[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
Martin-- When I was driving home by myself and thinking about the
conversation on xmca, it seemed like I might be thinking with words, but i
was not articulating and someone might even claim that it was all a jumble
of sense and meaning anyway. Would this be inconsistent with the belief
that both acting and thinking are semiotic in character?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Might some kind of reconciliation be possible here by recognizing that
> both acting and thinking are *semiotic* in character? Acting requires
> ongoing interpretation of signs (icons, indices, symbols) in the world.
> Thinking ditto, the difference being that verbal thinking (thinking with
> words), at least, requires articulating that interpretation in the form of
> new signs.
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I am asking if Andy and David will follow David's *lead* by exploring
> > *mind* through what David *indicates* is Vygotsky's KEY INSIGHT that word
> > meaning is BEST understood -
> > "as MODES of semantic abstraction and generalization THAN as operations,
> > actions, and activities."
> > This notion of BEST ways to *indicate* the sense of word meanings.
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.