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

[Xmca-l] Re: Referential Realism and Gesture



Greg,
My impression is that meaning is in the "act". The act is referential and the meaning arises through these multiple characteristics which develop through a socio-naturalistic path of development.
 Sinha's focus is the 2nd person intersubjective realm.
Greg he does say that "cognitive linguistics" as a field is grappling with where "mind" is located but I think he is taking "mind" into a socio-naturalistic arena beyond Kant.

I am now going to read a book he wrote "language and representation" as it has a chapter on the historical origins of our notions of semiosis and reference.
Greg, there seem to be two different notions of "intersubjevtivity"
1) belonging TOGETHER
2) BELONGING together.
In the first the together is primary and then we each find our way to each other and find approaches to "belong" as the consummation. This holds Kantian themes.
The secong posits the belonging as primordial and as we undergo shared mutual experiences becoming "an" experience the subject matter (the primordial source of belonging) undergoes a felt sense of our be/coming together. The belonging is primordial and the togetherness is derived.
BOTH approaches are named " intersubjevtive but they highlight different characteristics of the character of the concept "intersubjevtivity"

-----Original Message-----
From: "Lplarry" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎2015-‎08-‎18 6:52 AM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Referential Realism and Gesture



From: Greg Thompson
Sent: ‎2015-‎08-‎18 6:41 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Referential Realism and Gesture


Larry,
This is a very neat and smart paper.
My one concern is that it seems to slide down the dualistic side of a
Kantian view of the world that presumes the very mistakes that the author
is trying to sidestep (e.g., that meaning is in the head).

I think there is good reason to think of discursive (perhaps semiotic)
objects as real. I don't think that they are just "maps" of reality (I'm
not 100% certain that this is Sinha's point since I rushed through a bit,
but it seemed like where it was headed). They ARE reality (or, at least we
could say that they are "real" and "objective" in Hegel's sense).

That's a big leap, I know, but I find the alternative to be equally
problematic.
-greg


On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure how relevant this article may be but it does have overlaps
> with many themes discussed and Sinha's version of cognitive
> linguistics which has an intersubjective focus putting referential
> realism as foundational a clear presentation of this tradition
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson