[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]
- From: Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 20:49:55 +0000
- Accept-language: es-CO, en-US
- Authentication-results: mailman.ucsd.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;mailman.ucsd.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=uniandes.edu.co;
- In-reply-to: <CB9D95C4-3458-4BC3-A0BE-C063E2BF7310@gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAGaCnpzJsCFSaGgEvgBx8VpYkvQrkxLZRzgy7yN7jPb3UHMchQ@mail.gmail.com> <ED873AA1-C25C-498E-80C8-01358A171E76@uniandes.edu.co> <CB9D95C4-3458-4BC3-A0BE-C063E2BF7310@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AQHQOBdP6ZUL7wiiGEeJD14RIacgOw==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]
This is the information I have, Henry.
Freiberger-Sheikholeslami, E. (1984). Gustav G. Shpet: Hermeneutical logic and philosophical semiotics. In J. Deely (Ed.), Semiotics 1984 (pp. 381-391). Bloomington: Semiotic Society of America.
On Jan 24, 2015, at 2:37 PM, HENRY SHONERD <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thank you very muchfor the article on Sheet. I think the readings and dialog generated will help me understand much better Vygotsky and his context by getting a better grip on the long view, through the eyes of hermeneutics. Do you know when the Freiberger-Sheeikholes article was written?
>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I am sure that there are differences between LSV and Shpet, as Larry points out. But there are also striking similarities. Here is a little background:
>> <Freiberger-Sheikholeslami 1985 Gustav G. Shpet He.pdf>
>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Martin will be sending us an article on Shpet.
>>> I therefore did some background exploration and discovered that Shpet and
>>> Vygotsky differed on the notion of "oscillation".
>>> Vygotsky believed thought and language oscillated while Shpet disagreed.
>>> Zinchenko clarifies Vygotsky's understanding in this paragraph
>>> that Zinchenko wrote in his chapter "Thought and Word, the Approaches of L.
>>> S. Vygotsky and G. G. Shpet": It uses the metaphor of rain [which I
>>> associated with the other thread on rain]
>>> "Thought and word are no less polyphonic than mind. Yet, there is a
>>> long way to go to arrive at this conclusion. And it is hard to
>>> overestimate the input of Shpet and Vygotsky, along with Aleksandr Potebnya.
>>> Out of all the polyphony of mind and thought, out of all the various
>>> possibilities of origins, Shpet and Vygotsky gave their preference to the
>>> word, although they understood it differently. Let us start from
>>> Vygotsky's metaphorical description: *What is simultaneous in thought is
>>> successive in language.* It would be possible to compare a thought with a
>>> cloud that showers a rain of words. This is why the transition from
>>> thought to language is a very complicated process of *dismemberment* of a
>>> thought and its recreation in a word. On the next page, Vygotsky wrote,
>>> 'continuing this picturesque comparison, we should liken the motivation of
>>> thought to the wind that sets the clouds in motion.' If something can *pour
>>> itself, *it means that it already exists. Therefore we can understand the
>>> given metaphor as saying that thought, already existing is *expressed *in a
>>> word" [emphasis in the original]
>>> This quote draws attention to Vygotsky perceiving *oscillation *behind the
>>> movement of thought and language. Shpet did not see thought and language as
>>> oscillating. Zinchenko's goal in his article is not to place the
>>> approaches of Shpet and Vygotsky in opposition but to present them as
>>> mutually complimentary approaches.
>>> I hope to learn from others on the complexity of the notions of
>>> oscillating movement of thought and language situated within words.
>>> Polyphonic notions