Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Chuck

Thank you,
In particular for your personal elaboration and evocation of why this
topic *matters* and your voice is so passionate and full of interest.
I *hear* many family resemblances with my personal interests which may
contribute to what Gadamer refers to as a *fusion of horizons*.

Before I comment, I want to bring Andy's voice back into the discussion
with an insight he has made about *fuzzy boundaries*. In a paper he wrote
[The Psychology of Concepts] he stated:

The inability of subjects to provide consistent, stable and clear
definitions replicating a systematic taxonomy, though, is not a problem of
psychology. It is in the nature of *the concepts themselves*. Or I could
say, the problem lies in the object, not the subject. As Gregory Murphy
points out, it is well-known to lawmakers and those in the judiciary that
it is impossible to frame a law that will not sooner or later run into
ambiguities or self-contradiction, and as laws are subject to endless
revision and interpretation, a time never comes when that ambiguity
disappears. When lawmakers and judges set down the principle of justice
that they intend, no amount of definition of terms, qualification and
explanation can reliably represent their concept. Tests (Margolis &
Laurence 1999: 444) involving novices and experts in the sciences showed
that the concepts of experts were fuzzier than those who actually knew
nothing about the topic; the more developed the concept, the fuzzier the
boundaries. All this goes to show that there is more to any concept worthy
of the name than can be set down in a few dead words. This is not a problem
of psychology, it is *in the nature of concepts themselves*. Concepts are
not pigeonholes and concepts which conformed to expectations of these
researchers would be very poor concepts.

What I found fascinating with this comment is that the more developed the
concept the fuzzier the boundaries. This re-cognition is not a quality of
our subjective psyche but is in the *nature* of the *concepts themselves*

Chuck I'm not yet clear on why Andy sees the history of continental
philosophy as merely *pigeon holing* [merely object categorization?] and
not focused on solving projects within activity settings but that's my
growing edge.

Chuck, with that digression to draw attention to the Andy's insight  that
with developing expertise *true* concepts become MORE ambiguous and MORE
fuzzy around the boundary edges [in other words less able to be categorized
or pigeeon holed into clear and definite object boundaries] I want to
return to the thread of your answer to my questions. Thank you for taking
the time to answer. I want to add commentary between the lines of your
answer and hope this commentary evokes further commentary from others.

You wrote:

But here is at least a brief comment on your last comment, though I should
go back to review some of the later chapters of Ramachandran's the
Tell-tale Brain, which I do not have time for now. But the basic idea I was
driving at is at the conjunction of several is ideas--
1) the evolving formation of our individual consciousness is intertwined
with the evolving formation of group consciousness--no surprise there to
Vygotskians
2) Both individual and group consciousness are mediated and formed through
dialogic language --again no suprise, to both Vygotskians and Bakhtinians.
Further Bakhtin and Volosinov would add to that addressivity,
accountability, the value of the internally persuasive account, and the
formation of identity through dialog.

[Larry Purss] I would add Bahktin's concept of *answerability* as the
ethical realization that we *hear others into voice*

3) As social humans we would like to think well of ourselves (truisms of
psychology here) and we would want to be thought of well by those whom we
affiliate and whose opinions and evaluations are important to us and to
whom we desire to maintain strong bonds (lots of sociology and social
psychology here, such as reference group theory, identity theories, social
emotions theory).

[LP] Yes, and Andy's emphasis on shared projects as locations of
affiliation and evaluations and *interests*. The reason being to maintain
strong bonds.

4) Our sense of selves and consciousness arise out of focused
self-monitoring functions that arose in brain evolution, and thus they
constantly evolve in individuals through experience and seek to become more
efficient and effective in guiding certain realms of our actions--including
our social actions. (This is what I get from Ramachandran).

[LP] Chuck, when we focus are we *learning* to *perceive* using specific
*patterning* and *genres* or forms which are developing through experience?
In other words are these concepts and genres becoming more flexible and
fuzzy around the edges with developing expertise. When we become capable of
rapidly *chunking* these developing patterns or genres are we developing
the dispositions or *attitudes* to be more flexible with living with
ambiguity and fuzzy boundaries. This points to the movement within
theoretical psychology called *The psychology of the other*. This movement
is moving away from ego-centric psychology towards embracing *difference*
without needing to *other* this difference [othering the other]

[Chuck]  Bringing  Vygotsky and Volosinov back in, these forms of
self-monitoring and guidance are influenced by communally circulated
language (much of which we can consider conceptual).
Thus, we may be driven to test our evolving forms of self
monitoring/consciousness with those social groups that have influenced our
personal formations, and further we want to contribute to the communal
development and be thought of well by those groups that are important to
our dialog, and who may well be evaluating the state of our our own
consciousness in seeing whether we are valuable partners and how seriously
our contributions to their dialog should be taken.

[LP] Yes, this describes how we participate within social groups which
share our allegiances. However, how are we to reach out and *hear* the
other social groupings who are developing their own affiliations with their
own developing genres and concepts??  My own personal ideal is attracted to
a concept called the *new commons* which explores notions such
as *civility* and *cultivation* as ways of exploring shared contributions
to our emerging concepts of cultural development. Living with ambiguity and
fuzzy boundaries seems central to this project as we strive to cultivate
[as dispositions] a *fusion of horizons*

[Chuck] I hesitate to bring this back to Eliot's own situation, since it
has been about a half-century since I paid much attention to him, but
influential social and intellectual milieux which seemed both important and
problematic for him were the cultural and poetic world of the early
twentieth century with its anxieties about modernity and the world of
religion and spirit, both within the context of British class. All these
worlds would put create high demands for self-representation, especially if
he was making his career as a public voice within them.

You also asked about me. My primary affiliations are with the teaching of
writing, and by extension all professionals who are attempting to advance
writing at all levels and all regions. My life project, personal
consciousness, self-esteem, are closely tied to contributing to this
dimension of human life. Along the way, I have found several disciplinary
and interdisciplinary discussions to be valuable and engaging, Activity
theory among them. I would like to be able to explain myself to these
groups and engage with further developmental dialogues--as well as be seen
as making contributions to their discussions.I have indeed found these
dialogs fruitful, forcing me to articulate myself more clearly before this
particular epistemic court and becoming aware of ideas and concerns that
are likely to come up again as useful resources to me, as in the last week
here. So as opportunities arise to engage fruitfully with these
discussions, I feel compelled to pursue them--despi
te other demands.

[LP] Chuck, I hear a kindred spirit in this personal answer to a personal
question.  All knowledge is personal and *interested* and *matters*. Your
answer left an openning for further dialog and has also sent me off in new
directions as I try to interweave my developing understanding of the
concept of concepts and extend beyond pigeon-holing.

However, I now need to get back to my other deadlines and my students'
papers, lest my bonds on those fronts be weakened, they consider my
contributions less trustworthy, and our dialogs disrupted--all of which
would diminish my own sense of self.

Best,
Chuck

[LP] Chuck, no need to answer. However, for others who are listening in, if
you hear something which resonates and you want to answer, I have
appreciated the way this chat has developed.

With gratitude

Larry









On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Charles Bazerman <
bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:

> My apologies for silence.  I have not had time to review the video or to
> pick up some of the loose threads from the initial conversation. I hope to
> get back to these in the coming days, but right now I have several
> deadlines and a stack of papers to comment on for Monday.
>
> But here is at least a brief comment on your last comment, though I should
> go back to review some of the later chapters of Ramachandran's the
> Tell-tale Brain, which I do not have time for now.  But the basic idea I
> was driving at is at the conjunction of several is ideas--
> 1) the evolving formation of our individual consciousness is intertwined
> with the evolving formation of group consciousness--no surprise there to
> Vygotskians
> 2) Both individual and group consciousness are mediated and formed through
> dialogic language --again no suprise, to both Vygotskians and Bakhtinians.
> Further Bakhtin and Volosinov would add to that addressivity,
> accountability,  the value of the internally persuasive account, and the
> formation of identity through dialog.
> 3) As social humans we would like to think well of ourselves (truisms of
> psychology here) and we would want to be thought of well by those whom we
> affiliate and whose opinions and evaluations are important to us and to
> whom we desire to maintain strong bonds (lots of sociology and social
> psychology here, such as reference group theory, identity theories, social
> emotions theory).
> 4) Our sense of selves and consciousness arise out of focused
> self-monitoring functions that arose in brain evolution, and thus they
> constantly evolve in individuals through experience and seek to become more
> efficient and effective in guiding certain realms of our actions--including
> our social actions. (This is what I get from Ramachandran). Bringing
> Vygotsky and Volosinov back in, these forms of self-monitoring and guidance
> are influenced by communally circulated language (much of which we can
> consider conceptual).
> Thus, we may be driven to test our evolving forms of self
> monitoring/consciousness with those social groups that have influenced our
> personal formations, and further we want to contribute to the communal
> development and be thought of well by those groups that are important to
> our dialog, and who may well be evaluating the state of our our own
> consciousness in seeing whether we are valuable partners and how seriously
> our contributions to their dialog should be taken.
>
> I hesitate to bring this back to Eliot's own situation, since it has been
> about a half-century since I paid much attention to him, but influential
> social and intellectual milieux which seemed both important and problematic
> for him were the  cultural and poetic world of the early twentieth century
> with its anxieties about modernity and the world of religion and spirit,
> both within the context of British class.  All these worlds would put
> create high demands for self-representation, especially if he was making
> his career as a public voice within them.
>
> You also asked about me.  My primary affiliations are with the teaching of
> writing, and by extension all professionals who are attempting to advance
> writing at all levels and all regions.  My life project, personal
> consciousness, self-esteem, are closely tied to contributing to this
> dimension of human life.  Along the way, I have found several disciplinary
> and interdisciplinary discussions to be valuable and engaging, Activity
> theory among them.  I would like to be able to explain myself to these
> groups and engage with further developmental dialogues--as well as be seen
> as making contributions to their discussions.I have indeed found these
> dialogs fruitful, forcing me to articulate myself more clearly before this
> particular epistemic court and becoming aware of ideas and concerns that
> are likely to come up again as useful resources to me,   as in the last
> week here.  So as opportunities arise to engage fruitfully with these
> discussions, I feel compelled to pursue them--despi
> te other demands.
>
> However, I now need to get back to my other deadlines and my students'
> papers, lest my bonds on those fronts  be weakened, they consider my
> contributions less trustworthy, and our dialogs disrupted--all of which
> would diminish my own sense of self.
>
> Best,
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
> From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:32 am
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > Charles
> >
> > I would like to circle back to a comment you wrote 5 days ago before.
> > It
> > is playing with the contrast between the notions of *evoke* and *inform*
> > which I "heard" in the 3 way conversation between Mike, you , and Andy.
> >
> > The phrase *hear the other into voice* as a particular *ideal type* of
> > chat
> > or conversation which evokes further response and continues the language
> > game.
> >
> > Charles You elaborated with this comment:
> >
> >
> > My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last
> > sentence of
> > my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's ideas and
> accounts
> > to new moments, and how that provides new refining disciplines. What
> > strikes me most about Eliot's poem, which I commented on in my lost
> > message, is how urgent he feels the need to continually rearticulate
> > himself, despite what others may have said more powerfully or even
> himself
> > in better times. Of course, Eliot was caught up in both religious and
> > artic
> > stic disciplines which seemed to call for this constant rearticulation
> > to
> > measure the quality of his soul and his path in the world. To what
> extent,
> > more generally all of us are driven to rearticulate the self in those
> > disciplines important to the self, is a question I am now thinking about.
> > Is this a characteristic of participation in particular social worlds
> > or is
> > a consequence of the organization of the human brain and
> > consciousness, in
> > the manner Ramachandran proposes."
> >
> > Your last sentence is a fascinating opening for further reflections on
> > the
> > reality of THIS genre that you have *thrown your lot in with* and are
> > *cultivating* is personally moving and *evocative* for you personally
> > as
> > you develop your concepts within these chats  as meaningful participation
> > within shared social worlds.
> >
> >  The concept of *gist* as the movement of  internal reflections of
> > *innervoice* moving outward into shared projects within various
> > disciplinary discourses.
> >
> > Charles you then added a further reflection questioning if this evocative
> > movement  from internal reflections returning through participation with
> > others back into shared  social worlds [generating and participating in
> > particular genres] is a movement of consciousness in the manner
> > Ramachandran proposes.
> >
> > I'm hoping by drawing your attention back to this comment to encourage
> > you
> > and others to continue the conversation so I can listen in and
> > *develop* my
> > own horizon of understanding on this fascinating and evocative topic.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Charles Bazerman <
> > bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Forwarded the current string, and I have now rejoined the list.
> > An
> > > earlier message I sent about T.S. Eliot's poem got lost, and I may
> repost
> > > it later.  Right now, however, let me respond to these Andy and Larry's
> > > thoughtful comments.  I think Andy has got my intentions and situation
> > > right.  I was certainly invoking my understanding of Vygotsky's
> > ideas of
> > > scientific and spontaneous concepts, and was interpreting scientific
> > to
> > > include organized sets of practices where there were stronger
> > degrees of
> > > public criticism and social accountability, particularly with
> > respect to
> > > coherence among concepts and collected evidence gathered according to
> > > communal standards in pursuit of communal projects. And thus I would
> > indeed
> > > associate concepts with use and practice within social groupings.
> > (I am
> > > using the term social groupings rather than the more common term
> community
> > > in order to emphasize the varieties among groupings and the
> differentiation
> > > of roles, positions, and objects within
> > > those groupings, although collective objects may bind those groups
> > > together.)
> > >
> > > To some degree any publicly articulated ideas are accountable to
> communal
> > > expectations, practices, and rules of accountability, even if such
> rules
> > > are of the sorts such as "let it pass, because it is not important for
> > > immediate action" or "let's accept everyone's ideas, although we may
> > not
> > > understand them or agree with them, in the name of goodwill or mutual
> > > support." Each of these do provide climates in which we formulate our
> > > ideas.  So in this way the spectrum of spontaneous to
> > > disciplined/scientific concepts is continuous and does not provide
> bright
> > > lines, except as we historically construct them.  However, we have
> > > historically created more robust social groupings devoted to particular
> > > lines of practice and projects, with more explicit and detailed sets
> > of
> > > expectations and criteria of judgment for the consequentiality of
> proposed
> > > ideas--and these groupings have as well been associated with emergent
> > > institutions associate with the objects of these groupings.
> > >
> > > These might include not only the secular institutions and
> > disciplines of
> > > the academy and professions, but also those of the spiritual domain,
> > the
> > > performing and graphic arts, commerce games and sports, politics,
> criminal
> > > culture, and other domains that have a robust alignment of practice
> > and
> > > communal thinking.  These may not all have occurred to Vygotsky as
> > > scientific, as attached as he was to the emergence of "scientific
> > > socialism" (though his connection with the arts, especially literature
> > > drama and the early film, may have led him to include them in his
> > view of
> > > an increasingly scientific social order). Thus I may be drawing the
> > fuzzy
> > > line between spontaneous and scientific concepts nearer to the
> spontaneous
> > > end than Vygotsky, who might as well have been drawing a somewhat
> brighter
> > > line.  However, since Vygotsky did not elaborate extended visions of
> > > society or history, especially after he articulated his view of
> concepts,
> > > we may not ever know what he thought or even if he
> > > thought very much about this issue.  His earlier writings about the
> > arts,
> > > however, did indicate that he did treat them as capable of disciplined
> > > evocation of internal states to create shared experiences.
> > >
> > > This discussion still leaves me with the dilemma that both Andy and
> > Larry
> > > point toward, that my own articulation of concepts is within the
> > > intellectual project and practices of historically emerged
> > disciplines and
> > > projects. Guilty. I do not claim to escape social time or social
> > space, but
> > > only speak to them.  It is in fact Yrjo's call for the special issue
> > that
> > > drew together my various ruminations about concepts  in other
> > contexts to a
> > > new articulation, directed towards the inter/multi-disciplinary
> > world of
> > > MCA, situated within the wider social intellectual projects that
> > have drawn
> > > on activity theory.  I found this context gave fresh wind to my
> > sails to
> > > push my thinking further.   Additionally, it was the review
> > processes and
> > > dialog around publication that further helped me articulate my
> > thought for
> > > this particular social formation and occasion. Accordingly and
> > obviously, I
> > > draw on the conceptual world and intellectual practices that come
> > with the
> > > activity theory projects. I
> > >  have cast my bets with this particular lot and the fate of my text
> > > depends on the usefulness for people engaged with this evolving
> > project or
> > > with future projects that might find a useful resource in this set of
> > > concepts.
> > >
> > > My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last
> > sentence of
> > > my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's ideas and
> accounts
> > > to new moments, and how that provides new refining disciplines.  What
> > > strikes me most about Eliot's poem, which I commented on in my lost
> > > message, is how urgent he feels the need to continually rearticulate
> > > himself, despite what others may have said more powerfully or even
> himself
> > > in better times.  Of course, Eliot was caught up in both religious and
> > > artic stic disciplines which seemed to call for this constant
> > > rearticulation to measure the quality of his soul and his path in the
> > > world. To what extent, more generally all of us are driven to
> rearticulate
> > > the self in those disciplines important to the self, is a question I
> > am now
> > > thinking about.  Is this a characteristic of participation in
> particular
> > > social worlds or is a consequence of the organization of the human
> brain
> > > and consciousness, in the manner Ramachandran proposes.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:11 am
> > > Subject: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> > > To: Chuck Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>
> > >
> > > > Chuck-
> > > >
> > > > There are some comments on your xmca paper. You might want to join
> > > > xmca for a bit or I will just forward for your comments.
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:45 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I appreciated Bazerman's deployment of the conceptr of "genre" and
> > I also
> > > > liked his use of "gist".
> > > >
> > > > To be fair, Larry, Bazerman qualifies the use of "scientific" by
> > > following
> > > > the term with "(or disciplined or schooled)," and this indicates a
> > much
> > > > broader concept of concept, much closer to what I would take to be
> > a
> > > "true"
> > > > concept in Vygotsky's sense. I wonder if his use of "scientific" to
> > > "stand
> > > > for" that whole category of concept was a nod to Vyvgotsky? In
> general
> > > > though, I think what Bazerman calls "conceptual words" and
> "scientific
> > > > (disciplined or schooled)" concepts are precisely concepts which
> arise
> > > > from
> > > > problems in a definite system of practice, or dare I say it, a
> > > > project. A
> > > > set of practices has to have rules in order to generate
> contradictions
> > > > which are the source of new concepts.
> > > >
> > > > But I think the problem that Bazerman has in developing this insight
> > > flows
> > > > from his concept of concept. Yes, the concept of concept is circular.
> > > > When
> > > > you make claims about concepts, or say anything about them, you are
> > > already
> > > > presuming your interlocutor shares your understanding of the subject
> > > > matter, i.e. your concept of concept. ...
> > > >
> > > > So Bazerman wants to categorise concepts and sets off trying to
> > make a
> > > > typology, and so we have "spontaneous" and "scientific" concepts ...
> > > which
> > > > immediately leads to observations like yours about the "fuzzy
> boundaries"
> > > > not to say "shifting boundaries" etc. Because despite it all, it
> seems,
> > > > Bazerman still cannot get away from the concept of concept as a means
> > > > of
> > > > categorisation. So the first thing you have to do in talking about
> > > concepts
> > > > is to set up a typology of concepts.
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of nice things about this paper, but so long as
> > you are
> > > > stuck on categorisation and typologies you will forever be tied in
> > knots
> > > > trying to understand concepts, I think.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Larry Purss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > I will attempt a commentary on Charles Bazerman's article
> > "Writing With
> > > > > Concepts: Communal Internalized and Externalized"
> > > > >
> > > > > I struggled with how to enter into this genre of writing which is
> > > exploring
> > > > > the concept of concepts.  The topic of the paper I find fascinating
> > > > and the
> > > > > insight that concepts are embedded within genres allows reflection
> > > > on the
> > > > > notion of *romantic science*
> > > > >
> > > > > In particular the genre's propensity to explore concepts as two
> > > > *kinds* -
> > > > > spontaneous and scientific. Bazerman then offers a qualification
> > > > that these
> > > > > *kinds* have fuzzy boundaries.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is this notion of the fuzzy boundaries within this particular
> > > > genre that
> > > > > I would like to explore further. When we enter into a dialogue
> > on the
> > > > > relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts and
> > > > explore the
> > > > > functions of each are we moving away from *strict* dialectcs
> towards
> > > > > *interpretive* dialectics*?
> > > > > In other words is the relationship BETWEEN spontaneous and
> scientific
> > > > > concepts a *real* or an *interpretive* distinction?
> > > > > Do these distinctions exist in the natural world or are they
> aspects
> > > > of a
> > > > > particular genre which has developed textually and intertextually
> > > through
> > > > > effective history?
> > > > >
> > > > > What I'm playing with is the theme of *romantic science*.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also want to share an image which this article sparked.
> > > > > At the AERA conference in Vancouver, I felt a sense or mood of
> > > > > fragmentation within the *project* of AERA.  There were multiple
> > genres
> > > > > with the corresponding conceptual *tools* or *artifacts*. The
> > > > throngs were
> > > > > moving aboutt as if at a trade fair  picking up and putting down
> > the
> > > > > various tools, artifacts, and scientific concepts wondering if
> these
> > > > tools
> > > > > would be useful for their particular projects. But where was the
> > > > sense or
> > > > > mood of *shared purpose* within *commonly shared projects*?
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles Bazerman's article is exploring a fascinating theme of
> > > > genres and
> > > > > concepts. I hear Andy's voice calling us to put this particular
> > > > genre in a
> > > > > wider framework engaging with our ancestors. The topic as genre
> > is
> > > > > fascinating but it does have a history within an evolving dialogue.
> > > > > As Andy is passionate about calling us to remember  the genre
> exploring
> > > > > concepts of concepts has a romantic history.  Exploring
> > scientific and
> > > > > spontaneous concepts [with their FUZZY boundaries] is one way
> > into this
> > > > > fascinating genre.
> > > > >
> > > > > Larry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dear Colleagues--
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have been reminded of an issue that has been nagging at me
> > for some
> > > > >> time,
> > > > >> that we have not had a discussion of any of the articles in the
> > > special
> > > > >> issue of
> > > > >> MCA called "concepts in the wild."  The article selected by a
> > > > plurality of
> > > > >> voters
> > > > >> was by Chuck Bazerman on concepts in the process of writing.
> > But no
> > > > one
> > > > >> has
> > > > >> commented on the article. That seems to me a shame. In fact, the
> > > entire
> > > > >> issue,
> > > > >> with its stellar set of authors and papers is worth discussing,
> > and
> > > > I
> > > > >> figure there will be more
> > > > >> articles on this general theme in the time to come, spanning as
> > it
> > > > does,
> > > > >> the story of
> > > > >> all those practice in which we acquire and deploy concepts in
> > > organizing
> > > > >> our social life and experience the world.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Below are two items for your consideration: The first is the
> > > > abstract of
> > > > >> Chuck's paper. The second
> > > > >> is a stanza from a poem by T.S. Elliott which I believe is
> relevant
> > > > to
> > > > >> topic of the paper and
> > > > >> in any event, worth considering in its own right. I first
> > > > encountered it
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> Jack Goody's *Domestication of the Savage Mind, *a book about the
> > > > >> relationship between thinking and writing in societies varying
> > in
> > > their
> > > > >> practices related to the concept of literacy.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If the 25 people or more who led us to this article are not in
> > a
> > > position
> > > > >> to contribute to the discusion,
> > > > >> perhaps this invitation will be sufficient for others, including
> > > > Chuck, to
> > > > >> do so.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And if no one is interested in this discussion, we might
> > re-visit the
> > > > >> process by which articles for discussion taken from MCA. Or  not.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> mike
> > > > >> -----------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> T. S. Elliott from “East Coker”
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Twenty years largely wasted, the years of *l'entre deux guerres*
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Trying to use words, and every attempt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With shabby equipment always deteriorating
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
> > > > >>
> > > > >> By strength and submission, has already been discovered
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To emulate—but there is no competition—
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The whole poem is here:
> > > > >> ______________________________**____________
> > > > >> _____
> > > > >> xmca mailing list
> > > > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > ______________________________**____________
> > > > > _____
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________**____________
> > > > _____
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca