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

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



I agree, that in the formation of a methodology for cultural psychology, Wundt has an important place. I think the recognition as "culture" as a count noun has its place in that genealogy but I have nothing to offer on Wundt and count nouns. Good to hear that Herder get recognition in the culture of anthropology!

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 4/07/2016 10:24 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
Andy,
I wonder about Wundt's volkerpsychologieS as something that came before a pluralizable notion of "culture" (cultural psychology as the origo of anthropology!).
-greg
(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 circles.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:59 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> 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.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/herder/

    mike

    On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden
    <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> 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
    >
    >
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    > Andy Blunden
    > http://home.mira.net/~andy
    <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
    >
    http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
    > On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
    <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >


    --

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