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

[Xmca-l] Re: labour and signs



Hi Mike,

I am reflecting back a little what you wrote for my learning, here... I apologize if I did not get this.

When you say Goethe warned of dangers, I am sensing you mean, say, that if A always arises before B and B before C in a "normal" flow of development, it may not be that A causes B which causes C and/or therefore A causes C. In the sense that chronology may not explain cause. Is this what you mean by putting one step of development ahead of another? Sorry, just I'm trying to unpack this.

Since I don't understand clearly the first part I'm not sure I can understand the second part.

I don't know for certain where meaning or intention are, I was just asking where does anyone think it is.  Certainly these could overlap deed and word in time and need not be sequential. 

I presented something that I witnessed in a child "crowning an action with a word" (which was very cool indeed to see) and I offered some ideas, but I'm not sure that this is the case or not, and I in no way mean to represent that I am making an assertion. Just using the example as a teaching tool for my understanding by grounding it in my experience.

My thinking about the phrase "word crowns the deed" was to sort out whether Vygotsky referred to the individual child or to a more evolutionary stance of humans overall, which "in the beginning it was the word" vs. "in the beginning it was the deed," imply, having something of biblical tone, hence they seem to suggest phylogenesis, and this seems an opportunity for confusion over clarity. I offer that to this stone soup.

Another question: Might it be possible that ontogenesis and phylogenesis differ in their genesis with regard to word-deed/deed-word? Or is this a chicken and egg conundrum?

Kind regards,

Annalisa