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

[Xmca-l] Re: Referential Realism and Gesture



Larry,
Yes, I think that "intersubjectivity" is nice, but it has it's limits.
Latour had a nice article in MCA simply titled "On Interobjectivity" that
pushed a bit beyond the limits of "intersubjectivity".
I've attached it (figured it was "old" enough to share - hope nobody comes
after me...).
-greg


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
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

Attachment: Latour, Bruno. (1996) On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 6, 3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document