I had never thought of the meaning/value connection, David. Thank Mr
Hicheol for me!
I need to read more about tema which is not a term I am familiar with
being used in this context before.
I gather that the idea of reading the two articles on the problem of
the environment proved uninteresting. As a sign of my decriptude I had
totally forgotten that Andy had written a whole essay about the
contrast because I had it compartmentalized as part of a discussion
among Russians that we have been poking our noses in to. I would not
recommend starting with Andy's essay because it might discourage
reading the two articles themselves. I have read the Vygotsky over a
couple of times with special focus on question of units of analysis
arising from one of David's earlier notes.
Perhaps its only me, but when our conversations quickly spiral into
three more heavy tomes to read just to get near what the note writer
is suggesting, and when it involves Husserl, Heidegger and
Merleau-Ponty (whose work, at least, i know a little about!), I get to
feeling overwhelmed. I was hoping that maybe a sharp contrast and a
discussion that focused right on it, might be useful.
No stopping the racing train, i guess.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:40 PM, David Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org
When we were translating "Thinking and Speech", one of our old
Marxists, Mr. Bae Hicheol, pointed out that "znachenie" can also be
translated as "value", and that "sense" and "signification" can easily
be understood along the lines of Marx's analysis of the commodity into
a use value and an exchange value. I think this is precisely
Volosinov's model for "tema" and "znachenie": "tema" is the use value
of a word in a concrete act of thinking and speech, while "znachenie"
is an abstraction (thus more stable than "tema") created by the
process of exchange itself. There are limits to the analogy, of
course, but it is certainly not the case that use value is "private"
while exchange value is "public".
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
On 10 October 2014 23:01, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
> On the contrary. It was quite explicit.
> The first slide showed two columns. On the left were the were
> and German words for "personal meaning" and the inadequate
> sense, on the right the Russian and German words for objective
> meaning and the inadequate English word, meaning.
> The next slide illustrated this dualism graphically with public
> domains represented.
> The whole point was the Cartesian problem of the relation
between the two.
> It seems that the word "dualism" is not a "dirty word" where he
> and the idea of theorising social change, which was a theme of 2
of the 4
> keynote speeches, was also not a priority for him.
> His Oral presentation (immediately after mine on the Thursday)
> to representation of the autoregulation processes of social and
> psychological systems.
> *Andy Blunden*
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>> Did Dmitry simply not recognize the dualism in the theory he was
>> presenting, Andy?
>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> You are quite right Martin, that it was my report of Dmitry's
>>> was being referred to and also correct to chide me for irony.
>>> really out of place in discussing such complex questions.
>>> was not criticising his grandfather's theory; he was
continuing it. When I
>>> said that I didn't think that such a stark dualism was a
fruitful place from
>>> which to begin a discussion of meaning, he didn't really see
the point of my
>>> remark, simply agreeing that there could be local or regional
>>> departed from the norm. So the irony, I admit, was all mine,
and I apologise
>>> for inappropriate use of irony in this instance.
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Martin John Packer wrote:
>>>> Just to reduce confusion, I want to point out that it was
>>>> provided this account of Dmitry Leontiev's presentation at
ISCAR, not me.
>>>> And I think Andy was rejecting the argument. In fact, if I
>>>> correctly (there was a lot of irony in Andy's message!), D.
>>>> both summarizing and criticizing a position that his father
(A. N. Leontiev)
>>>> had made. Martin
>>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:35 AM, Rod Parker-Rees
>>>>> I would challenge Martin's account of Dmitry Leontiev's
>>>>> meaning is objectively fixed to 'what is' - 'irrespective
of one's personal
>>>>> relation to it' - yes, znachenie - common sense or agreed
meaning is more
>>>>> 'objective' than smysl but it is still socially constructed
- meanings are
>>>>> agreed by dint of their common use (what people do 'as a
rule') rather than
>>>>> because they reflect an absolute objectivity.
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.