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

[Xmca-l] Fwd: Fate, Luck and Chance [Language as a form]



Sorry to micro-manage my turn: I mean privilege, rather than power. Is this about fate, luck and chance?


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance [Language as a form]
> From: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> Date: November 26, 2014 at 4:45:29 PM MST
> To: bruce@brucerob.eu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> The movie is at its best when the blok and his mate trade blows each from their contending perspectives. But with honesty, and through their constant dialog they keep their life together going, not just there He satisfied with the status quo but deeply committed to keeping his mate, who periodically gets totally pissed off at sacrifices she has been forced to make to keep things going. He really works hard at assuaging her. He’s no fool and she doesn’t want to be made to be one. It has an edge to it, but it gets gooey too. We cracked up at how cleverly Linklater scripted the back and forth, but it really is like my wife and me, only their lines are cleverer. And this chat, I think of it as a relationship between committed partners. It often feels like it’s going to fall apart, but love wins out. The blok is still a blok, but a decent one, and, really, they both knew they would get nothing better. It was an upper. We’re romantics, but then so was Goethe. I like the beginner’s mind thing. Always beginning. Now about this power thing...
> Henry
> 
> 
>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Bruce Robinson <brucerob1953@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Henry,
>> 
>> Your wife's question leads to another: who speaks for the silent majority, many of whom, like me, must be getting fed up with what David K calls a "rather blokish struggle for power over particular words'? [Not Richard Nixon :)]
>> 
>> Bruce R
>> 
>> PS: You may also note that I have not changed the subject heading of this message so that it bears no relation to the content. Something else I find irritating...
>> 
>> On 26/11/2014 17:16, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>>> Sister Analisa,
>>> Thank you for responding! I was just talking to my wife (getting personal!) about the chat. She asked me, “How does anyone get to participate in the (XMCA) chat if only a few people take part?” I wondered in my email below if too much was expected of written communication in the XMCA chat. With 800 people potentially taking turns, well…what is even possible logistically? Mike Cole has talked about this, and, I think, has some suggestions on how to deal with the bottlenecking. But even small scale communication can be daunting. I watched, with my wife, a Richard Linklater movie last night, “Before Midnight”. Two people, face to face, in a totally committed relationship, smart people, good people, trying so hard to get it right. Always a work in progress. But it’s worth it. The alternative is despair. I am sure of this: This chat, which seems to get bogged down in abstractions, pure thinking in the mud, is really consequential beyond the sensitivities of academics. I said we va
>>> lue Vygotsky’s “heroism”, but that’s too macho. I should have said courage.
>>> 
>>> The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is a powerful idea, often called the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis. Google it. Really. See what you think. One gauge of the power of an idea is if it has found its way into popular discourse. I just this morning heard an NPR radio program (thanks again to my wife, who was listening when she heard something she thought I would be interested in) that dealt with the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis in its strong and weak form.
>>> 
>>> Henry
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Henry,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think being personal (or even personable) requires being heated. Does this have to do with my comment of warmth as a sign of welcome?
>>>> 
>>>> To speak about culture non-personally is not something I am adept at doing. We are always speaking from where we stand, the culture that we are in or from, what-have-you.
>>>> 
>>>> Respectfully, I do not know what "linguistic relativity hypothesis" is. So please be patient with me while I connect this academic idea you have offered to this conversation so that I can relate that to my personal experience speaking on this thread, though clearly I'm not speaking literally right now, but it is speech from me, not a sock puppet with my voice thrown from the position of objective reality.
>>>> 
>>>> You are talking about speaking two languages. But it seems we are all speaking English on this list. So I'm a bit lost right there what you are trying to say to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Then, you speak of metalinguistics and how it represents different worldviews, if you don't mind me swapping your use of "perspective" for worldview. There is a lot of time clearing muckups to get it right. I'm not sure that it ever gets right though, which troubles me. I have found that many people who have different worldviews communicate by "talking to," rather than "talking at." I feel, for example, you and I are talking to one another, despite our likely different POVs.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know what the "perish and dapple of Andy" means when you say that. From what I can tell he's trying to define something for himself asking for the help of others. That's fine and I'm learning that definitions are very bas-relief for him. I think my interests are a little different. So I'd prefer to orient to my interests, if that is OK.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking of metalinguistics, rather than debate over definitions, I'm more interested in speaking to the very different people who are on this list. The rumor is there are 800 folks out there. Where are you? :) To reference a highly academic quote from the Wizard of Oz:
>>>> 
>>>> "Come out, come out wherever you are, and meet the young lady who fell from the star!"
>>>> --Glinda, the Good Witch from the North (waves magic wand)
>>>> 
>>>> I'm curious how others have been inspired by Vygotsky and sociocultural theory, and even other manifestations of his ideas, such as CHAT, etc and how people are using these approaches in their work. What is that like for you? And to be more specific, what is that like for women and people of color? I'm also interested in thinking-out-loud with others about Vygotskian concepts that are not easy to understand; to employ in real time dialogue and social interaction to leap over zopeds together. Isn't that what a listserv is for? Or am I being too idealistic?
>>>> 
>>>> I have tried to speak in an open, easy, and immediate manner, to allow others to engage. But I fear that engagement is never going to happen because all that persists are conversations about definitions, or whether nothing can come from nothing, and voila! subsequent debates ensue. Or someone will say, "We already discussed this 20 years ago!" Which means I missed the party, I suppose. Unfortunately, if I disagree with a position because I interpret differently, then I'm told to go read something without really a clear explanation why I'm supposed to go read something.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't really agree with the approach of "read this," as an academic argument. Anyone is free to use it, and I have myself, but because I know how obtuse that can be, I couch it with my reasons why I think it would be a good read for that person, and what I think there is learn from reading. I think the "read this" approach, when it is offered with the tone of "now go eat your vegetables!" fails in the making of speech between people. All it does is shut things down.
>>>> 
>>>> If the reading truly is relevant, it seems far more productive in the moment of speech to cue a person what to look for, to supply a context, especially when referencing an entire book, for example, or the link to an entire website full of texts.
>>>> 
>>>> Your assessment in the physicality of language is something with which I am completely in agreement. Especially since we all seem to agree with the material aspects of language. So the question at hand is a matter of form. Form has an aesthetic but also has a purpose. Are we throwing ropes or throwing boulders? If throwing boulders, where does that need to throw boulders come from? If throwing ropes, then at least connections are being made for those who might not be very clear about ideas and who may require a helping hand.
>>>> 
>>>> Then there's the old, but handy, elliptical comment, something like a boomerang... meant to be subtle or ironic at the expense of someone who may not understand.
>>>> 
>>>> At this point, I'd to emphasize that being ignorant is not being stupid, but it seems someone who is ignorant is frequently treated as stupid (um, on this list). This "phenomenon" has made me reflect upon how little time is spent upon the nature of ignorance in education and the dynamics of ignorance in speaking. Every one of us is ignorant about most things in the world. And yet being ignorant is seen as an embarrassment, a deficiency, a lapse in character. I vehemently disagree with this reception to ignorance. Even Einstein said something like, "The more I know, the more I see how much I don't know." Such an aggressive position toward ignorance is nothing but hurtful, even arrogant. Arrogance is a blister, a defense mechanism from previous hurt. A person who is honest about one's own ignorance is a very strong person and is showing a willingness to learn something. I think all teachers will agree that a person who knows one doesn't know is an easier student to teach than
>>>  one who doesn't know one doesn't know.
>>>> Iconicity is something I can hang my hat on. I see it is related to pointing. What I like about pointing is that it is a gesture, which implies movement, in the way the word is also movement. I hope I have made sufficient personal connections to your concepts without the heat. Thank you for offering them to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Annalisa
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>