[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
- To: <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
- From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:52:45 -0400
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
But Andy, the genetic argument, the unity of consciousness and behavior, sounds like Willard van Orman quine ' s behaviorism and structurationism in sociology, neither adequately resolve the old conundrum of behaviorism? Watch quine as he struggles to resolve the conundrum....
Watch "On the Ideas of Quine: Section 1" on YouTube
On the Ideas of Quine: Section 1: http://youtu.be/1iZvycU3I9w
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> </div><div>Date:10/11/2014 8:22 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion </div><div>
</div>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.
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.