[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
zuhanden/vorhanden Re: [xmca] When does an action begin and end?
- To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: zuhanden/vorhanden Re: [xmca] When does an action begin and end?
- From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <BLU0-SMTP413DB90118EB2F77C283E4C5FF0@phx.gbl> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
"Broken tools" is not the central idea, it's just the lead example.
Heidegger would say we can use tools zuhanden-ly without (in the context
of this thread) being "conscious" of them in the same way as when we think
about them as vorhanden -- like a scientist engaged not in using it, but
in theorizing about it. When a tool stops working, then we shift attitude
from using it in its Zuhandenheit to attending to it consciously in its
Vorhandenheit. The broken tool is just the classic example in H, but I
think the concepts might apply also to the Zuhandenheit of the printed
words when reading for the meaning, versus the Vorhandenheit of the
printed text when it, for whatever reason, becomes the focus of conscious
I don't want to say more about this since others on this list are so much
more knowledgeable than I am about Heidegger.
I don't know much about reading instruction, but I do know absolutely how
it was in my Chinese classes. It was in the third year class that we could
read texts in Chinese characters aloud at a reasonable pace. When others
were reading aloud, I could follow the text with understanding. When I was
the one reading aloud, I was one of the more proficient lectors in the
class; but when I reached the end of my reading I could say nothing about
what I had just read.
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Mike Cole wrote:
Sorry this came to me via gmail in two disparate threads.
So Andy IS talking about operations-actions.
Tony asks about broken tools, which, in a way, typos are.
To put a tiny bit more flesh on my questions about consciousness. A standard
procedure in my college classes when issues of
reading instruction come up is to ask a student to read a passage from the
assigned readings out loud. Sans typos, the standard
reaction, even with text that student can discuss pretty well, is that the
person who reads out loud cannot say anything about the
content of the paragraph read.
What does this mean for the discussion of consciousness?
Why is reading aloud a standard practice in reading instruction classrooms?
xmca mailing list