[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
Mike and Martin
I wanted to quote Soloman Asch in his book [The Problem of Human Interaction] that I believe captures the "essence" of this way of viewing "communication"
"The paramount fact about social interaction is that the participants STAND on common ground, that they turn toward one another, that their acts INTERPENETRATE and therefore REGULATE each other"
I could add comments and reflections on each part of this statement and each specific word has significance ["interaction" "social" "stand" "common" "ground" "turn toward" "one another" "acts interpenetrate" "regulate"] are all foundational of 2nd person ontological assumptions from which subjectivity and cultural historical "entities" emerge. It is also a particular view of "communication"
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Packer <email@example.com>
Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010 7:58 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:43 PM, mike cole wrote:
> > if i ever understand the term, ontology (or have the illusion
> I do!)
> Mike, the term ontology is actually pretty straightforward! Its
> sense is the assumptions, tacit or explicit, about what kinds of
> entity exist, and how they relate to one another. Philosophers
> talk a lot about ontology, but so do computer scientists. Your
> computer is an instantiation of several ontologies. One is the
> "world" of the desktop, where the objects are files, folder,
> disks and so on. Folders can contain files, and other folders.
> Disks contain folders and files. Files come in various kinds,
> each of which holds different kinds of data.
> The "world" of a Microsoft Word document is a different
> ontology. Here the objects are letters, words, sentences,
> headers and footers, margins, and so on.
> This is what is called "object-oriented"programing: the
> programer explicitly defines all the different kinds of objects
> in the domain of interest, their properties and the possible
> ways they can interrelate, and the actions that can be formed on
> them. (Short article here:
> In the same way, a philosopher may take a shot at defining the
> kinds of entities that exist. A dualist, for example, will say
> there are two basic kinds, material entities and spiritual
> entities. And as Kuhn famously suggested, a scientific paradigm
> has implicit ontological assumptions "embodied" in its
> practices, which a philosopher or sociologist of science can
> have fun spelling out.
> Hope that helps!
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list