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

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



Mike, in my view, your observations below, that your "private" reflections were connected to a future action is exactly the sense in which CHAT bases itself on *action* as the unity of consciousness and behaviour, i.e., genetically. When we simply confront the product (private thoughts) insoluble conundrums are presented. CHAT understands the relation of thinking and acting genetically.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


mike cole wrote:
...
I might characterize what I was doing in the car as preparing for, and
simulating a next turn in an ongoing discussion with a number of
colleagues, unsure of what my own conclusions regarding the issue of
thought/action/semiosis are. In light of the discussion, I began to wonder
about that term, articulation, in Martin's note. I take articulation to
mean roughly "to say out loud to another as part of a conversation (text?).
But, I have been asking myself, and ask you all for your thoughts, when I
am engaged in verbal thinking aren't I engaged in a conversation with
another, with an audience or my sense of an audience, as part of the
process that generates what I say? It is often said that one does not stop
being a sociocultural organism simply by virtue of being physically
separate from others. Is there, in such "conversations with oneself" a form
of articulation?

And/or, might the fact that these thoughts were incorporated in my next
communication as part of this conversation, not be considered a form of
asychronous, semiotic, action?

Thanks again for your concise answer. Sorry I cannot follow adequately some
of the points you are making.
mike