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

[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]



Hi Larry,

I am grateful for your contribution. I did not know about these generative connections between Bakhtin, Vygotsky, and Wertsch's "mediated action." 

Thank you for your illumination. :)

The matter of conflict between *one true meaning* and "multifarious meaning* is easy to detect. In fact it is so easy that what I want to know is why does the conflict exist? Is it only political expedience that drives *one true meaning*? Are there other reasons?

Annalisa

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:42 AM
To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]

Annelia,
thanks for pursuing your understanding of Leontiev and ANDY'S
clarifications.

This last post suggesting ANL understands *meaning* AS the ONE TRUE MEANING
of something which fails to include meanings can be contested because of
heterogeneity in society, different classes, genders, etc. seems to be a
radical departure from Wertsch's exploration of *mediated action* .
Mediated action refers to the complementary understandings of Vygotsky AND
BAKHTIN.
Bakhtin's notion of *genres* seems to be moving in a radically different
trajectory from how Leontiev's activity theory is being explained.

HETEROGENEITY and *multivoicedness of utterances* challenges any notion of
*one true* collectively understood *meaning*

Radically different trajectories.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> No, the point is that for ANL "meaning" refers to the one true meaning of
> something. He does not allow that the meaning of something may be
> contested, and that a meaning may be contested because of heterogeneity in
> society, different social classes, genders, ethnic groups, social movements
> and so on. For ANL there is only the one true meaning of something which
> "everyone knows" or individual, personal meanings, which are therefore
> taken to be subjective.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
>
> Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>
>> This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's
>> breakdown of ANL vs. LSV. There are about 8 points total... [copypasta is a
>> starch of art] --------------------------------------------------- 6.
>> [The fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
>> --------------------------------------------------- You say: "ANL
>> believes that motivation determines perception. The norm of  perception,
>> the "true" meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning  it has for the
>> community as a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of
>> "community as a whole" in this context." So is it the case that
>> word-meaning is denied by ANL because meaning and symbols "must be"
>> cohesive across the culture and cannot have personal or spontaneous
>> meaning? I can see the reason politically to emphasize this, if the State
>> is sanctioned as the sole arbiter of meaning. --- clip from previous post
>> below Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:28:48 +0000 Annalisa wrote:
>>
>>> _6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning ---------- ANL believes that
>>> the mental representation in a child's awareness must _correspond_ directly
>>> to the object in reality, and not just perceptually, but also how the
>>> object may relate and associate to other objects and their meanings. The
>>> example is a table. Because of this definition of, what I will call here
>>> for convenience (i.e., my laziness) "object-awareness", ANL takes exception
>>> with LSV's rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a generalization to
>>> reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
>>> (word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the existence of these
>>> word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they are what
>>> construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this because he considers
>>> consciousness and intellect to be synonymous. ----------
>>>
>>>> Andy's reply to #6 above: ANL believes that motivation determines
>>>> perception. The norm of perception, the "true" meaning of an object, is
>>>> therefore the meaning it has for the community as a whole. I am questioning
>>>> the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in this context.
>>>> >--end
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>