[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:19:37 +1000
- In-reply-to: <CAHCnM0DR6-SN5_DMct2CL2rF09s68SJ9PDYVLcWW_q_6=WVJLQ@mail.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: <email@example.com> <AM4PR0601MB2226C9DA869C9A4A16C5D9D6A7240@AM4PR0601MB2226.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CAHH++Pn5B+GZTGSmBLNXHwmG6=Tq-u99i7N_aJzojHd3XEjeXw@mail.gmail.com> <37725E0B-1601-4FAA-AC72-9155CD5C7770@uniandes.edu.co> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1D93A876-CA75-4EB0-89C8-EE791636971B@uniandes.edu.co> <CAHH++P=jUuYFm8CRV8hm6b0y=NcrDieYaHZNqnDBSFRn6HS8rA@mail.gmail.com> <DF8E8538-23BA-4BAA-A739-5D1D126DF7B9@uniandes.edu.co> <1531227C-233C-4931-B3CA-BA7AE1F45BB1@uniandes.edu.co> <CAHH++P=oLzEpyptc2CsUmA+Ej5m=W_8Bj9r3C1hbY1VDQsExgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHH++PnxZepKsQr-_feNnaXZMOKXKZyM3APPjh9SWzkUE5s3KQ@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <22A2AB86-31BC-4823-A4A6-8DC4DDDBA385@uniandes.edu.co> <C9133F83-B6FD-4CE6-8C32-7FE93B5E5FA8@gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHCnM0DR6-SN5_DMct2CL2rF09s68SJ9PDYVLcWW_q_6=WVJLQ@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
That is quite right, Mike.
Herder's place in the genealogy of a whole number of ideas
which are crucial to our current of thinking is broadly
overlooked. When I submitted a German translation of my
paper on Goethe and Hegel to a journal in Berlin, I found
such hostility to the place I gave Herder, that I had to
remove him in order to get published. It was good to see
that Stanford Encyclopedia entry gave him his due.
Here is his archive on maxists.org:
and his FaceBook page:
Vygotsky people would perhaps be interested to know that the
very first appearance of the idea of "unit of analysis" in
the Vygotskyan sense, we owe to Herder. He called it
/Schwerpunkt/, which is usually translated as "centre of
gravity," but I think that in the social context, it is best
translated as "strong point."
On 4/07/2016 1:59 AM, mike cole wrote:
Interesting sequence, Andy.
Reading your beginning of an a cultureS concept and
ontologIES put me quickly in mind of Herder who died in
1803, but whose ideas seemed to be part of the
intellectual background that is connected to
Hegel. Or so I discovered when I looked up Herder to
refresh my memory of dates and came upon this useful entry
from the Stanford Encyclopedia.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden
<firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
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.
On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Martin John
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.
On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Lplarry
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
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural
science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch