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

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



Andy,

I have to make light of this...my speech acts were an attempt to impress you...how did you ascertain that (my behavior gave you access to my thinking)....Anyways.  I simply side with Derrida on the issue.  

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
President
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
www.mocombeian.com 
www.readingroomcurriculum.com 
www.paulcmocombe.info 

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> </div><div>Date:10/11/2014  11:02 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <pmocombe@mocombeian.com> </div><div>Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion </div><div>
</div>Well, I just don't agree, Paul.
You want to draw my attention to a fault in the logic that I use, and 
Mike used, by pointing to problems that Willard Quine has. Why should 
that impress me? And quite honestly the same goes for Wallerstein, 
Giddens, Derrida and Searle.

Any real connection between two processes takes time. There is no real 
relation between two simultaneous processes which is direct. Any attempt 
to discuss the relationship between behaviour and thinking which 
approaches that relation directly, that is, other than by means of how 
behaviour is transformed into thinking and thinking is transformed into 
behaviour, over time, is bound to end up in impossible conundrums.
Of all these people you mention, Searle is one I have actually had the 
joy of debating this point with, and he is indeed a classic example of 
my point.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Andy,
>
> It does not matter in what tradition you are arguing...analytical or 
> continental...  It still produces the same absurd logic and point.  In 
> sociology, immanuel wallerstein, anthony giddens, and a number of 
> other structuration theorists building on hegel, marx, etc., encounter 
> the same quineian problematic.  Your response somehow implies that the 
> problematic does not exist in the continental tradition...definitely 
> not the case.  The debate between Searle and Derrida speaks to this 
> exact point.  As the feminist theorists, theresa brennan, points out 
> in her essay, "two forms of consciouseness,"  uniting consciousness 
> and behavior introduces the old conundrum of behaviorism and 
> structuralism in a new form, "how do you account for alternative 
> practical consciousnesses and the praxis of the genius..."
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com 
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com 
> www.paulcmocombe.info 
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andy Blunden
> Date:10/11/2014 10:09 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
>
> Paul, I really don't care if Willard Quine has problems.
> My reply was in the tradition of Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, not American
> analytical philosophy. Quine's difficulties shed no light on A N
> Leontyev's criticisms of Vygotsky.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> > 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
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > www.paulcmocombe.info
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Andy Blunden
> > Date:10/11/2014 8:22 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > Subject: [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
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
>
>