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

[Xmca-l] Re: 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin,
> 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?
> Henry
>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> 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:
>> Martin
>> <Freiberger-Sheikholeslami 1985 Gustav G. Shpet He.pdf>
>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.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