is hiring in the area of developmental psychology (tenure-track, Asst Prof). Please see the full job ad below my signature, including application instructions. We are preferentially looking for experts in adolescent development and/or sociocultural development, and we are particularly interested in researchers who work with populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in our field. I would encourage cognitive development researchers whose approaches align with all or some of the areas above to apply. I am happy to answer any questions from interested parties to the best of my abilities. Please email me directly: fennell@uottawa.ca. Feel free to share! Many thanks, Chris Fennell ? Christopher T. Fennell, Ph.D. L?Institut des langues officielles et du bilinguisme chaire de recherche en apprentissage des langues et en acquisition The Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute Research Chair in Language Learning and Acquisition Directeur adjoint et Professeur agr?g? ?Assistant Director and Associate Professor ?cole de Psychologie ? School of Psychology Professeur agr?g? ?Associate Professor D?partement de Linguistique ? Department of Linguistics Universit? d'Ottawa ? University of Ottawa Vanier 6016, 136 Jean Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 CANADA (613) 562-5800 (4445) http://socialsciences.uottawa.ca/ldl/ *Full-Time Faculty Position (at the rank of Assistant Professor)* *School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa* The Faculty of Social Sciences comprises nine departments, schools and institutes, which offer undergraduate, Master?s and doctoral programs in both English and French. With its 10,000 students, 260 full-time professors, and wide array of programs and research centres, the Faculty of Social Sciences plays a key role at the heart of the University of Ottawa. Its graduate students are supervised by excellent researchers and undertake cutting-edge research in the Faculty?s Master?s and Ph.D. programs. The School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa is accepting applications for one (1) tenure-track position in the area of Developmental Psychology. Priority will be given to candidates demonstrating expertise in at least two the following areas: ? Adolescent Development ? Sociocultural Development ? Underrepresented populations DUTIES ? Conduct research and publishing activities ? Teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels ? Supervise Ph.D. candidates ? Participate in the University?s academic and administrative activities ? Carry out other activities as specified in the collective agreement QUALIFICATIONS ? Completed Ph.D. in Psychology ? Demonstrate excellence in teaching ? Strength of publication and research track record in the field. BILINGUALISM The University of Ottawa is a bilingual institution, and all professors in the Faculty of Social Sciences must be actively bilingual to gain tenure. The University of Ottawa offers second language training to staff members and their spouses. TERMS AND SALARY Tenure-track position. Assistant Professor salary scale starting at $82,944. Tenure-track positions are subject to budgetary approval. STARTING DATE July 1st, 2019 LOCATION OF WORK School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 BENEFITS PACKAGE The University of Ottawa provides a complete compensation package which includes long term disability, basic group life insurance, supplementary health insurance, University of Ottawa Pension Plan and optional life insurance. The Hiring Committee will begin to review applications on January 15th, 2019. We cannot guarantee that applications received after this date will be considered. Applicants must submit their curriculum vitae, a letter describing their teaching and research experience and interests, an example of their current research, an indication their French and English language abilities and submit copies of their main publications and teaching evaluations. Applicants must also request that three referees send letters of recommendation under separate cover. All information and letters are to be sent directly to: Catherine Plowright Director, School of Psychology Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, room 3002 Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Fax: (613) 562-5147 Email: psychair@uottawa.ca All qualified candidates are invited to apply; however, preference will be given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents. The University of Ottawa is an equal opportunity employer. We strongly encourage applications from women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. If you are invited to continue the selection process, please notify us of any particular adaptive measures you might require by contacting the Office of the Associate Vice-President, Faculty Affairs at 613-562-5958. Any information you send us will be handled respectfully and in complete confidence. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/1bc9e87d/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Wed Nov 21 11:37:02 2018 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:37:02 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 years) copy of The Dialogic Imagination, Michael Holquist?s collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of text types?? Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > 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 > 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 > 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >> 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 >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >> 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 > 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 >> 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 >> >> Best >> >> Arturo >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/4e3ac2a4/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bateson 1953 why do things have outlines.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 486243 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/4e3ac2a4/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/4e3ac2a4/attachment-0001.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Wed Nov 21 14:22:06 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:22:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: 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 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > *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 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 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>> Helena Worthen >>> *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 >>> >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: 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. >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/80fb0f41/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Nov 21 15:11:08 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:11:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> 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 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > > 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 > 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 > 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >> 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 >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >> 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 > 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 >> 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 >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Arturo >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> >> Director, >> >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> >> Director, >> >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> >> email: 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181121/767a139d/attachment-0001.html From simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za Thu Nov 22 01:48:43 2018 From: simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za (Simangele Mayisela) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 09:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> , <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA8012990BEE2@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Bateson, thought provoking paper indeed and Ellen Disenyake is of interest too. Wish I was not employed. From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2018 10:08 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > 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 > 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 > 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: ???? - singing and dancing rapturously ???? - dancing village and singing club ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances ???? - 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 > 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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: 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. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/21dd3de6/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:52:17 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:52:17 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: James and Helena (and others), Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to intersubjectivity. I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of "intersubjects"?). In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in this paper. With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it might fit with Vygotsky's work? Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I am!) about Bakhtin! (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects with it!).) (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). -greg On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen wrote: > Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 > years) copy of *The Dialogic Imagination*, Michael Holquist?s collectiion > of four essays by Bakhtin. > > So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and > coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of > ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, > a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An > utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a > response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it > can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. > Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist > says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of > text types?? > > Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way a > song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of > expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. > > Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am > listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences > andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track > 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > *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 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 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: >> >> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >> >> ???? - dancing village and singing club >> >> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >> >> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>> Helena Worthen >>> *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 >>> >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: 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. >>> >> > > -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/d3f42aad/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thompson, GA - Temporality, stance ownership, and the constitution of subjectivity.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 308442 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/d3f42aad/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thompson and Dori-Hacohen 2012_ Framing selves in interactional practice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1851961 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/d3f42aad/attachment-0003.pdf From jamesma320@gmail.com Thu Nov 22 11:31:21 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:31:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Greg, your articles sound exciting. I'm going to read. Thank you for sharing. James Greg Thompson ? 2018?11?22??? 17:55??? > James and Helena (and others), > > Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of > intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to > intersubjectivity. > I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion > of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are > mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of > "intersubjects"?). > > In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such > a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and > beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other > in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a > sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains > to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to > capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of > subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and > other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve > to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' > undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in > this paper. > > With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' > notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on > Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder > if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it > might fit with Vygotsky's work? > > Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I > wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I > am!) about Bakhtin! > > (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find > the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" > in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face > conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes > along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big > part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve > conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and > the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects > with it!).) > > (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized > how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces > out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational > spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation > of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). > > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 >> years) copy of *The Dialogic Imagination*, Michael Holquist?s >> collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. >> >> So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and >> coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of >> ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, >> a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An >> utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a >> response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it >> can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. >> Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist >> says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of >> text types?? >> >> Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way >> a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of >> expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. >> >> Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am >> listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences >> andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track >> 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> 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 >> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >> *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 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 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: >>> >>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> *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 >>>> >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: 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. >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/f2fa5741/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Nov 22 16:51:15 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 11:51:15 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8cfffeb7-a185-d8a1-8765-604b781b2da2@marxists.org> https://www.smh.com.au/national/aussie-brain-mapper-discovers-part-of-brain-that-lets-you-play-piano-20181122-p50hlm.html ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 23/11/2018 6:31 am, James Ma wrote: > Greg, your articles sound exciting. I'm going to read. > Thank you for sharing. James > > Greg Thompson > ? 2018?11?22??? > 17:55??? > > James and Helena (and others), > > Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion > of intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are > prior to intersubjectivity. > I entirely agree with Martin's concern?that a properly > dialectical notion of the subject would recognize that > intersubjectivity and subjectivity are mutually > constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of > "intersubjects"?). > > In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that > seek to forward such a notion of mutual constitution > of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and beyond). > One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) > and the other in the idiom of subjectivity and stance > (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a sec). In the stance > paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains > to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a > way of trying to capture some of the ways that > subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of subjects > being "consummated") in the interstitial space between > self and other (not just other subjects, but also > bodies and things that can serve to take stances > toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' > undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I > seek to theorize in this paper. > > With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd > note that John Du Bois' notion of dialogic syntax > might be particularly relevant here. He draws on > Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally > dialogical. I wonder if others are familiar and/or > have any thoughts on this approach and how it might > fit with Vygotsky's work? > > Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in > bringing up Bakhtin - I wholeheartedly second a > conversation (bad conversational participant that I > am!) about Bakhtin! > > (and perhaps I should have added this to a different > thread - I still find the asynchrony of listserves > make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" in any > traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face > conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations > everyone more or less goes along with a single chain > of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big part > of making conversations - and making subjects!) in > listserve conversations, the chaining can spin off > into many directions at once and the coherence of the > conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects > with it!).) > > (And one last parenthetical note, in typing > "listserve" I just realized how old fashioned we are! > Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces out > there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such > conversational spaces allow for more involvement from > and animation of a next generation of CHAT thinkers? > Just wondering...). > > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > > wrote: > > Outlines?? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying > on the shelf for 20 years) copy of /The Dialogic > Imagination/, Michael Holquist?s collectiion of > four essays by Bakhtin. > > So, on the topic of edges, outlines and > constraints on the one hand, and coherence and > wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the > concept of ?utterance,? a speech act performed in > order to generate, sooner or later, a > counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s > glossary on pg 434.) An utterance can be brief or > long; the defining feature of it is that gets a > response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be > you and me talking, or it can be an entire > discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. > Individual novels are utterances in the genre of > novels, which Holquist says is ?a horizon of > expectations brought to bear on a certain class of > text types?? > > Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we > could talk about the way a song coheres and > musical improvisation operates under a horizon of > expectations, but come to think of it, does not > generate a response. > > Something else: I?m still trying to learn > Vietnamese. The CD I am listening to now, produced > by the University of Social Sciences andHUmanities > in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? > Thus, Track 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? > appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> > >> 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 >> >> > > on >> behalf of HENRY SHONERD > > >> *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 >>> > 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 >>> >> > 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: >>> >>> ????- singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good >>> at singing and dancing, hence referring to >>> wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ????- 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 >> > 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 >>> ] >>> *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> >>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >> >; >>> Helena Worthen >> > >>> *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 >>> >>> >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, >>> HENRY SHONERD >>> >> > 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] >>> >> > >>> 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 >>> >> > >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> > >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from >>> Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of >>> Institutional >>> Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: >>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional >>> Research >>> >>> >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: >>> 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. >>> >> > > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181123/2c846b9c/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Nov 22 18:38:04 2018 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:38:04 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <8cfffeb7-a185-d8a1-8765-604b781b2da2@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> <8cfffeb7-a185-d8a1-8765-604b781b2da2@marxists.org> Message-ID: <62A02834-B60D-4A32-9AC7-6D9FF0F85E59@gmail.com> Actually, it?s ?discovers part of the brain that humans have but monkeys, who don?t play the piano or do surgery, don?t have.? Fun, anyway ? thanks. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Nov 22, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > https://www.smh.com.au/national/aussie-brain-mapper-discovers-part-of-brain-that-lets-you-play-piano-20181122-p50hlm.html > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 23/11/2018 6:31 am, James Ma wrote: >> Greg, your articles sound exciting. I'm going to read. Thank you for sharing. James >> >> Greg Thompson > ? 2018?11?22??? 17:55??? >> James and Helena (and others), >> >> Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to intersubjectivity. >> I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of "intersubjects"?). >> >> In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in this paper. >> >> With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it might fit with Vygotsky's work? >> >> Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I am!) about Bakhtin! >> >> (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects with it!).) >> >> (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). >> >> -greg >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: >> Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 years) copy of The Dialogic Imagination, Michael Holquist?s collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. >> >> So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of text types?? >> >> Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. >> >> Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>> >>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>> >>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>> >>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>> >>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>> 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 >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>> 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 > 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: 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. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/ac8e8aa2/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Nov 22 18:55:56 2018 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:55:56 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe what follows is a symptom of the asynchrony of list-serves, but I think it?s also a real issue: I get stumped by the numerous special vocabularies that float around on this list, each stemming from a particular tradition (which is sometimes just one scholar/writer plus some commentators, critics and students). Since I?m someone who always wants to ask, ?What is this useful for?? I want to simplify and equate terms across traditions. I know that some meaning will get lost, but it also might help tie things down. Are all these vocabularies part of the same language, or are they incompatible? Can we talk about heteroglossia and intersubjectivity in the same sentence? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > James and Helena (and others), > > Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to intersubjectivity. > I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of "intersubjects"?). > > In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in this paper. > > With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it might fit with Vygotsky's work? > > Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I am!) about Bakhtin! > > (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects with it!).) > > (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). > > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: > Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 years) copy of The Dialogic Imagination, Michael Holquist?s collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. > > So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of text types?? > > Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. > > Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >> 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 > 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 > 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: >>> >>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>> 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 >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>> 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 > 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: 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. >> > > > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/1007db6b/attachment-0003.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thompson, GA - Temporality, stance ownership, and the constitution of subjectivity.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 308442 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/1007db6b/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/1007db6b/attachment-0004.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thompson and Dori-Hacohen 2012_ Framing selves in interactional practice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1851961 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/1007db6b/attachment-0003.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181122/1007db6b/attachment-0005.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Fri Nov 23 00:00:35 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:00:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is perhaps the quintessence of Xmca-I discussion, which provides an oasis for intellectual cross-fertilisation, resulting in the heterogeneity of ontogenetic reflection and enrichment. One interesting thing is that interactants draw upon their autobiography while expressing their views. I remember what Bertrand Russell said about this (not exact words): Dogs don't relate themselves to their autobiography (however eloquently, sophisticatedly they bark), whereas humans do! James *________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 02:59, Helena Worthen wrote: > Maybe what follows is a symptom of the asynchrony of list-serves, but I > think it?s also a real issue: > > I get stumped by the numerous special vocabularies that float around on > this list, each stemming from a particular tradition (which is sometimes > just one scholar/writer plus some commentators, critics and students). > Since I?m someone who always wants to ask, ?What is this useful for?? I > want to simplify and equate terms across traditions. I know that some > meaning will get lost, but it also might help tie things down. Are all > these vocabularies part of the same language, or are they incompatible? Can > we talk about heteroglossia and intersubjectivity in the same sentence? > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > James and Helena (and others), > > Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of > intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to > intersubjectivity. > I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion > of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are > mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of > "intersubjects"?). > > In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such > a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and > beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other > in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a > sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains > to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to > capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of > subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and > other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve > to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' > undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in > this paper. > > With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' > notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on > Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder > if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it > might fit with Vygotsky's work? > > Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I > wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I > am!) about Bakhtin! > > (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find > the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" > in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face > conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes > along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big > part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve > conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and > the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects > with it!).) > > (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized > how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces > out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational > spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation > of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). > > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 >> years) copy of *The Dialogic Imagination*, Michael Holquist?s >> collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. >> >> So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and >> coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of >> ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, >> a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An >> utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a >> response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it >> can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. >> Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist >> says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of >> text types?? >> >> Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way >> a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of >> expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. >> >> Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am >> listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences >> andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track >> 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> 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 >> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >> *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 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 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: >>> >>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> *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 >>>> >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: 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. >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181123/6dfa72a2/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Nov 23 09:27:53 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 10:27:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, Greg, thank you for sharing. From a look at the abstracts and conclusions of the two articles, they resonate amazingly with this subject (language and music) and the subject line it came out of (Corballis), as if to instantiate what you say in the articles. Henry > On Nov 22, 2018, at 12:31 PM, James Ma wrote: > > Greg, your articles sound exciting. I'm going to read. Thank you for sharing. James > > Greg Thompson > ? 2018?11?22??? 17:55??? > James and Helena (and others), > > Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to intersubjectivity. > I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of "intersubjects"?). > > In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in this paper. > > With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it might fit with Vygotsky's work? > > Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I am!) about Bakhtin! > > (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects with it!).) > > (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). > > -greg > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: > Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 years) copy of The Dialogic Imagination, Michael Holquist?s collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. > > So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of text types?? > > Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. > > Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >> 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 > 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 > 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: >>> >>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>> 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 >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>> 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 > 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: 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. >> > > > > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181123/490fe24d/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Nov 23 09:36:52 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 10:36:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <0D6EB6D4-7736-4265-A717-465682B536BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6F1619E5-02E2-47DA-9E22-42723023B38E@gmail.com> May I add that the problems of asynchrony in a ?listserv? conversation are reduced by short turns, short hand, the kind that Vygotsky wrote about when drawing on a conversation between Ana Karenina and her lover. One of the reasons I thought it appropriate that I read only the abstracts and conclusions of Greg?s articles so that I could reply quickly was to stay in the flow. There is a risk of foot in mouth, but repair is the answer to that. Henry > On Nov 23, 2018, at 1:00 AM, James Ma wrote: > > This is perhaps the quintessence of Xmca-I discussion, which provides an oasis for intellectual cross-fertilisation, resulting in the heterogeneity of ontogenetic reflection and enrichment. One interesting thing is that interactants draw upon their autobiography while expressing their views. I remember what Bertrand Russell said about this (not exact words): Dogs don't relate themselves to their autobiography (however eloquently, sophisticatedly they bark), whereas humans do! > > James > ________________________________________________ > James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 02:59, Helena Worthen > wrote: > Maybe what follows is a symptom of the asynchrony of list-serves, but I think it?s also a real issue: > > I get stumped by the numerous special vocabularies that float around on this list, each stemming from a particular tradition (which is sometimes just one scholar/writer plus some commentators, critics and students). Since I?m someone who always wants to ask, ?What is this useful for?? I want to simplify and equate terms across traditions. I know that some meaning will get lost, but it also might help tie things down. Are all these vocabularies part of the same language, or are they incompatible? Can we talk about heteroglossia and intersubjectivity in the same sentence? > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: >> >> James and Helena (and others), >> >> Martin checked me offline for putting forward a notion of intersubjectivity that presumes that subjects are prior to intersubjectivity. >> I entirely agree with Martin's concern that a properly dialectical notion of the subject would recognize that intersubjectivity and subjectivity are mutually constitutive (and perhaps we should just speak of "intersubjects"?). >> >> In fact, I happen to have two papers (attached) that seek to forward such a notion of mutual constitution of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (and beyond). One is in the idiom of self and frame (Goffman 1973) and the other in the idiom of subjectivity and stance (Du Bois 2007 - more on that in a sec). In the stance paper, I draw on the notion of contract as it pertains to right (I even briefly cite Fichte and Hegel) as a way of trying to capture some of the ways that subjectivity is real-ized (Bakhtin speaks of subjects being "consummated") in the interstitial space between self and other (not just other subjects, but also bodies and things that can serve to take stances toward subjects), and as captured by Du Bois' undertheorized notion of "stance ownership" - which I seek to theorize in this paper. >> >> With regard to Bakhtin, I'd love to hear more. I'd note that John Du Bois' notion of dialogic syntax might be particularly relevant here. He draws on Bakhtin to make the case that syntax is fundamentally dialogical. I wonder if others are familiar and/or have any thoughts on this approach and how it might fit with Vygotsky's work? >> >> Helena, I didn't mean to hijack your intentions in bringing up Bakhtin - I wholeheartedly second a conversation (bad conversational participant that I am!) about Bakhtin! >> >> (and perhaps I should have added this to a different thread - I still find the asynchrony of listserves make it difficult to maintain "a conversation" in any traditional sense - chaining is normal in face-to-face conversations, but whereas in f2f conversations everyone more or less goes along with a single chain of topics (and the negotiation thereof is a big part of making conversations - and making subjects!) in listserve conversations, the chaining can spin off into many directions at once and the coherence of the conversation can quickly be lost (and the subjects with it!).) >> >> (And one last parenthetical note, in typing "listserve" I just realized how old fashioned we are! Are there other more contemporary mediated spaces out there where Vygotsky is being discussed? Might such conversational spaces allow for more involvement from and animation of a next generation of CHAT thinkers? Just wondering...). >> >> -greg >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: >> Outlines? This sent me to my dog-eared (but lying on the shelf for 20 years) copy of The Dialogic Imagination, Michael Holquist?s collectiion of four essays by Bakhtin. >> >> So, on the topic of edges, outlines and constraints on the one hand, and coherence and wholeness on the other, I?d like to offer the concept of ?utterance,? a speech act performed in order to generate, sooner or later, a counterstatement. (I?m cribbing from Holquist?s glossary on pg 434.) An utterance can be brief or long; the defining feature of it is that gets a response ? it?s part of a dialog. A dialog can be you and me talking, or it can be an entire discourse; a discourse itself can be an utterance. Individual novels are utterances in the genre of novels, which Holquist says is ?a horizon of expectations brought to bear on a certain class of text types?? >> >> Anyone else want to talk about Bahktin? Then we could talk about the way a song coheres and musical improvisation operates under a horizon of expectations, but come to think of it, does not generate a response. >> >> Something else: I?m still trying to learn Vietnamese. The CD I am listening to now, produced by the University of Social Sciences andHUmanities in HoChiMinh City, lists each track as a ?song.? Thus, Track 1, ?Excuse me, what is your name?? appears on the CD menu as ?Song 1.? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>> >>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>> >>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>> >>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>> >>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>> 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 >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>> 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 > 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: 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. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181123/87a81ed5/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Nov 24 20:29:34 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:29:34 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181124/fe7f7e34/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Van_der_Veer_R._Zavershneva_E._The_final (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 189868 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181124/fe7f7e34/attachment.pdf From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Nov 25 08:58:59 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:58:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why is this on the threshold of the perezhivanie? This paper seems to be one for linguists to salivate about, as if counting touch-stones were building bridges. Nothing new about the artificiality of credentials, I see. Best, Huw On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 04:32, mike cole wrote: > This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I > assume it?s ok to forward. > The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s > sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a > summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn > to perezhivanie. > > Mike > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181125/56c09f4b/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Nov 27 10:11:55 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:11:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 categories are 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 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 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 > 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 >> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >> *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 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 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: >>> >>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> *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 >>>> >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: 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. >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181127/a07de1d1/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Mandarin Ducks.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 641899 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181127/a07de1d1/attachment-0001.jpg From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Nov 27 11:27:28 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:27:28 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >> 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 > 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 > 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: >>> >>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>> >>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>> >>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>> >>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>> 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 >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>> 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 > 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Arturo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> >>> Director, >>> >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> >>> email: 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. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181127/394ac8ba/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Nov 27 16:18:18 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:18:18 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [commfac] [commdept] Lecturer with Potential for Security of Employment (LPSOE) Position in Media Production In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pretty good job for the media minded among you. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jennifer Neri Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:59 PM Subject: [commfac] [commdept] Lecturer with Potential for Security of Employment (LPSOE) Position in Media Production To: comm dept Hello, Please find below and attached one (1) current opening within the Department of Communication for an *Lecturer with Potential for Security of Employment (LPSOE) Position in Media Production* to begin Fall 2019. The deadline to apply is Jan 15, 2019. Feel free to circulate this ad to any individuals or listserves of interest. Thank you! ---- *Lecturer with Potential for Security of Employment** (LPSOE) Position in Media Production* The Department of Communication (http://communication.ucsd.edu) within the Division of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego invites applications for an *Assistant Teaching Professor* (*L**ecturer with Potential for Security of Employment) *position with a specialization in media practices and production beginning July 1, 2019. Candidates must have an M.F.A or Ph.D. in communication, media studies, visual arts or a related field at the time of appointment. The *Assistant Teaching Professor* (LPSOE) series parallels that of the more traditional, research-focused series, but with a emphasis on teaching and other instruction-related activities. Individuals in this series are expected to: offer up to six courses a year and provide consistently outstanding teaching; maintain a professional program and profile; provide educational leadership; and engage in committee service related to the pedagogical mission of the department and university. The appointment confers membership in the Academic Senate, and, contingent upon promotion, tenure-paralleling security of employment. Preferred candidates will have an established media-based practice and be able to teach an array of traditional and/or new media studio-based courses as well as introductory media production courses. We also seek candidates who can contribute to instruction-related activities (e.g. conducting TA media training, developing curricula, creating instructional materials, implementing the use of new and/or hybrid technologies, etc.) at the campus, statewide and national level. The department is committed to academic excellence and diversity within the faculty, staff, and student body. We are thus especially interested in candidates who have a desire to play a leadership role in advancing UC San Diego?s commitment to achieving excellence, diversity, and equity within an academic setting. *To ensure full consideration, all application materials must be submitted electronically by January 15, 2019, at the following link:* *https://apol-recruit.ucsd.edu/apply/JPF01930 **. *Applications must include: ? A two to three page cover letter ? CV ? Teaching statement along with documentation of teaching excellence (e.g. links to instructional materials, syllabi, teaching evaluations, and sample syllabus for future course offerings) ? A statement of professional activities and creative practice ? Evidence/artifacts of creative/media-based practice (please provide links to no more than 3 of your most accomplished works/works-in-progress along with a brief explanation of your role in creating the work. If you are providing films or videos, please specify which 10 minute segment from each submission you would like the committee to view for evaluation). ? Statement detailing how your presence would contribute to diversity on our campus (see http://facultyexcellence.ucsd.edu/c2d for further information) ? Three letters of reference (that specifically assess pedagogical skills and competence, among other attributes) Salary is commensurate with experience and based on University of California LSOE pay scales. UCSD is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer with a strong institutional commitment to academic excellence and diversity and to addressing dual career issues (*http://academicaffairs.ucsd.edu/aps/partneropp/ *). All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or protected veteran status. ---- Best Regards, Jennifer --- *Jennifer Neri* *Academic Personnel Analyst* Department of Communication Urban Studies and Planning Program (858) 534-0234 I MCC, Room 131 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181127/f7e12b93/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LPSOE - Media Production.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 139603 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181127/f7e12b93/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Nov 27 17:19:57 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:19:57 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, Henry, a beautiful photo and an interesting discussion. You guys should write it up! mike On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:15 AM James Ma 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 categories are > 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 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 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 >> 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 >>> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >>> *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 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 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: >>>> >>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>> >>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>> >>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>> >>>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>> *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 >>>>> >>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>> >>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>> >>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Arturo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Director, >>>>> >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> >>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Director, >>>>> >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> >>>>> email: 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181127/cb0aac80/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Nov 27 21:36:53 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:36:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> Message-ID: Alfredo's comments were apposite for me, in a certain prompting, but I would say in my own reading and consideration of these issues there is considerable muddle being presented too (one of the obvious missing ingredients in the thread is consideration of cognitive scope, but that is not all). I went back to GB's "steps" to see if there was any extra commentary on this metalogue, in particular about his ideas on predictability (of material things) and unpredictability. Although I found no direct correction, it satisfied my sense of incongruity to find in the introduction, "The conservative laws for matter and energy are still separate from the laws of order, negative entropy, and information." To the degree that material phenomena is not predictable (e.g. quantum phenomena) one can consider this in the light of not considering order or coherence. The revisit, currently traversing three chapters has been fruitful too, I think, in helping to nudge forward a problem I have been working with active orientation (my version of pragmatics) which I personally frame as a 'fundamental' (see GB's introduction). It is heartening to discover additional meanings in the text and the similarities with Pask and others, which I am now reading as 'one essay'. It is a shame that there is not much film footage of GB available. The few clips on youtube are evocative of his aliveness to ideas. It is a lonely business coming up against all the reductionism and predictable stupidity. Best, Huw On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 01:23, mike cole wrote: > Agreed, Henry, a beautiful photo and an interesting discussion. > You guys should write it up! > mike > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:15 AM James Ma 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 categories are >> 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 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 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 >>> 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 < >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>> 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 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 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: >>>>> >>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>> >>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>> >>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>>>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>> >>>>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> 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> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arturo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181128/30e75612/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Wed Nov 28 06:39:35 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:39:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? > 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 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 categories are > 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 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 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 >> 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 >>> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >>> *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 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 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: >>>> >>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>> >>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>> >>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>> >>>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>> *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 >>>>> >>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>> >>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>> >>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD 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> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Arturo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Director, >>>>> >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> >>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Director, >>>>> >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> >>>>> email: 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181128/4efe13bc/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Nov 28 14:16:06 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:16:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> 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 . 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 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 > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? > 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>> >>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>> >>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>> >>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>> >>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>> 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 >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>> 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 > 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Arturo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Director, >>>> >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> Fordham University >>>> >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> >>>> email: 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. >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181128/690a3646/attachment.html From moises.esteban@udg.edu Thu Nov 29 00:01:44 2018 From: moises.esteban@udg.edu (Moises Esteban-Guitart) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:01:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] from the The last chapter to the early Vygotsky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49371.193.125.59.88.1543478504.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Thanks Mike for sharing this. For who is interested on Vygotsky's legacy, please find enclosed an analysis of another vygotsky's work "Educational Psychology", another moment and time in his biography and intellectual thinking. moisrs > This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I > assume it???s ok to forward. > The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV???s > sources > and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of > his > past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to > perezhivanie. > > Mike > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Early_Vygotsky_2018_HistoryOfPsychology.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 184350 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/17f835d2/attachment.pdf From andyb@marxists.org Thu Nov 29 05:24:26 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:24:26 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was? written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: > This recently published paper has been distributed through > Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. > The authors track down an amazing amount of information > about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case > that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... > bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. > > Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181130/5650991e/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Nov 29 06:59:54 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:59:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> Message-ID: I think more care needs to be made with statements like "The most fundamental cultural means is language (speech in Vygotsky's terminology), which makes it possible to transcend the here and now and to solve problems on a theoretical plane". This summary plays into linguistic biases and simplifications. Similarly, I do not know the veracity of the second part of this statement "Vygotsky gave two examples from the development of children's speech: first, child speech goes from one-word sentences to more complex, differentiated sentences; second, these first one-word sentences mean many things and only gradually acquire a specific meaning." The second part clearly does not necessarily follow. To whom do these one word sentences mean many things and at what juncture of utterance? Overall I barely recognised my readings of the chapter in this essay. The ideational content about the potential differences between inner speech and egocentric speech seemed to present something new for me, but I am not so sure that this is simply a linguists' goal of identifying "inner speech" as a category of linguistics and thought. I have no issue with the "excavation" itself, which is interesting for anyone who studied Vygotsky at some length. Although, again, one needs to be careful with this kind of analysis work which is used to pidgeon-hole the researcher and (in all likelihood) misrepresent them. Similarly one should not confuse the manner of communication (paraphrasing etc) with the ideational content (which is largely omitted) and how these ideas are brought together in relation to the given problems. The conjunction of the role of this kind of analysis with its emphasis upon a view largely reduced to a linguistic interpretation seems to me to be something to be quite alarmed about, particularly as it omits what, for me, makes the work great, which is the ideas at play. My reading of this paper came directly after looking through section's of Rene's "Vygotsky Reader", which I have found myself returning to on occasion. Best, Huw On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 13:27, Andy Blunden wrote: > Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and > Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the > final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily > put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were > temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the > editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article > would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to > favour an alternative explanation. > > Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the > discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and > I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet > Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific > writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of > the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my > experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article > published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) > was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I > signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small > Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. > For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to > originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from > the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea > of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to > the existing body of science was novel to me. > > If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology > towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to > cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? > > Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down > the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said > about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books > about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon > of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about > Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this > canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage > which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology > in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same > kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned > above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. > > Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have > long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and > thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the > most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as > blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had > little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could > not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the > quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in > the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many > "bourgeois psychologists"? > > Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by > the authors. > > Andy > > PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the > fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the > several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: > > This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I > assume it?s ok to forward. > The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s > sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a > summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn > to perezhivanie. > > Mike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/d7f86773/attachment.html From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Thu Nov 29 07:09:47 2018 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:09:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> References: , <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> Message-ID: <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/61555713/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Thu Nov 29 07:56:56 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:56:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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 > . > 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 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 ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? > >> 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 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 categories are >> 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 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 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 >>> 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 < >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>> 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 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 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: >>>>> >>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>> >>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>> >>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>>>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>> >>>>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> 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> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arturo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/124c068f/attachment-0001.html From AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu Thu Nov 29 08:20:41 2018 From: AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu (Stetsenko, Anna) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:20:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> References: , <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org>, <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> Message-ID: <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/a2999d2f/attachment.html From anamshane@gmail.com Thu Nov 29 08:50:14 2018 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:50:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: ?Truth does not have an author? ? the moto of Positivism. What do you think? -- Ana Marjanovic-Shane Phone: 267-334-2905 Email: anamshane@gmail.com From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:24 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/6d54b1cf/attachment.html From s.franklin08@btinternet.com Thu Nov 29 09:01:52 2018 From: s.franklin08@btinternet.com (Shirley Franklin) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:01:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: This implies that there is no agency and, more importantly, no culture in Truth. I am not happy with it as a definition. Shirley > On 29 Nov 2018, at 16:50, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > > ?Truth does not have an author? ? the moto of Positivism. > > What do you think? > > -- > Ana Marjanovic-Shane > Phone: 267-334-2905 > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:24 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed > > Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: > > > > "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" > > > > "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) > > > > Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester > > > > > > Anna Stetsenko, PhD > Professor > Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education > The Graduate Center of The City University of New York > 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 > http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ > visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed > > Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. > It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). > Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. > Anne-Nelly > > Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) > > Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : > > Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. > > Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. > > If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? > > Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. > > Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? > > Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. > > Andy > > PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] > On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: > This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. > The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. > > Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/792554c8/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Nov 29 09:33:42 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:33:42 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: Gee, you folks are off and running and I havn't even had time to read Andy's note which I only skimmed,and the Anne-Nelly, and the great quotations from Foucault that Anna just contributed. I don't feel prepared to take on the question of "what is truth," Ana, but Anna's quotations put me strongly in mind of the problem of audience. At the moment I am struggling with this problem in a paper I am writing with Martin. We appreciate working with each other because we have different, but complementary backgrounds and we enjoy the process of "joint self education," but this gets us into trouble with each other. At times I, at times Martin, writes something that is, for me, a complex knot of uncertainties. He is addressing experts in his subfields, the very ones I am familiar with primarily through secondary sources. And I often evoke the same reaction in him. Then we talk, or write sketches of how to communicate clearly to those NOT already "in the know." Then we return to the task at hand. Personally, I appreciated the article for opening up to me the tiny slivers of information that Vygotsky doled out in the written texts by referring to sets of ideas by the names of their authors and a brief description of how they fit his (then-current) intellectual concerns. There are very few scholars who could manage that kind of multi-lingual recuperation. As a result, our understanding of the tangle of scholarly. ideas that Vygotsky and his colleague's wrestled with is enriched. Which to develop and which to abandon, of course, remains an open question. mike On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:58 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > ?Truth does not have an author? ? the moto of Positivism. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -- > > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* > > Phone: 267-334-2905 > > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > > > > *From: *"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" > on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:24 AM > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech > reconstructed > > > > Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: > > > > "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to > give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve > read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around > it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" > > > > "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling > obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory > phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is > regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably > honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. *But I quote Marx without > saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of > recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. > When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to > quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation > marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he > is being faithful to the master?s thought*. (p. 52) > > > > Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), > Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. > 37?54). Brighton: Harvester > > > > > > Anna Stetsenko, PhD > > Professor > > Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education > The Graduate Center of The City University of New York > 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 > > http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ > > visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications > ------------------------------ > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly < > Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech > reconstructed > > > > Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing > were quite different in those days. > > It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period > ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. > looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many > would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure > of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's > lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have > read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we > were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not > explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes > just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence > the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). > > Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and > students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in > philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. > This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and > by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and > exhaustive reference lists. > > Anne-Nelly > > > > Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) > > > Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden a ?crit : > > Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and > Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the > final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily > put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were > temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the > editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article > would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to > favour an alternative explanation. > > Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the > discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and > I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet > Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific > writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of > the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my > experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article > published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) > was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I > signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small > Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. > For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to > originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from > the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea > of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to > the existing body of science was novel to me. > > If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology > towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to > cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? > > Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down > the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said > about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books > about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon > of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about > Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this > canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage > which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology > in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same > kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned > above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. > > Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have > long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and > thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the > most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as > blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had > little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could > not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the > quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in > the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many > "bourgeois psychologists"? > > Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by > the authors. > > Andy > > PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the > fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the > several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] > > > On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: > > This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I > assume it?s ok to forward. > > The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s > sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a > summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn > to perezhivanie. > > > > Mike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/855250c5/attachment.html From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Thu Nov 29 10:35:29 2018 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:35:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> , Message-ID: <16022052-305E-4766-99BF-13469C2FA5D8@unine.ch> "our understanding of the tangle of scholarly ideas that Vygotsky and his colleague's wrestled with is enriched". Yes, indeed. I quite agree. It gives depth to his texts. Anne-Nelly Envoy? de mon iPhone Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 18:36, mike cole > a ?crit : Gee, you folks are off and running and I havn't even had time to read Andy's note which I only skimmed,and the Anne-Nelly, and the great quotations from Foucault that Anna just contributed. I don't feel prepared to take on the question of "what is truth," Ana, but Anna's quotations put me strongly in mind of the problem of audience. At the moment I am struggling with this problem in a paper I am writing with Martin. We appreciate working with each other because we have different, but complementary backgrounds and we enjoy the process of "joint self education," but this gets us into trouble with each other. At times I, at times Martin, writes something that is, for me, a complex knot of uncertainties. He is addressing experts in his subfields, the very ones I am familiar with primarily through secondary sources. And I often evoke the same reaction in him. Then we talk, or write sketches of how to communicate clearly to those NOT already "in the know." Then we return to the task at hand. Personally, I appreciated the article for opening up to me the tiny slivers of information that Vygotsky doled out in the written texts by referring to sets of ideas by the names of their authors and a brief description of how they fit his (then-current) intellectual concerns. There are very few scholars who could manage that kind of multi-lingual recuperation. As a result, our understanding of the tangle of scholarly. ideas that Vygotsky and his colleague's wrestled with is enriched. Which to develop and which to abandon, of course, remains an open question. mike On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:58 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: ?Truth does not have an author? ? the moto of Positivism. What do you think? -- Ana Marjanovic-Shane Phone: 267-334-2905 Email: anamshane@gmail.com From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" > on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:24 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/07891db9/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Nov 29 10:55:31 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:55:31 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> Message-ID: <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> 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 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 > 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 . 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 > 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 > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >> 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>>> >>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>> >>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>> >>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>> >>>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>> 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 >>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>> >>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>> >>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>>> 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 > 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Arturo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Director, >>>>> >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> >>>>> email:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Director, >>>>> >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> >>>>> email: 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/cdec073e/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Thu Nov 29 11:08:07 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: Truth evidently does not have *two* authors! :) Martin > On Nov 29, 2018, at 12:33 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Gee, you folks are off and running and I havn't even had time to read Andy's note which I only skimmed,and > the Anne-Nelly, and the great quotations from Foucault that Anna just contributed. > > I don't feel prepared to take on the question of "what is truth," Ana, but Anna's quotations put me strongly in mind > of the problem of audience. At the moment I am struggling with this problem in a paper I am writing with Martin. > We appreciate working with each other because we have different, but complementary backgrounds and we enjoy > the process of "joint self education," but this gets us into trouble with each other. At times I, at times Martin, writes > something that is, for me, a complex knot of uncertainties. He is addressing experts in his subfields, the very ones > I am familiar with primarily through secondary sources. And I often evoke the same reaction in him. Then we talk, or > write sketches of how to communicate clearly to those NOT already "in the know." Then we return to the task at hand. > > Personally, I appreciated the article for opening up to me the tiny slivers of information that Vygotsky doled out in the written > texts by referring to sets of ideas by the names of their authors and a brief description of how they fit his (then-current) intellectual > concerns. There are very few scholars who could manage that kind of multi-lingual recuperation. As a result, our understanding of the tangle of > scholarly. ideas that Vygotsky and his colleague's wrestled with is enriched. > > Which to develop and which to abandon, of course, remains an open question. > > mike > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:58 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: > ?Truth does not have an author? ? the moto of Positivism. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -- > > Ana Marjanovic-Shane > > Phone: 267-334-2905 > > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > > > From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu " > on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 11:24 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed > > > > Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: > > > > "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" > > > > "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) > > > > Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester > > > > > > Anna Stetsenko, PhD > > Professor > > Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education > The Graduate Center of The City University of New York > 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 > > http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ > visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed > > > > Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. > > It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). > > Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. > > Anne-Nelly > > > > Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) > > > Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : > > Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. > > Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. > > If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? > > Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. > > Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? > > Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. > > Andy > > PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] > On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: > > This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. > > The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. > > > > Mike > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/195c0103/attachment.html From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Thu Nov 29 11:25:54 2018 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:25:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> References: , <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org>, <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch>, <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: Anna I often draw on or even quote Shakespeare without realising it.. Methinks he doth protest too much, etc. Then I go to a Shakespeare play and "it's full of cliches" (I forget who said it, maybe Groucho?) There is an aspect to this citation business we should attend to, as Marilyn Strathern says that students' plagiarism should be thought of the neophytes "first faltering steps to get to grips with the knowledge economy" (??). I'm not sure the knowledge economy would have been at the forefront of LSVs mind at any date, never mind the end of life; maybe he typically only cited where it would be thought productively 'useful' to source? Just asking. Julian On 29 Nov 2018, at 16:24, Stetsenko, Anna > wrote: Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/06a39915/attachment.html From AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu Thu Nov 29 11:46:24 2018 From: AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu (Stetsenko, Anna) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:46:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: , <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org>, <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch>, <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu>, Message-ID: <1543520783743.64651@gc.cuny.edu> Exactly, Julian. The implications for "students' plagiarism?" are important. Much to consider here... greetings to you! Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Julian Williams Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 2:25 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Anna I often draw on or even quote Shakespeare without realising it.. Methinks he doth protest too much, etc. Then I go to a Shakespeare play and "it's full of cliches" (I forget who said it, maybe Groucho?) There is an aspect to this citation business we should attend to, as Marilyn Strathern says that students' plagiarism should be thought of the neophytes "first faltering steps to get to grips with the knowledge economy" (??). I'm not sure the knowledge economy would have been at the forefront of LSVs mind at any date, never mind the end of life; maybe he typically only cited where it would be thought productively 'useful' to source? Just asking. Julian On 29 Nov 2018, at 16:24, Stetsenko, Anna > wrote: Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu [academia.edu] for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/4053394e/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Thu Nov 29 12:02:31 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:02:31 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: There was a discussion in this group many years ago about the ?citation business,? and I pointed out that citation means (in the legal context) a ?summons to appear? (in court); it?s as though academic authors cite other texts in order that the authors of those texts appear and add credibility to their work. Those who already have credibility, or don?t need more added, wouldn?t need to cite. Martin > On Nov 29, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Julian Williams wrote: > > Anna > > I often draw on or even quote Shakespeare without realising it.. Methinks he doth protest too much, etc. > > Then I go to a Shakespeare play and "it's full of cliches" (I forget who said it, maybe Groucho?) > > There is an aspect to this citation business we should attend to, as Marilyn Strathern says that students' plagiarism should be thought of the neophytes "first faltering steps to get to grips with the knowledge economy" (??). I'm not sure the knowledge economy would have been at the forefront of LSVs mind at any date, never mind the end of life; maybe he typically only cited where it would be thought productively 'useful' to source? > > Just asking. > > Julian > > > On 29 Nov 2018, at 16:24, Stetsenko, Anna > wrote: > >> Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: >> >> "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" >> >> "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) >> >> Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester >> >> >> Anna Stetsenko, PhD >> Professor >> Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education >> The Graduate Center of The City University of New York >> 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 >> http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ >> visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed >> >> Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. >> It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). >> Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. >> Anne-Nelly >> >> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont >> University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) >> >> Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : >> >> Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. >> >> Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. >> >> If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? >> >> Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. >> Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? >> >> Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. >> >> Andy >> >> PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] >> On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: >>> This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. >>> The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. >>> >>> Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/839c74a3/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Nov 29 13:22:38 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:22:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> , <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1543526558136.16118@ils.uio.no> Interesting, Henry. Would it be correct to speak of the two "charges" that you mention in terms of (1) our social condition, and (2) our biological condition, respectively? And if so, would it be correct to consider gestures as culture, manifesting this duality, or rather, manifesting this unity of the social and the biological? That would sound like a very Vygotskian account to me. And then it would make just as much sense to speak of gestures "helping to address this tension" as it would make it to speak of our social and biological conditions as a means to address gestures. Just babbling here, 22:22 on this side of the Atlantic. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of HENRY SHONERD Sent: 29 November 2018 19:55 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music 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 > 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 > 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. 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 > 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 > ?? 2018??11??27?????? 19:30?????? 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > 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 > 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 > 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 ?C 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: ???????? - singing and dancing rapturously ???????? - dancing village and singing club ???????? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances ???????? - 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 > 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 ?C of language and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the thoughts contained in the music? Helena ?C 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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/54cc3e89/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Nov 29 13:50:52 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:50:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: <41812927-ff94-2290-6e23-587d63fea1b2@marxists.org> <7ABA2281-17FE-4AD0-AF69-F3EB6D552483@unine.ch> <1543508441444.51055@gc.cuny.edu> , Message-ID: <1543528251861.92538@ils.uio.no> ?That with students plagiarism is tough, because part of the student's business is precisely to learn to speak the language of the field, which only exists as utterances' of others. I first heard the words "I only have one language. It is not mine" from W-M Roth, who was citing Derrida, and recently you'll hear me using them (some version of them) with colleagues and students, not even quotation marks. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer Sent: 29 November 2018 21:02 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed There was a discussion in this group many years ago about the ?citation business,? and I pointed out that citation means (in the legal context) a ?summons to appear? (in court); it?s as though academic authors cite other texts in order that the authors of those texts appear and add credibility to their work. Those who already have credibility, or don?t need more added, wouldn?t need to cite. Martin On Nov 29, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Julian Williams > wrote: Anna I often draw on or even quote Shakespeare without realising it.. Methinks he doth protest too much, etc. Then I go to a Shakespeare play and "it's full of cliches" (I forget who said it, maybe Groucho?) There is an aspect to this citation business we should attend to, as Marilyn Strathern says that students' plagiarism should be thought of the neophytes "first faltering steps to get to grips with the knowledge economy" (??). I'm not sure the knowledge economy would have been at the forefront of LSVs mind at any date, never mind the end of life; maybe he typically only cited where it would be thought productively 'useful' to source? Just asking. Julian On 29 Nov 2018, at 16:24, Stetsenko, Anna > wrote: Here is a sound and healthy attitude, smile: "Sometimes I quote someone without using quotation marks or a footnote to give the name of the source. It seems like I?m just supposed to prove I?ve read this famous scholar, and I say why should I have to put quotes around it if you can?t even recognize who it comes from?" "I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx?s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn?t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein? He uses them, but he doesn?t need the quotation marks, the footnote and the eulogistic comment to prove how completely he is being faithful to the master?s thought. (p. 52) Foucault, Michel. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972?1977 (pp. 37?54). Brighton: Harvester Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ visit www.academia.edu for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The last chapter of Thinking and Speech reconstructed Yes, Andy, you are certainly right that the norms of scientific writing were quite different in those days. It would very interesting to read Piaget's writings of the same period ('30's) in the same way as Van der Veer and Zavershneva read Vygotsky i.e. looking for the quotes that are not mentioned as such. I expect that many would be found in spite of the fact that Piaget was not under the pressure of finishing writing before dying. As students, listening to Piaget's lectures in the sixties, we were aware that we were expected to have read many "classics" (even if they were not part of the study plan); we were expected to be aware of the on-going debates even if we were not explicitly informed about them. We were expected to recognise the quotes just as we were expected to already know certain facts. (As a consequence the exams that we had to take were organised in a quite different format). Hence I suppose that Piaget and Vygotsky expected that their readers and students would have ( or would soon have) a strong background in philosophy, psychology etc. and hence they wouldn't "spell out" everything. This would be one more reason, beyond all those spelled out by Andy and by Van der Veer and Zavershneva, for the absence of explicit quotations and exhaustive reference lists. Anne-Nelly Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont University of Neuch?tel (Switzerland) Le 29 nov. 2018 ? 14:26, Andy Blunden > a ?crit : Thank you for sharing this, Mike. And all credit to Van der Veer and Zavershneva for their masterful excavation of Vygotsky's sources in the final chapter. Perhaps they are correct, that the citations were speedily put together with a view to getting a doctorate while requirements were temporarily relaxed, and after he died with the work incomplete, the editors, being human, did a sloppier job than the authors of this article would could have done so many years later. This is possible. But I tend to favour an alternative explanation. Firstly, I confess that I am not familiar with the history of the discipline of academic scientific writing. Others on this list may be, and I'd be interested to know what the norms were in 1934 and in the Soviet Union in particular. I have only gradually learnt academic scientific writing, thanks to my association with MCA and the tireless assistance of the editors there. But prior to about 2007 I wrote as a Trotskyist and my experience with writing was very different. Before I got my first article published in MCA in 2007, I had written two books: Beyond Betrayal (1991) was written without a shred of consciousness of being original; although I signed my name to it, I took as the expression of the view of the small Trotskyist group I belonged to; all I was doing was setting it on paper. For Ethical Politics (2003) was written again without any claim to originality, and one whole chapter was made up of material I picked from the brain of a comrade who knew much more about Ethics than I did. The idea of quoting sources and focusing on providing an original contribution to the existing body of science was novel to me. If Vygotsky was mobilising the discoveries of contemporary psychology towards an important insight, are we sure that it was improper for him to cite these co-thinkers without sourcing the quotes? Van der Veer and Zavershneva had done a marvellous job in tracking down the quotes. When I set about finding the source of everything Vygotsky said about Hegel, I was able to do this because I had read all the same books about Marx and Hegel that Vygotsky had read. They are all part of the canon of a certain type of Marxism. All bar one statement Vygotsky made about Vygotsky was lifted from one of half a dozen books which are part of this canon and with which I was very familiar, except for one extended passage which seemed to be Vygotsky's own synopsis of a part of Hegel's Psychology in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit. Anyone could have done the same kind of job, as I did for Vygotsky-on-Hegel, on my two books mentioned above. And yet, for all that, I was saying something original. Combined with this, isn't is a fact that Vygotsky knew he did not have long to live in 1934, and he was in a hurry to complete this work - and thank God he did hurry to complete it! - this work which is to this day the most widely known and cited of his entire legacy. So even if he was not as blas? about citing sources etc., as Andy-before-2007 was, knowing he had little time left was reason enough o cut corners. That his editors could not do what van der Veer and Zavershneva did, but decided just to omit the quote marks, is believable. Also, maybe it was not politically correct in the USSR in the shadow of the Moscow Trials to quote approvingly so many "bourgeois psychologists"? Personally, I find this a more likely explanation than the one favoured by the authors. Andy PS. the fact that I completed a PhD in Engineering does not contradict the fact that I was unacquainted with academic writing, and likewise the several articles I published years ago on diverse topics. It's a long story. ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm [ethicalpolitics.org] On 25/11/2018 3:29 pm, mike cole wrote: This recently published paper has been distributed through Academia, so I assume it?s ok to forward. The authors track down an amazing amount of information about LSV?s sources and provide a (to me) compelling case that this chapter is a summary of his past work..... bringing us to the threshold of the re-turn to perezhivanie. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/2c855ec4/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Nov 29 14:00:55 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:00:55 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <1543526558136.16118@ils.uio.no> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <1543526558136.16118@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <893450F0-914C-4269-BEAD-6A56B3EB87EF@gmail.com> Alfredo, Bingo! to gesture addressing that tension between the potentially competing charges of language, but you lost me at "social and biological conditions as a means to address gestures?. Hmmm?Proof of Slobin?s pudding? Clarity vs. temporal constraints. It may be clear to another member of the audience. Precisely Mike?s point in working with Martin. Bateson?s claim: It?s all in relation. Henry > On Nov 29, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Interesting, Henry. Would it be correct to speak of the two "charges" that you mention in terms of (1) our social condition, and (2) our biological condition, respectively? And if so, would it be correct to consider gestures as culture, manifesting this duality, or rather, manifesting this unity of the social and the biological? That would sound like a very Vygotskian account to me. And then it would make just as much sense to speak of gestures "helping to address this tension" as it would make it to speak of our social and biological conditions as a means to address gestures. > Just babbling here, 22:22 on this side of the Atlantic. > > Alfredo > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > > Sent: 29 November 2018 19:55 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music > > 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 > 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 > 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 . 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 > 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 > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>> 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>>>> 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 > 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Arturo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> email: 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/1033019e/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Nov 29 14:23:56 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 22:23:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <893450F0-914C-4269-BEAD-6A56B3EB87EF@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <1543526558136.16118@ils.uio.no>, <893450F0-914C-4269-BEAD-6A56B3EB87EF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1543530236353.28221@ils.uio.no> ?Well, I am lost too, but I meant the possibility of reading the need for being "clear" as the need to address others and therefore as a social need, and the need to speak such as not to loose the trail of what you are saying as a constrain that has to do with how our organisms set boundaries to what is hearable and possibly held together within one's awareness during any given period of time. But of course, the two needs presuppose each other; to make yourself clear presupposes the "biological" constrain immediately. That is why I was thinking of gesture as an expression of this unity; which in expressing itself, changes the very relation. The babbling is even worse now, at 23:23 (really it is 23:23 in my clock) Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of HENRY SHONERD Sent: 29 November 2018 23:00 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music Alfredo, Bingo! to gesture addressing that tension between the potentially competing charges of language, but you lost me at "social and biological conditions as a means to address gestures?. Hmmm?Proof of Slobin?s pudding? Clarity vs. temporal constraints. It may be clear to another member of the audience. Precisely Mike?s point in working with Martin. Bateson?s claim: It?s all in relation. Henry On Nov 29, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Interesting, Henry. Would it be correct to speak of the two "charges" that you mention in terms of (1) our social condition, and (2) our biological condition, respectively? And if so, would it be correct to consider gestures as culture, manifesting this duality, or rather, manifesting this unity of the social and the biological? That would sound like a very Vygotskian account to me. And then it would make just as much sense to speak of gestures "helping to address this tension" as it would make it to speak of our social and biological conditions as a means to address gestures. Just babbling here, 22:22 on this side of the Atlantic. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > Sent: 29 November 2018 19:55 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music 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 > 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 > 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. 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 > 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 > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > 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 > 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 > 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: ???? - singing and dancing rapturously ???? - dancing village and singing club ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances ???? - 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 > 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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > 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 Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 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 > 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 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 Best Arturo -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181129/1a81eff1/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Thu Nov 29 23:16:08 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:16:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? > 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 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 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 >> . >> 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 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 ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >> >>> 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 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 categories are >>> 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 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 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 >>>> 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 < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>> 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 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 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>>>>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> 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> 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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181130/3828211f/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Fri Nov 30 05:53:33 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:53:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> Message-ID: Semiotically speaking, gesture is not a slippery concept; non-gesture manifests itself as a kind of gesture. Human beings are biologically social and socially biological, and their relationships can't be not semiotic. I'm watching you watching me watching you - the way you look at me affects the way I look at you. We can't stop sending, getting signals to and from each other, verbally or non-verbally, voluntarily or involuntarily - this is semiotically *and* linguistically splendid! My point is that any non-verbal gesture as a non-linguistic sign has the word-forming potential, capable of being transcended into language as a system of signification. 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". James On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 18:58, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > 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 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 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 >> . >> 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 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 ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >> >>> 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 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 categories are 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 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 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 >>>> 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 < >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>> 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 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 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, >>>>>> hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - 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> 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] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> 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> 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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181130/83136892/attachment-0001.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Nov 30 07:37:49 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:37:49 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> Right on, James! > On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma 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 > ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? > 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 > 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 > 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 . 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 > 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 > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>> 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>>>> 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 > 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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arturo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181130/8cdfa3b8/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Fri Nov 30 11:51:25 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:51:25 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F4C9359-A768-4EF0-BB0F-13C46545FBCD@cantab.net> "Human beings are biologically social and socially biological?? :) Martin > On Nov 30, 2018, at 8:53 AM, James Ma wrote: > > Semiotically speaking, gesture is not a slippery concept; non-gesture manifests itself as a kind of gesture. Human beings are biologically social and socially biological, and their relationships can't be not semiotic. I'm watching you watching me watching you - the way you look at me affects the way I look at you. We can't stop sending, getting signals to and from each other, verbally or non-verbally, voluntarily or involuntarily - this is semiotically and linguistically splendid! My point is that any non-verbal gesture as a non-linguistic sign has the word-forming potential, capable of being transcended into language as a system of signification. 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". > > James > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 18:58, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > 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 > 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 > 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 . 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 > 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 > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>> 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 > 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 categories are 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>>> 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 > 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 > 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? - 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 > 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 ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > 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] > 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 > 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 >>>>>> 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 > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arturo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181130/ef52981d/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Nov 30 20:09:20 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 15:09:20 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7069aa1d-3551-427c-6f5c-970dcb0cce1b@marxists.org> But James, semiotics in the Peircean sense is not language. When a chimpanzee cries out in fear, he is not intending to alert his friend, and is no more consciously aware of screaming in fear than he is of raising the hackles on the back of his neck. Nonetheless, as you say, the other chimps will respond in emotion and behaviour as if they had been intentionally warned. This kind of seeming-communication is almost universal in the animal world, So the first precondition for a behaviour to function as an element of language is conscious control of the given behaviour. Otherwise it is just action and reaction. I understand from Corballis that chimpanzees do not have conscious control over their vocalisations, but they do have conscious control over their hands. It is for *this* reason that chimps can do rudimentary signing but cannot do rudimentary speech - over and above the limitations of their larynx, which are not altogether insurmountable. There is still a step from consciously controlled movements of the hands, body and face for the purpose of grasping, walking, eating or whatever, and re-purposing the same controlled movements for semiotic purposes. But for a social species, you are at least half-way there. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/12/2018 12:53 am, James Ma wrote: > Semiotically speaking, gesture is not a slippery concept; > non-gesture manifests itself as a kind of gesture.?Human > beings?are biologically social and socially biological, > and their?relationships can't be not semiotic. I'm > watching you watching me watching you - the way you look > at me affects the way I look at you. We can't stop > sending, getting signals to and from each other, verbally > or non-verbally, voluntarily or involuntarily - this is > semiotically /and/ linguistically splendid! My point is > that?any non-verbal gesture as a non-linguistic sign has > the word-forming potential, capable of being?transcended > into language as a system of signification. 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". > > James > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 18:58, HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > 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 >> > >> 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 >> > 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 >> . >> 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 >>> >> > 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 >> > ? 2018?11?27??? >>> 19:30??? >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> > 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 categories are 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 >>>> >>> > 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 >>>>> >>>> > 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 >>>> > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> *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 >>>>> > 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 >>>>> > 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> ????- singing and dancing >>>>>> rapturously >>>>>> >>>>>> ????- dancingvillage and >>>>>> singing club >>>>>> >>>>>> ????- citizens of ancient Yan >>>>>> and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>> dancing, hence referring to >>>>>> wonderful songs and dances >>>>>> >>>>>> ????- 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 >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> ] >>>>>> *On Behalf Of >>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 >>>>>> November 2018 21:01 >>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>> >>>>> >; >>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 >>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, >>>>>> at 8:56 AM, HENRY >>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> 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] >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Arturo >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent >>>>>> from >>>>>> Gmail >>>>>> Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Office >>>>>> of >>>>>> Institutional >>>>>> Research >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fordham >>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>> NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: >>>>>> (718) >>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: >>>>>> (718) >>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: >>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Director, >>>>>> >>>>>> Office of >>>>>> Institutional >>>>>> Research >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fordham >>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>> >>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: (718) >>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: (718) >>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>> >>>>>> email: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181201/507d4828/attachment.html