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

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



My own excursion has been to explore writings relating to Dewey (simply
something I had out off and found time to explore).  Which, it turns out,
are (to my reading) another pithy way to express the logical problems I was
reading in David's narrative.  But this might be because I already
"understand" the problem.

Anyway, the interesting writings were "A letter from Dewey" that is in the
appendix of "Knowing and Known" and Ernest Nagel's introduction to Dewey's
"Logic: The Theory of Inquiry".

One of the rather interesting things about reading Nagel's introduction, is
that he makes an ontological error that Dewey referred to in his letter (I
believe).  The error was that an "object" (not its referent) is
existentially existent beyond and before its social construction.
Something that we CHAT enthusiasts should be familiar with.

Nevertheless (as a psychologist) I am interested in the truth of errors,
and Nagel's introduction was certainly helpful in enlivening the prospect
of the 500 page volume (vol. 12 of the later works).  Of course, I could be
naively wrong about it, but all the pieces line up for me here, including
some passages that are remarkably aligned with DE / El'konin-Davydov theory.

Best,
Huw



On 11 October 2014 22:38, Henry G. Shonerd III <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul,
> Let me think about it. I appreciate your reference to Derrida. I am
> reading like crazy to keep up with you guys!
> Henry
> P.S. I am pretty dedicated to reading the references, links on the XMCA.
> But I use Wikipedia constantly. Is this a bad thing?
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Henry,
> >
> > Clearly, your bike riding belongs to the perlocutionary category.  But
> what is the syntax and semantics that gave rise to it?  The thinking that
> it leads to, or is there another declarative or imperative statement, I.e.
> You are an environmentalists?  This is where the searle/derrida debate
> takes off.  The issues of intentionality, continuity,  discontinuity are
> that not also an aspect of language.  Hence derrida ' s notion of the
> potentiality for the deferment of meaning and why  jacques lacan posits the
> unconscious to be structured like language...to account for the
> discontinuity of both language and the unconscious, which although we can
> think them apart are not.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > www.paulcmocombe.info
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Henry G.
> Shonerd III" <hshonerd@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:10/11/2014  4:14 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>Mike and Paul,
> > Paul assumes your thinking about the XMCA dialog had nothing to do with
> your driving. I find that riding my bike to the university in the morning
> sets loose thinking about what's "on my plate" intellectually. The same
> thing happens when I am dancing to music with others (I do Nia, very
> popular in some places). Lakoff's claim that cognition is embodied is
> typically related to metaphor, but I am interested in how the phonological
> pole of language is iconic, not just with onomatopoeia, but with all forms
> of sound symbolism. And I assume that the phonological pole is a subset of
> the sematic pole. The indexical, iconic, symbolic aspects of language,
> would it be fair to say they are on a continuum, rather than discontinuous?
> Temporal aspects of language (including within speech and writing),
> wouldn't they figure in with the making (including comprehension) of
> meaning? I am sure David said as much back a while. Am I making sense that
> relates at all to the on-going dialog?
> > Henry
> >
> > On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:59 PM, "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <
> pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike,
> >>
> >> My comment was in reference to your process of thinking about the xmca
> conversation, and not your drive, which I am assuming from the speech act,
> comment has no relation to the thinking you was doing.  It is simply
> background information for us the reader (I am not going to reiterate the
> debate between derrida and Searle over the phenomenological issue of
> background, which derrida assumes Searle misunderstands...by the way based
> on you including it in your post it would imply that derrida is correct on
> the argument).
> >>
> >> Anyways, your act of thinking in the car is purely psychological and
> semiotic, and falls outside of austin's locutionary, illocutionary, and
> perlocutionary categories.  This psychological act of thinking is the
> element Searle attempts to account for in Austin's thinking.  However, in
> order to do so he has to deal with three issues, background,
> intentionality, and the wittgensteinian issue of a private language, for
> example, was your act of thinking in the car a private speech act?
> Obviously it was not and Derrida is right their is nothing outside the text.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >> President
> >> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >> www.mocombeian.com
> >> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> >> www.paulcmocombe.info
> >>
> >> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: mike cole <
> mcole@ucsd.edu> </div><div>Date:10/11/2014  1:10 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>Thanks Paul --
> >>
> >> Could you take me a little further? Others might have the same question:
> >> How do the Searles and Austin views of semiotic mediation differ, Paul,
> >> such that Martin's formulation only works for one of them?
> >>
> >> And how do they coincide, or differ, from Halliday's views, David Ke?
> >>
> >> What are the major implications of the differences??
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
> >> pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Martin,
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest that they are semiotic in John Searles theory of speech
> >>> act, but not austin's.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> >>> President
> >>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> >>> www.mocombeian.com
> >>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> >>> www.paulcmocombe.info
> >>>
> >>> <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?
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Martin John Packer <
> >>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>