[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion


I would suggest that they are semiotic in John Searles theory of speech act, but not austin's.

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> </div><div>Date:10/10/2014  7:48 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion </div><div>
</div>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 <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>

> 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.
> ?
> Martin
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.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.