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

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



Greg, it’s simply that what we’re discussing here, for the most part, is scientific psychology, no? Or if you prefer, scientific cultural historical inquiry. Other ontologies have, I imagine, other discussion groups. 

Martin



> On Jul 3, 2016, at 7:27 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ​Martin,
> The place where there feels to be a contradiction is in the idea that
> scientific psychology has some kind of privileged location among the
> ontologies. This wasn't something that you explicitly said but it seemed to
> be inferred (by me!).
> 
> I guess we still have a lot of work to do in order to give non-scientific
> ontologies their due. Definitely the other half of Latour's project.
> 
> And I assume that this all begs the question of the "what for" of
> ontologies, i.e., what is a given ontology "for"? I assume that this
> matters too.
> -greg
> 
> ​
> 
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>> wrote:
> 
>> Is there a contradiction?
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>>> On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The ontology of scientific psychology is one of many ontologies.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 3, 2016, at 12:19 AM, 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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