I wonder about Wundt's volkerpsychologieS as something
that came before a pluralizable notion of "culture"
(cultural psychology as the origo of anthropology!).
(p.s., I'm also curious about the first use of pluralized
"ontologies" - anything more to share on that front Andy?).
p.p.s. Herder gets much more of his due in anthropological
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:59 AM, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org
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
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden
<email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> 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.
> Andy Blunden
> On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, email@example.com
>> 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",
>> Do horizons somehow account for this apparent
>> 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 Packer
>>> 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
>>> 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 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,
>>>> (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
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602