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

[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf



I checked, and was surprised to find that the date at which "ontology" was first used in the plural was 1855. I would have thought it much later. "Culture" was first used as a count noun in 1860 (all acc. to the OED) , so Franz Boas was not actually the first to use "culture" in the plural. "Epistemologies," the OED has no information on.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
Martin,
So, ontologies writ large can be plural, but an ontology of scientific psychology is singular (and contradicts at least some of the plural ontologies, which, for example posit things like "mind," "spirit", "God", etc.).
Do horizons somehow account for this apparent contradiction? The simultaneous truth and untruth of these entities?

And can you remind us of the candle in the mirror metaphor?

Greg

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:

I think that’s a fair comment, Larry. It must appear that I’m being inconsistent introducing gods after being so hard on Michael for invoking intelligent design. But, while I want to follow Latour (and Viveiros de Castro) in arguing that there are multiple ontologies, many ways of existing, in which case mind can be said to exist in the ontology of Western folk psychology, I also want to insist that the ontology of a scientific psychology has to be consistent and non-contradictory, which means it must be non-dualist. No mind in a scientific psychology (except as an appearance to be explained, like a candle seemingly ‘behind’ a mirror), and no god either.

Martin

On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg,
This shift in the relationship between (mind) and (meaning)  towards meaning being primordial or primary and mind arising as one particular way of imagining meaning seems to be a radical shift in ways of approaching or orienting towards (mind) as an object.
Mind becomes one way of imaging and diagramming, and symbolizing (meaning potential) in other words -mind as object.
As Martin says, this may be *fictional* but is *real* in a way similar to God being *real* in particular traditions.


Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Greg Thompson