From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Oct 1 03:01:38 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:01:38 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harshard, First, I should say that most references to Marx's exchange value and use value on this list pertain to the genesis of mediatory forms in developmental processes, studied through the technique of dialectics and also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's "Dialectics of the Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" for more on this. The idea of considering different systems of value according to different sets of conditions seems redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his cosmology upon value. To the extent that I have registered his portrayal faithfully, I would disagree about his situating value and fact in two different realms. However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could, for instance, consider additionally "potential value" as a system of five conditions, and so on. Hence one might not want to take the label 'value' designating all these different orders from a particular order. Similarly, why should one take the transitional affect of "valuing" as the "true value"? Granted it is a practical necessity in the psychological deployment of resources, yet this may be looked at as one stepping-stone amongst many. Do economists take a literal interest in the experience of need? It seems to me they largely start with its expression (rather than its experience) as a basis. Best, Huw On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave wrote: > Hi, > > Here I copy paste the words/para taken from "Value, Price and Profit" by > Karl Marx. > > *"At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing > quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in > its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, > the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities > in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the > question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each > other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary > infinitely. Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find > that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of > proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the > same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be > something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of > exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very > different form, these various equations with various commodities.* > *Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain > proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain > amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron > are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I > suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either > of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the > other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure."* > > If you go through the views of Marx expressed on *Value *while exchanging > *wheat* against *iron *you will feel that Marx expresses it with > difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only because economists of the > time (perhaps even of present time) could not differentiate between > *value* and *exchange value.* It is a serious mistake to grasp *value* > through *exchange* *value.* It is the most unfortunate part that the > word/phrase "*Exchange* *value*" incorporates the word "*Value*" and it, > perhaps, misleads us. > > I have tried to explain exactly this difference in my articles on > following web links. > > I will be thankful if I receive your views on the same. > > The Web Links: > > [1] > > > Article: "Exchange Value" > > > Journal Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/ > * > > > Article Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/ > * > > [2] > > Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in short] > > Short form: > https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA > > Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained elaborately] > > > https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble > > > Regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181001/0b6bdbac/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Tue Oct 2 05:49:35 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 18:19:35 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw Lloyd, With reference to your email dtd. 1st oct 2018, I shall put my views as follow, [1] ?Value? is a word of a language (here English) and language is not only a set of words, verbs and adjectives etc. It totally reflects culture and properties of the mankind that originated and evolved with the society with the language. Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of *value* that is used in each and every field of prevailing society if one wants to talk within a determined field (here economics)? Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of *value* within the frame work of subject matter that we discuss (here it is economics)? When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of *value* is prime one and we are unable to talk about constitution of *value* even within the frame work of economics to make our discussion clearer and less controversial with above clarity, only because it (*value*) is used in different fields/subjects of our society with varying sense and meaning. Is it that important that either one must clarify the word *value* in meaning and sense used in each and every corner of our society or he should let dragging his discussion on old practice to express views without touching the logical sense of constitution of *value* within the frame work of subject matter (here economics)? Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while explaining his views using word *value* should take every care of the sense and meaning in which it was used by Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when he preached and addressed his disciples? I think we should not hesitate to define a simple constitution of *value* applicable within the frame work of economics only and that is what I have attempted. [2] When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx?s saying (in my email dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get following impressions, a. His words ??.*the **value** of a commodity is a thing quite relative,?.?* . In fact it is *exchange* *value* he talked about. But he did not differentiate between *value* and *exchange* *value* because it was neither a practice at that time and nor even today. b. His words ?*In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges with all other commodities?*. Here also he confirms that *exchange* *value* might present a *value* of a commodity. c. His words ?*How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary infinitely.*? Here Marx confirms that there is motivating parameters that determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of exchange) and also confirms that the aggregate influence of the subject parameters varies to infinite. If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have tried to narrate those parameters in my article on ?Exchange Value? and it confirms that aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is the reason that exchange ratio between two commodities might not remain uniform even at same place and time for two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said about *something* *common* if the same commodity (here wheat) is exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when uniformity in the exchange ratio is not assured for same commodity at same place and same time for two different exchange events, there is no place of discussion for different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus of *value* through the analysis of *exchange* *value*. *Exchange* *value* is regulated and determined by an aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the twenty parameters listed in the article and exchange ratio might vary case to case. *Value* is completely a different term and it is a great mistake to approach *exchange* *value* to grasp the constitution of *value*. I know, perhaps no one will agree with me, but I say that *Value* has no linkages with *Exchange Value*. regards, Harshad Dave Mobile: +91 9979853305 Address: "SWAYAM", B - 116, Yoginagar Township, Opp. Ramakaka Temple, Chhani - 391 740. Vadodara, Gujarat, India. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd wrote: > Harshard, > > First, I should say that most references to Marx's exchange value and use > value on this list pertain to the genesis of mediatory forms in > developmental processes, studied through the technique of dialectics and > also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's "Dialectics of the > Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" for more on this. > > The idea of considering different systems of value according to different > sets of conditions seems redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his > cosmology upon value. To the extent that I have registered his portrayal > faithfully, I would disagree about his situating value and fact in two > different realms. However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could, for > instance, consider additionally "potential value" as a system of five > conditions, and so on. Hence one might not want to take the label 'value' > designating all these different orders from a particular order. Similarly, > why should one take the transitional affect of "valuing" as the "true > value"? Granted it is a practical necessity in the psychological deployment > of resources, yet this may be looked at as one stepping-stone amongst many. > > Do economists take a literal interest in the experience of need? It seems > to me they largely start with its expression (rather than its experience) > as a basis. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Here I copy paste the words/para taken from "Value, Price and Profit" by >> Karl Marx. >> >> *"At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing >> quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in >> its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, >> the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities >> in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the >> question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each >> other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary >> infinitely. Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find >> that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of >> proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the >> same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be >> something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of >> exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very >> different form, these various equations with various commodities.* >> *Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain >> proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain >> amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron >> are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I >> suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either >> of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the >> other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure."* >> >> If you go through the views of Marx expressed on *Value *while >> exchanging *wheat* against *iron *you will feel that Marx expresses it >> with difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only because economists of >> the time (perhaps even of present time) could not differentiate between >> *value* and *exchange value.* It is a serious mistake to grasp *value* >> through *exchange* *value.* It is the most unfortunate part that the >> word/phrase "*Exchange* *value*" incorporates the word "*Value*" and it, >> perhaps, misleads us. >> >> I have tried to explain exactly this difference in my articles on >> following web links. >> >> I will be thankful if I receive your views on the same. >> >> The Web Links: >> >> [1] >> >> >> Article: "Exchange Value" >> >> >> Journal Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/ >> * >> >> >> Article Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/ >> * >> >> [2] >> >> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in short] >> >> Short form: >> https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA >> >> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained elaborately] >> >> >> https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Harshad Dave >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181002/f0178fde/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Oct 2 08:24:39 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:24:39 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In case anyone is interested, David Graeber has a lovely book Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value which can be helpful as a look at "value" across cultural contexts: https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780312240455 His book Debt: The First 5,000 Years is perhaps even better, although slightly less focused on "value" per se. Free version of the book is here: https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf -greg On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:51 AM Harshad Dave wrote: > Huw Lloyd, > > With reference to your email dtd. 1st oct 2018, I shall put my views as > follow, > > > > [1] ?Value? is a word of a language (here English) and language is not > only a set of words, verbs and adjectives etc. It totally reflects culture > and properties of the mankind that originated and evolved with the society > with the language. > > Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of *value* that is used > in each and every field of prevailing society if one wants to talk within a > determined field (here economics)? > > Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of *value* within the > frame work of subject matter that we discuss (here it is economics)? > > When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of *value* is prime > one and we are unable to talk about constitution of *value* even within > the frame work of economics to make our discussion clearer and less > controversial with above clarity, only because it (*value*) is used in > different fields/subjects of our society with varying sense and meaning. > > Is it that important that either one must clarify the word *value* in > meaning and sense used in each and every corner of our society or he should > let dragging his discussion on old practice to express views without > touching the logical sense of constitution of *value* within the frame > work of subject matter (here economics)? > > Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while explaining his views > using word *value* should take every care of the sense and meaning in > which it was used by Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when he > preached and addressed his disciples? > > I think we should not hesitate to define a simple constitution of *value* > applicable within the frame work of economics only and that is what I have > attempted. > > [2] > > When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx?s saying (in my email > dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get following impressions, > > a. His words ??.*the **value** of a commodity is a thing quite > relative,?.?* . In fact it is *exchange* *value* he talked about. But he > did not differentiate between *value* and *exchange* *value* because it > was neither a practice at that time and nor even today. > > b. His words ?*In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange > of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges > with all other commodities?*. Here also he confirms that *exchange* > *value* might present a *value* of a commodity. > > c. His words ?*How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with > each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary > infinitely.*? Here Marx confirms that there is motivating parameters that > determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of exchange) and also confirms > that the aggregate influence of the subject parameters varies to infinite. > > If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have tried to narrate > those parameters in my article on ?Exchange Value? and it confirms that > aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject > parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is the reason that > exchange ratio between two commodities might not remain uniform even at > same place and time for two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said > about *something* *common* if the same commodity (here wheat) is > exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when uniformity in the > exchange ratio is not assured for same commodity at same place and same > time for two different exchange events, there is no place of discussion for > different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus of *value* > through the analysis of *exchange* *value*. > > *Exchange* *value* is regulated and determined by an aggregate influence > of applicable parameters out of the twenty parameters listed in the article > and exchange ratio might vary case to case. > > *Value* is completely a different term and it is a great mistake to > approach *exchange* *value* to grasp the constitution of *value*. I know, > perhaps no one will agree with me, but I say that *Value* has no linkages > with *Exchange Value*. > > regards, > > > Harshad Dave > Mobile: +91 9979853305 > > Address: > > "SWAYAM", > B - 116, Yoginagar Township, > Opp. Ramakaka Temple, > Chhani - 391 740. > Vadodara, Gujarat, > India. > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> Harshard, >> >> First, I should say that most references to Marx's exchange value and use >> value on this list pertain to the genesis of mediatory forms in >> developmental processes, studied through the technique of dialectics and >> also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's "Dialectics of the >> Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" for more on this. >> >> The idea of considering different systems of value according to different >> sets of conditions seems redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his >> cosmology upon value. To the extent that I have registered his portrayal >> faithfully, I would disagree about his situating value and fact in two >> different realms. However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could, for >> instance, consider additionally "potential value" as a system of five >> conditions, and so on. Hence one might not want to take the label 'value' >> designating all these different orders from a particular order. Similarly, >> why should one take the transitional affect of "valuing" as the "true >> value"? Granted it is a practical necessity in the psychological deployment >> of resources, yet this may be looked at as one stepping-stone amongst many. >> >> Do economists take a literal interest in the experience of need? It seems >> to me they largely start with its expression (rather than its experience) >> as a basis. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here I copy paste the words/para taken from "Value, Price and Profit" by >>> Karl Marx. >>> >>> *"At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing >>> quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in >>> its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, >>> the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities >>> in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the >>> question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each >>> other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary >>> infinitely. Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find >>> that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of >>> proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the >>> same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be >>> something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of >>> exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very >>> different form, these various equations with various commodities.* >>> *Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain >>> proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain >>> amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron >>> are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I >>> suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either >>> of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the >>> other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure."* >>> >>> If you go through the views of Marx expressed on *Value *while >>> exchanging *wheat* against *iron *you will feel that Marx expresses it >>> with difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only because economists of >>> the time (perhaps even of present time) could not differentiate between >>> *value* and *exchange value.* It is a serious mistake to grasp *value* >>> through *exchange* *value.* It is the most unfortunate part that the >>> word/phrase "*Exchange* *value*" incorporates the word "*Value*" and >>> it, perhaps, misleads us. >>> >>> I have tried to explain exactly this difference in my articles on >>> following web links. >>> >>> I will be thankful if I receive your views on the same. >>> >>> The Web Links: >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >>> Article: "Exchange Value" >>> >>> >>> Journal Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/ >>> * >>> >>> >>> Article Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/ >>> * >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in short] >>> >>> Short form: >>> https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA >>> >>> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained elaborately] >>> >>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Harshad Dave >>> >>> -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181002/61db4c69/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Oct 2 09:44:29 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:44:29 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dave -- looks like I confused your first name and surname in my previous message. Basically, I would agree that value as presented in economics, according to my very limited impression of economics literature, is poorly represented. However, as I see it notions of authentic valuing seem to entail subtleties beyond economics, which seems, rather, to be concerned with certain expressions of value. As I understand your arguments, you are saying that you have a category within economics pertaining to "real" value and that this category has no linkage with "exchange value". Given that exchange value seems to be a category of certain aspects of economics. I am confused about what kind of economic system you have in which two categories (of the system) are unrelated. Sorry, to not offer you a satisfying discussion on your topic. As per Greg's email, I suspect more traction could be found by starting with a discussion about value. Best, Huw On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 13:51, Harshad Dave wrote: > Huw Lloyd, > > With reference to your email dtd. 1st oct 2018, I shall put my views as > follow, > > > > [1] ?Value? is a word of a language (here English) and language is not > only a set of words, verbs and adjectives etc. It totally reflects culture > and properties of the mankind that originated and evolved with the society > with the language. > > Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of *value* that is used > in each and every field of prevailing society if one wants to talk within a > determined field (here economics)? > > Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of *value* within the > frame work of subject matter that we discuss (here it is economics)? > > When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of *value* is prime > one and we are unable to talk about constitution of *value* even within > the frame work of economics to make our discussion clearer and less > controversial with above clarity, only because it (*value*) is used in > different fields/subjects of our society with varying sense and meaning. > > Is it that important that either one must clarify the word *value* in > meaning and sense used in each and every corner of our society or he should > let dragging his discussion on old practice to express views without > touching the logical sense of constitution of *value* within the frame > work of subject matter (here economics)? > > Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while explaining his views > using word *value* should take every care of the sense and meaning in > which it was used by Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when he > preached and addressed his disciples? > > I think we should not hesitate to define a simple constitution of *value* > applicable within the frame work of economics only and that is what I have > attempted. > > [2] > > When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx?s saying (in my email > dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get following impressions, > > a. His words ??.*the **value** of a commodity is a thing quite > relative,?.?* . In fact it is *exchange* *value* he talked about. But he > did not differentiate between *value* and *exchange* *value* because it > was neither a practice at that time and nor even today. > > b. His words ?*In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange > of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges > with all other commodities?*. Here also he confirms that *exchange* > *value* might present a *value* of a commodity. > > c. His words ?*How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with > each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary > infinitely.*? Here Marx confirms that there is motivating parameters that > determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of exchange) and also confirms > that the aggregate influence of the subject parameters varies to infinite. > > If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have tried to narrate > those parameters in my article on ?Exchange Value? and it confirms that > aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject > parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is the reason that > exchange ratio between two commodities might not remain uniform even at > same place and time for two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said > about *something* *common* if the same commodity (here wheat) is > exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when uniformity in the > exchange ratio is not assured for same commodity at same place and same > time for two different exchange events, there is no place of discussion for > different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus of *value* > through the analysis of *exchange* *value*. > > *Exchange* *value* is regulated and determined by an aggregate influence > of applicable parameters out of the twenty parameters listed in the article > and exchange ratio might vary case to case. > > *Value* is completely a different term and it is a great mistake to > approach *exchange* *value* to grasp the constitution of *value*. I know, > perhaps no one will agree with me, but I say that *Value* has no linkages > with *Exchange Value*. > > regards, > > > Harshad Dave > Mobile: +91 9979853305 > > Address: > > "SWAYAM", > B - 116, Yoginagar Township, > Opp. Ramakaka Temple, > Chhani - 391 740. > Vadodara, Gujarat, > India. > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> Harshard, >> >> First, I should say that most references to Marx's exchange value and use >> value on this list pertain to the genesis of mediatory forms in >> developmental processes, studied through the technique of dialectics and >> also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's "Dialectics of the >> Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" for more on this. >> >> The idea of considering different systems of value according to different >> sets of conditions seems redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his >> cosmology upon value. To the extent that I have registered his portrayal >> faithfully, I would disagree about his situating value and fact in two >> different realms. However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could, for >> instance, consider additionally "potential value" as a system of five >> conditions, and so on. Hence one might not want to take the label 'value' >> designating all these different orders from a particular order. Similarly, >> why should one take the transitional affect of "valuing" as the "true >> value"? Granted it is a practical necessity in the psychological deployment >> of resources, yet this may be looked at as one stepping-stone amongst many. >> >> Do economists take a literal interest in the experience of need? It seems >> to me they largely start with its expression (rather than its experience) >> as a basis. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here I copy paste the words/para taken from "Value, Price and Profit" by >>> Karl Marx. >>> >>> *"At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing >>> quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in >>> its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, >>> the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities >>> in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the >>> question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each >>> other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary >>> infinitely. Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find >>> that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of >>> proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the >>> same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be >>> something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of >>> exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very >>> different form, these various equations with various commodities.* >>> *Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain >>> proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain >>> amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron >>> are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I >>> suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either >>> of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the >>> other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure."* >>> >>> If you go through the views of Marx expressed on *Value *while >>> exchanging *wheat* against *iron *you will feel that Marx expresses it >>> with difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only because economists of >>> the time (perhaps even of present time) could not differentiate between >>> *value* and *exchange value.* It is a serious mistake to grasp *value* >>> through *exchange* *value.* It is the most unfortunate part that the >>> word/phrase "*Exchange* *value*" incorporates the word "*Value*" and >>> it, perhaps, misleads us. >>> >>> I have tried to explain exactly this difference in my articles on >>> following web links. >>> >>> I will be thankful if I receive your views on the same. >>> >>> The Web Links: >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> >>> Article: "Exchange Value" >>> >>> >>> Journal Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/ >>> * >>> >>> >>> Article Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/ >>> * >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in short] >>> >>> Short form: >>> https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA >>> >>> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained elaborately] >>> >>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Harshad Dave >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181002/c6dd01d8/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Oct 2 10:56:27 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:56:27 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greg, Good stuff! Great value! Henry > On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > In case anyone is interested, David Graeber has a lovely book Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value which can be helpful as a look at "value" across cultural contexts: > https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780312240455 > > His book Debt: The First 5,000 Years is perhaps even better, although slightly less focused on "value" per se. Free version of the book is here: > https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf > > -greg > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:51 AM Harshad Dave > wrote: > Huw Lloyd, > > With reference to your email dtd. 1st oct 2018, I shall put my views as follow, > > > [1] ?Value? is a word of a language (here English) and language is not only a set of words, verbs and adjectives etc. It totally reflects culture and properties of the mankind that originated and evolved with the society with the language. > > Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of value that is used in each and every field of prevailing society if one wants to talk within a determined field (here economics)? > > Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of value within the frame work of subject matter that we discuss (here it is economics)? > > When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of value is prime one and we are unable to talk about constitution of value even within the frame work of economics to make our discussion clearer and less controversial with above clarity, only because it (value) is used in different fields/subjects of our society with varying sense and meaning. > > Is it that important that either one must clarify the word value in meaning and sense used in each and every corner of our society or he should let dragging his discussion on old practice to express views without touching the logical sense of constitution of value within the frame work of subject matter (here economics)? > > Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while explaining his views using word value should take every care of the sense and meaning in which it was used by Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when he preached and addressed his disciples? > > I think we should not hesitate to define a simple constitution of value applicable within the frame work of economics only and that is what I have attempted. > > [2] > > When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx?s saying (in my email dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get following impressions, > > a. His words ??.the value of a commodity is a thing quite relative,?.? . In fact it is exchange value he talked about. But he did not differentiate between value and exchange value because it was neither a practice at that time and nor even today. > > b. His words ?In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges with all other commodities?. Here also he confirms that exchange value might present a value of a commodity. > > c. His words ?How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary infinitely.? Here Marx confirms that there is motivating parameters that determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of exchange) and also confirms that the aggregate influence of the subject parameters varies to infinite. > > If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have tried to narrate those parameters in my article on ?Exchange Value? and it confirms that aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is the reason that exchange ratio between two commodities might not remain uniform even at same place and time for two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said about something common if the same commodity (here wheat) is exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when uniformity in the exchange ratio is not assured for same commodity at same place and same time for two different exchange events, there is no place of discussion for different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus of value through the analysis of exchange value. > > Exchange value is regulated and determined by an aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the twenty parameters listed in the article and exchange ratio might vary case to case. > > Value is completely a different term and it is a great mistake to approach exchange value to grasp the constitution of value. I know, perhaps no one will agree with me, but I say that Value has no linkages with Exchange Value. > > regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Mobile: +91 9979853305 > > Address: > > "SWAYAM", > B - 116, Yoginagar Township, > Opp. Ramakaka Temple, > Chhani - 391 740. > Vadodara, Gujarat, > India. > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > Harshard, > > First, I should say that most references to Marx's exchange value and use value on this list pertain to the genesis of mediatory forms in developmental processes, studied through the technique of dialectics and also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's "Dialectics of the Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" for more on this. > > The idea of considering different systems of value according to different sets of conditions seems redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his cosmology upon value. To the extent that I have registered his portrayal faithfully, I would disagree about his situating value and fact in two different realms. However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could, for instance, consider additionally "potential value" as a system of five conditions, and so on. Hence one might not want to take the label 'value' designating all these different orders from a particular order. Similarly, why should one take the transitional affect of "valuing" as the "true value"? Granted it is a practical necessity in the psychological deployment of resources, yet this may be looked at as one stepping-stone amongst many. > > Do economists take a literal interest in the experience of need? It seems to me they largely start with its expression (rather than its experience) as a basis. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave > wrote: > Hi, > > Here I copy paste the words/para taken from "Value, Price and Profit" by Karl Marx. > > "At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary infinitely. Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very different form, these various equations with various commodities. > Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure." > > If you go through the views of Marx expressed on Value while exchanging wheat against iron you will feel that Marx expresses it with difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only because economists of the time (perhaps even of present time) could not differentiate between value and exchange value. It is a serious mistake to grasp value through exchange value. It is the most unfortunate part that the word/phrase "Exchange value" incorporates the word "Value" and it, perhaps, misleads us. > > I have tried to explain exactly this difference in my articles on following web links. > > I will be thankful if I receive your views on the same. > > The Web Links: > > [1] > > Article: "Exchange Value" > > Journal Link: http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/ > > Article Link: http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/ > > [2] > > Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in short] > > Short form: https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA > > Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained elaborately] > > https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble > > > Regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181002/f2bc2afc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Oct 2 17:56:03 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 10:56:03 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0a1c2982-2933-b997-0fd5-9755834ff426@marxists.org> I am reluctant to enter this Dave (?) because I think this topic is off-list, so to speak. I agree with you that if your interest is in Economics, then the meaning of "value" in Economics has to be addressed as something distinct from the range of meanings across the language. As Hegel points out, when a word forms the starting point of a science (as is the case here) then it brings its abstract (undeveloped) meaning from outside/prior to the science; but it is transformed by the development of the science. "Value" I think brought with it into Economic science the meaning of exchange-quantum, and this remains in my view the meaning of "value" in sentences like "What are you values?", i.e., the general public discourse. I.e., values are inherently transactional. But, sticking to your topic, Economics. Bourgeois Economics abandoned the word and concept of "value" in the late 19th/early 20th century in the wake of the Marginal Revolution, which occurred around the time /Capital/ was published but was ignored by Marx. Alfred Marshall's early work uses the word "value", but his later works do not. From the standpoint of Positivism, "value" is a bad concept, because it cannot be cashed out in empirical or practical terms. So "value" does not exist as a concept in modern economics, only in non-specialist discourse, Marxism and historical Political Economy. Marx's brilliant move was the take "value" as a unity of quantity and quality, two distinct abstract concepts which did not coincide with one another. It is interesting that Hegel completely failed to notice this contradiction in the concept of value and the fallacies are open for all to see in what he wrote about "value" in The Philosophy of Right. Marx showed that "value" is both exchange-value and utility (use-value). A complete break from empiricist quasi-natural science was necessary to reconstruct economics on the basis of this abstract concept. Don't know if that helps, Dave. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/10/2018 10:49 PM, Harshad Dave wrote: > > Huw Lloyd, > > With reference to your email dtd. 1^st oct 2018, I shall > put my views as follow, > > > > [1] ?Value? is a word of a language (here English) and > language is not only a set of words, verbs and adjectives > etc. It totally reflects culture and properties of the > mankind that originated and evolved with the society with > the language. > > Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of /value/ > that is used in each and every field of prevailing society > if one wants to talk within a determined field (here > economics)? > > Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of /value/ > within the frame work of subject matter that we discuss > (here it is economics)? > > When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of > /value/ is prime one and we are unable to talk about > constitution of /value/ even within the frame work of > economics to make our discussion clearer and less > controversial with above clarity, only because it > (/value/) is used in different fields/subjects of our > society with varying sense and meaning. > > Is it that important that either one must clarify the word > /value/ in meaning and sense used in each and every corner > of our society or he should let dragging his discussion on > old practice to express views without touching the logical > sense of constitution of /value/ within the frame work of > subject matter (here economics)? > > Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while > explaining his views using word /value/ should take every > care of the sense and meaning in which it was used by > Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when he > preached and addressed his disciples? > > I think we should not hesitate to define a simple > constitution of /value/ applicable within the frame work > of economics only and that is what I have attempted. > > [2] > > When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx?s > saying (in my email dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get > following impressions, > > a. His words ??./the //value//of a commodity is a thing > quite relative,?.?/. In fact it is /exchange/ /value/ he > talked about. But he did not differentiate between /value/ > and /exchange/ /value/ because it was neither a practice > at that time and nor even today. > > b.His words?/In fact, in speaking of the value, the value > in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional > quantities in which it exchanges with all other > commodities?/. Here also he confirms that /exchange/ > /value/ might present a /value/ of a commodity. > > c. His words ?/How are the proportions in which > commodities exchange with each other regulated? We know > from experience that these proportions vary infinitely./? > Here Marx confirms that there is motivating parameters > that determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of > exchange) and also confirms that the aggregate influence > of the subject parameters varies to infinite. > > If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have > tried to narrate those parameters in my article on > ?Exchange Value? and it confirms that aggregate influence > of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject > parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is > the reason that exchange ratio between two commodities > might not remain uniform even at same place and time for > two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said about > /something/ /common/ if the same commodity (here wheat) is > exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when > uniformity in the exchange ratio is not assured for same > commodity at same place and same time for two different > exchange events, there is no place of discussion for > different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus > of /value/ through the analysis of /exchange/ /value/. > > /Exchange//value/ is regulated and determined by an > aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the > twenty parameters listed in the article and exchange ratio > might vary case to case. > > /Value/is completely a different term and it is a great > mistake to approach /exchange/ /value/ to grasp the > constitution of /value/. I know, perhaps no one will agree > with me, but I say that /Value/ has no linkages with > /Exchange Value/. > > regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Mobile: +91 9979853305 > > Address: > > "SWAYAM", > B - 116, Yoginagar Township, > Opp. Ramakaka Temple, > Chhani - 391 740. > Vadodara, Gujarat, > India. > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > Harshard, > > First, I should say that most references to Marx's > exchange value and use value on this list pertain to > the genesis of mediatory forms in developmental > processes, studied through the technique of dialectics > and also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's > "Dialectics of the Abstract and Concrete in Marx's > Capital" for more on this. > > The idea of considering different systems of value > according to different sets of conditions seems > redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based his cosmology > upon value. To the extent that I have registered his > portrayal faithfully, I would disagree about his > situating value and fact in two different realms. > However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one could, > for instance, consider additionally "potential value" > as a system of five conditions, and so on. Hence one > might not want to take the label 'value' designating > all these different orders from a particular order. > Similarly, why should one take the transitional affect > of "valuing" as the "true value"? Granted it is a > practical necessity in the psychological deployment of > resources, yet this may be looked at as one > stepping-stone amongst many. > > Do economists take a literal interest in the > experience of need? It seems to me they largely start > with its expression (rather than its experience) as a > basis. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave > > wrote: > > Hi, > > Here I copy paste the words/para taken from > "Value, Price and Profit" by Karl Marx. > > /"At first sight it would seem that the value of a > commodity is a thing quite relative, and not to be > settled without considering one commodity in its > relations to all other commodities. In fact, in > speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a > commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in > which it exchanges with all other commodities. But > then arises the question: How are the proportions > in which commodities exchange with each other > regulated? We know from experience that these > proportions vary infinitely. Taking one single > commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find that > a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless > variations of proportion with different > commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the > same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any > other commodity, it must be something distinct > from, and independent of, these different rates of > exchange with different articles. It must be > possible to express, in a very different form, > these various equations with various commodities./ > /Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges > with iron in a certain proportion, or the value of > a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain > amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and > its equivalent in iron are equal to some third > thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I > suppose them to express the same magnitude in two > different shapes. Either of them, the wheat or the > iron, must, therefore, independently of the other, > be reducible to this third thing which is their > common measure."/ > > If you go through the views of Marx expressed on > /Value /while exchanging /wheat/ against /iron > /you will feel that Marx expresses it with > difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only > because economists of the time (perhaps even of > present time) could not differentiate between > /value/ and /exchange value./ It is a serious > mistake to grasp /value/ through /exchange/ > /value./ It is the most unfortunate part that the > word/phrase "/Exchange/ /value/" incorporates the > word "/Value/" and it, perhaps, misleads us. > > I have tried to explain exactly this difference in > my articles on following web links. > > I will be thankful if I receive your views on the > same. > > The Web Links: > > [1] > > > Article: "Exchange Value" > > > Journal > Link:*http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/* > > > Article > Link:*http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/* > > > [2] > > Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in > short] > > Short > form: https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA > > Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained > elaborately] > > https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble > > > Regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181003/3bb4602f/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 3 19:55:15 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:55:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Two Tenure-Track Positions at SUNY Old Westbury In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: trabajo mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Svetlana Jovic Date: Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:32 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Two Tenure-Track Positions at SUNY Old Westbury To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Assistant Professor - Psychology (Clinical) https://oldwestbury.interviewexchange.com/jobofferdetails.jsp?JOBID=102814 *About SUNY College at Old Westbury:* SUNY Old Westbury is a dynamic and diverse public liberal arts college that fosters academic excellence through close interaction among students, faculty and staff. Old Westbury weaves the values of integrity, community engagement, and global citizenship into the fabric of its academic programs and campus life. In an environment that cultivates critical thinking, empathy, creativity and intercultural understanding, we endeavor to stimulate a passion for learning and a commitment to building a more just and sustainable world. The College is a community of students, teachers, staff, and alumni bound together in mutual support, respect, and dedication to the Mission. * Job Description:* The Psychology Department at the State University of New York at Old Westbury seeks a candidate for a tenure track appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor to begin Fall 2019. We are seeking candidates with a concentration in clinical psychology or a closely related field. Candidates with a strong interest in the interaction of social environmental forces with individual psychological function, in clinical work with diverse populations, and in community-based prevention and intervention programs are especially encouraged to apply. Experience with a variety of approaches to prevention and treatment of mental health issues is desirable. New York State licensure is a plus. Candidates will be expected to teach core courses, including "Abnormal Human Behavior", "Family Dynamics", and "Group Processes" as well as other courses in the personality/clinical/mental health curriculum. Candidates will also be expected to contribute to the core courses in the major, including the Research Methods sequence. The Psychology Department is the largest major at the college, offering a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) or Bachelor of Science (B.S) degree in Psychology and a Master of Science (M.S) degree in Mental Health Counseling, and is committed to faculty diversity and to the historic mission of the College to advance social justice, civic engagement, and sustainability. The College at Old Westbury is a comprehensive college in the State University of New York system, located on 604-acres of forested rolling hills on the North Shore of Long Island. Located less than an hour from midtown New York City, the college is one of the country's most culturally and academically diverse campuses. * Requirements:* *Minimum Qualifications:* - Candidates applying for this position must have completed all the requirements for and earned their Ph.D. in Psychology or a closely related field by August 2019. - Applicants should have a strong commitment to their own active research program. - A commitment to teaching/mentoring diverse student populations at the undergraduate level. *Preferred Qualifications:* - Previous experience teaching in an institution of higher education to a student body that is diverse in terms of racial, ethnic, multicultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Assistant Professor - Psychology (Social) https://oldwestbury.interviewexchange.com/jobofferdetails.jsp?JOBID=102780 *About SUNY College at Old Westbury:* SUNY Old Westbury is a dynamic and diverse public liberal arts college that fosters academic excellence through close interaction among students, faculty and staff. Old Westbury weaves the values of integrity, community engagement, and global citizenship into the fabric of its academic programs and campus life. In an environment that cultivates critical thinking, empathy, creativity and intercultural understanding, we endeavor to stimulate a passion for learning and a commitment to building a more just and sustainable world. The College is a community of students, teachers, staff, and alumni bound together in mutual support, respect, and dedication to the Mission. * Job Description:* The Psychology Department at the State University of New York at Old Westbury seeks to hire a candidate for a tenure-track appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor, to begin Fall 2019. The ideal candidate will have a specialization in social psychology or a closely related field and a commitment to developing course content that integrates traditional with critical perspectives in examining social issues, particularly those related to the impacts of resource disparities. The specific area of expertise within social psychology is open, although candidates with expertise in specialty areas/topics such as: peace and violence, community psychology, workplace dynamics, group dynamics, social/industrial organizational psychology, psychology for environmental sustainability, and/or intersectionality are highly valued. Candidates will be expected to contribute to the core courses in the major, including social psychology, courses in diversity and social justice, and the research methods sequence. Candidates applying for this position must have completed all doctoral degree requirements and earned their Ph.D. in Psychology or a closely related field by August 2019. Applicants should have a strong commitment to their own active research program. We especially welcome candidates whose research and other professional activities demonstrate a strong commitment to social justice concerns, and who value teaching in a public institution with a racially, ethnically, culturally, and socioeconomically diverse student population, as both are consistent with the College's historic mission to advance social justice, civic engagement, and sustainability. A demonstrated commitment to teaching and mentoring students at the undergraduate level is expected. The department is strongly committed to faculty diversity, consistent with our College's mission. The Psychology Department is the largest major at the College, offering a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in Psychology, as well as a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Mental Health Counseling. Old Westbury is a comprehensive college in the State University of New York system, and it is one of the country's most culturally and academically diverse campuses. It is located on 600 acres of forested rolling hills on the North Shore of Long Island, less than one hour from New York City. * Requirements:* *Minimum Qualifications:* - Candidates applying for this position must have completed all the requirements for and earned their Ph.D. Psychology or a closely related field by August 2019. - A specialization in social psychology or a closely related field. - Applicants should have a strong commitment to their own active research program. - A commitment to teaching/mentoring diverse student populations at the undergraduate level. *Preferred Qualifications:* - Previous experience teaching in an institution of higher education to a student body that is diverse in terms of racial, ethnic, multicultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. *Svetlana Jovi?, Ph.D.* Assistant Professor, Developmental Psychology Department of Psychology State University of New York College at Old Westbury Old Westbury, New York Office: NAB 2081 | Phone: 516-628-5047 Email: JovicS@OldWestbury.edu Website: https://www.oldwestbury.edu/people/jovics _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181003/b3113f56/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Fri Oct 5 21:47:05 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 10:17:05 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Difference between "Value" and "Exchange Value". In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greg Thompson, with reference to your trailing mail, I thank you for the same. I down loaded the subject book of David Graeber and read the concerned topics. I put my views on one of the small part of a chapter there in. Perhaps, you might find it interesting. From ?Toward An Anthropological Theory of Value? by *David Graeber.* [First Edition, 2001] Page 54-55. *Marx?s theory of value* The first thing one should probably say about Marx?s labour theory of value is that it?s not the same as David Ricardo?s. People often confuse them. Ricardo argued that the value of a commodity in a market system can be calculated in terms of the ?man-hours? that went into making it, and therefore it should be theoretically possible to calculate precisely how many people worked how long in the process of making it (and, presumably, making the raw materials, shipping them from place to place, and so on.) In fact, Marx felt Ricardo?s approach was inadequate. What makes capitalism unique, he argued, is that it is the only system in which labour?a human being?s capacity to transform the world, their powers of physical and mental creativity? can itself be bought and sold. After all, when an employer hires workers, he does not usually pay them by the task completed: he pays them by the hour, thus purchasing their ability to do whatever he tells them to do during that period of time.6 Hence, in a wage-labour economy, in which most people have to sell their capacity to work in this way, one can make calculations that would be impossible in a non-capitalist society: that is, look at the amount of labour invested in a given object as a specific *proportion *of the total amount of labour in the system as a whole. This is its value. A discussion on above views: Point 1: The words ?*In fact, Marx felt Ricardo?s approach was inadequate.*? impresses that Marx confirmed... Ricardo was not wrong but his approach was inadequate. Marx explored it with further analysis and interpreted *man-hours* elaborative and finally came to a conclusion ? ?*look at the amount of labour invested in a given object as a specific proportion of the total amount of labour in the system as a whole. This is its value.*? I think there is better way to understand above process of sale of labour and interpret as well as analyzing its resultant out come and it is my saying to Huw in my previous emails. Now I try to exactly explain the above discussed process of sale of labour in other way. There is a person P with a need to have a facility to seat comfortably or conveniently. A chair is one of the commodities that have all the characteristics to satisfy the subject need of P. Here P has selected to have a chair to satisfy his subject need. P has a quantity of wheat to exchange with anyone against a chair. Q is a person who has various sizes of timber pieces, tool kit for carpentry and required labour power, skill and dexterity to manufacture a chair (or other wooden things) from the pieces of the timber. Q is in need of wheat. Let us examine logical senses of P and Q for the pieces of the timber. P does not find *use* *value* in the timber as far as his need is concerned. The timber pieces have various characteristics but neither of them might be linked with the subject need of P. The characteristics of timber pieces are positively linked to manufacturing of a chair, but P has neither knowledge (skill) of manufacturing chair from timber pieces nor he has facility (tool kit) to manufacture it nor his work schedule permit to devote time, labour for the subject task as P is occupied in other productive activities (that is division of labour). Q finds *use* *value* in the timber pieces because he has all the things that P does not have as above. The knowledge of Q to find a fair possibility to receive wheat in an exchange with P against a chair (if Q has) induces him to manufacture a chair from the timber. In above situation, Q finds *use* *value* in the timber in relation to his need to manufacture and have a chair under his (Q) command to exchange with P. Why does Q find *use* *value* in the timber? It is because, 1 He is aware of his need to have a chair for the subject exchange with P. 2 He has knowledge that pieces of the timber have all the satisfactory characteristics to manufacture a chair. 3 He has necessary skill and tools for the same. Q manufactures a chair. Now P finds *use* *value* in the chair that is under command of Q, because the need of P might be now linked with the chair. P will never find *value* in the chair till it is not under his (P?s) command because satisfaction of the respective need of P might be realized only if the chair is brought under his command. Let us summaries the latest status, P is in need of a chair. P has wheat and he is ready to enter an exchange process between wheat and chair. Q has a need of wheat. He invested his labour and skill of some hours to manufacture a chair from the pieces of timber with him. Q has a chair. Now exchange process between the chair (under command of Q) and wheat (under command of P) takes place. I say that the subject exchange process is influenced by 20 parameters. It is a serious mistake to think that the ratio of exchange (here quantity of wheat against one chair) depends exclusively and only on the man hours OR quantity of labour invested by Q. I agree invested labour is one of the parameter of influence out of the twenty parameters. [I terminate my discussion at half way here to avoid too long email] Harshad Dave Harshad Dave On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:57 PM Greg Thompson wrote: > In case anyone is interested, David Graeber has a lovely book Toward an > Anthropological Theory of Value which can be helpful as a look at "value" > across cultural contexts: > https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780312240455 > > His book Debt: The First 5,000 Years is perhaps even better, although > slightly less focused on "value" per se. Free version of the book is here: > https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf > > -greg > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:51 AM Harshad Dave wrote: > >> Huw Lloyd, >> >> With reference to your email dtd. 1st oct 2018, I shall put my views as >> follow, >> >> >> >> [1] ?Value? is a word of a language (here English) and language is not >> only a set of words, verbs and adjectives etc. It totally reflects culture >> and properties of the mankind that originated and evolved with the society >> with the language. >> >> Is it inevitable to interpret sense and meaning of *value* that is used >> in each and every field of prevailing society if one wants to talk within a >> determined field (here economics)? >> >> Is it not possible and fair to grasp the sense of *value* within the >> frame work of subject matter that we discuss (here it is economics)? >> >> When we discuss vital issues of economics where role of *value* is prime >> one and we are unable to talk about constitution of *value* even within >> the frame work of economics to make our discussion clearer and less >> controversial with above clarity, only because it (*value*) is used in >> different fields/subjects of our society with varying sense and meaning. >> >> Is it that important that either one must clarify the word *value* in >> meaning and sense used in each and every corner of our society or he should >> let dragging his discussion on old practice to express views without >> touching the logical sense of constitution of *value* within the frame >> work of subject matter (here economics)? >> >> Do you really agree that a thinker of economics while explaining his >> views using word *value* should take every care of the sense and meaning >> in which it was used by Shakespeare while he wrote his works or Peter when >> he preached and addressed his disciples? >> >> I think we should not hesitate to define a simple constitution of *value* >> applicable within the frame work of economics only and that is what I have >> attempted. >> >> [2] >> >> When I carefully study the first paragraph of Marx?s saying (in my email >> dtd 1 octo 2018), I clearly get following impressions, >> >> a. His words ??.*the **value** of a commodity is a thing quite >> relative,?.?* . In fact it is *exchange* *value* he talked about. But he >> did not differentiate between *value* and *exchange* *value* because it >> was neither a practice at that time and nor even today. >> >> b. His words ?*In fact, in speaking of the value, the value in exchange >> of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges >> with all other commodities?*. Here also he confirms that *exchange* >> *value* might present a *value* of a commodity. >> >> c. His words ?*How are the proportions in which commodities exchange >> with each other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions >> vary infinitely.*? Here Marx confirms that there is motivating >> parameters that determines the proportion of exchange (ratio of exchange) >> and also confirms that the aggregate influence of the subject parameters >> varies to infinite. >> >> If above points (a, b and c) constitute a fact, I have tried to narrate >> those parameters in my article on ?Exchange Value? and it confirms that >> aggregate influence of applicable parameters out of the above 20 subject >> parameters might not be uniform in every case and it is the reason that >> exchange ratio between two commodities might not remain uniform even at >> same place and time for two different cases of exchanges. Marx has said >> about *something* *common* if the same commodity (here wheat) is >> exchanged with a commodity other than iron, but when uniformity in the >> exchange ratio is not assured for same commodity at same place and same >> time for two different exchange events, there is no place of discussion for >> different commodities. One can never reach to the foetus of *value* >> through the analysis of *exchange* *value*. >> >> *Exchange* *value* is regulated and determined by an aggregate influence >> of applicable parameters out of the twenty parameters listed in the article >> and exchange ratio might vary case to case. >> >> *Value* is completely a different term and it is a great mistake to >> approach *exchange* *value* to grasp the constitution of *value*. I >> know, perhaps no one will agree with me, but I say that *Value* has no >> linkages with *Exchange Value*. >> >> regards, >> >> >> Harshad Dave >> Mobile: +91 9979853305 >> >> Address: >> >> "SWAYAM", >> B - 116, Yoginagar Township, >> Opp. Ramakaka Temple, >> Chhani - 391 740. >> Vadodara, Gujarat, >> India. >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:33 PM Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> Harshard, >>> >>> First, I should say that most references to Marx's exchange value and >>> use value on this list pertain to the genesis of mediatory forms in >>> developmental processes, studied through the technique of dialectics and >>> also referred to as the germ-cell. See Ilyenkov's "Dialectics of the >>> Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" for more on this. >>> >>> The idea of considering different systems of value according to >>> different sets of conditions seems redolent of JG Bennett's work, who based >>> his cosmology upon value. To the extent that I have registered his >>> portrayal faithfully, I would disagree about his situating value and fact >>> in two different realms. However, to take a leaf from JGB's account one >>> could, for instance, consider additionally "potential value" as a system of >>> five conditions, and so on. Hence one might not want to take the label >>> 'value' designating all these different orders from a particular order. >>> Similarly, why should one take the transitional affect of "valuing" as the >>> "true value"? Granted it is a practical necessity in the psychological >>> deployment of resources, yet this may be looked at as one stepping-stone >>> amongst many. >>> >>> Do economists take a literal interest in the experience of need? It >>> seems to me they largely start with its expression (rather than its >>> experience) as a basis. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 06:03, Harshad Dave wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here I copy paste the words/para taken from "Value, Price and Profit" >>>> by Karl Marx. >>>> >>>> *"At first sight it would seem that the value of a commodity is a thing >>>> quite relative, and not to be settled without considering one commodity in >>>> its relations to all other commodities. In fact, in speaking of the value, >>>> the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities >>>> in which it exchanges with all other commodities. But then arises the >>>> question: How are the proportions in which commodities exchange with each >>>> other regulated? We know from experience that these proportions vary >>>> infinitely. Taking one single commodity, wheat, for instance, we shall find >>>> that a quarter of wheat exchanges in almost countless variations of >>>> proportion with different commodities. Yet, its value remaining always the >>>> same, whether expressed in silk, gold, or any other commodity, it must be >>>> something distinct from, and independent of, these different rates of >>>> exchange with different articles. It must be possible to express, in a very >>>> different form, these various equations with various commodities.* >>>> *Besides, if I say a quarter of wheat exchanges with iron in a certain >>>> proportion, or the value of a quarter of wheat is expressed in a certain >>>> amount of iron, I say that the value of wheat and its equivalent in iron >>>> are equal to some third thing, which is neither wheat nor iron, because I >>>> suppose them to express the same magnitude in two different shapes. Either >>>> of them, the wheat or the iron, must, therefore, independently of the >>>> other, be reducible to this third thing which is their common measure."* >>>> >>>> If you go through the views of Marx expressed on *Value *while >>>> exchanging *wheat* against *iron *you will feel that Marx expresses it >>>> with difficulty. I think this complexity emerges only because economists of >>>> the time (perhaps even of present time) could not differentiate between >>>> *value* and *exchange value.* It is a serious mistake to grasp *value* >>>> through *exchange* *value.* It is the most unfortunate part that the >>>> word/phrase "*Exchange* *value*" incorporates the word "*Value*" and >>>> it, perhaps, misleads us. >>>> >>>> I have tried to explain exactly this difference in my articles on >>>> following web links. >>>> >>>> I will be thankful if I receive your views on the same. >>>> >>>> The Web Links: >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> >>>> Article: "Exchange Value" >>>> >>>> >>>> Journal Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/current-issue-of-fmir/ >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> Article Link: *http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-2/article-6/ >>>> * >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained in short] >>>> >>>> Short form: >>>> https://www.academia.edu/35947903/Constitution_of_value_ACADEMIA >>>> >>>> Article: "The Constitution of Value" [Explained elaborately] >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.academia.edu/35885621/An_Introduction_to_the_constitution_of_value._Part_1_Constitution_of_Use_Value_Value_and_Forms_of_Value._Preamble >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harshad Dave >>>> >>>> > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181006/9689e586/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Sat Oct 6 07:03:16 2018 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 11:03:16 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Complete Works Message-ID: Hello dear fellows, So, now we are in more open, accessible times. We do not need to cover things because of Stalinism or McCarthyism, Cold War and so on. Also internet provides the connection between researchers, translators, publishers and so on. And in the last years we can see more and more material from the Archives of the Family of Vygotsky or new material discovered in other people states. There is a HUGE publishing industry about Vygotsky, and we have tons and tons of books about him coming out. So there is a lot of interest, and resources to invest, in Vygotsky. So, why we do not have even the near future prospect of a Complete Works of Vygotsky with a good translation to English (at least)? What are the impediments? Copyright? Access to material? Lack of translators? In Brazil Vygotsky is often and often quoted, there are tons of books about him, and more and more come out. But we do not have even his collected works in Portuguese, and even the few works that were translated, most are out of print and with bad translations. Is it the same in other countries? I feel like Vygotsky is a very illustrious unknown person. Wagner Luiz Schmit UNESP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181006/cc56fddf/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 8 18:07:02 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 18:07:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Minding my P's and Q's Message-ID: Apropos of the discussion of a theory of value, the case of Banksy's art prank seems interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/arts/design/banksy-artwork-painting.html mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181008/a84d41e7/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Mon Oct 8 23:39:56 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:09:56 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Minding my P's and Q's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike Cole, with reference to your trailing mail, I just point out as follow, If you go through my article URL as follow, Article: "An Inquiry on Social Issue, Part 1" URL - http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/bel/issue-2/article-10/ and then "An Inquiry on Social Issue, Part 2" (on Page No. 51 ) URL- http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/bel/issue-3/article-6/ Read on the page 51 at.... ?*According to a Forbes report, World of Diamonds ? the makers of The Jane Seymour Vivid Blue Diamond Ring ? are organizing a special $2 million dining experience for two, which includes a luxurious journey on air, land and sea, culminating with a dinner at Ce? La Vi, in Singapore. The cherry on top? Owning The Jane Seymour Vivid Blue diamond ring as well?* [ http://mashable.com/2016/07/12/2-mil-meal/#LtweMIgWZgqL]. You will realize that it (the event of auction that you referred) is not a prank or it might be a prank for some people who does not care to know how the social system and its functioning work, but they are satisfied themselves with the perceptions about this social system that they bear in their minds. Otherwise, a society where 8 hours labour is exchanged with say average 35 to 40 Dollars, and at the same time, in the same society, a painting is getting exchanged with 1.4 million dollars indicates some serious abnormality in the system. A wise man will surely think there is serious error in the constitution of this social system instead of designating it as a prank. People might be surprised by the exchange amount dollar 1.4 million, but more serious aspect is presence of people in this society that have such a big sum under their command to pay practically against a painting. If a man exchanges a justified average sum against a bread, one can link his need with bread to satisfy his hunger through the exchange. If it is a woolen coat, one might link with his need to get protection from cold. If it is leather shoes, a need to get protection from many odds while walking on ground might be linked with, but Which need gets linked with the above subject painting through an exchange of such a big amount? If you go through the small article on "Need" on following link you will realize... URL - https://www.academia.edu/36372183/A_Short_View_on_Need It is the need of Zone 3 only that might be linked with the above subject painting. Satisfaction of all the needs of Zone 3 in our society is founded on the unethical command on wealth. No man in this world will agree to enter exchange for a thing/good or commodity that might just satisfy his need/s of zone 3 only, where he holds thing/good commodity or money/wealth with him earned by him purely ethically to exchange with. As per my view the subject prank is not a prank but a blot on the face of our human society as far as the subject exchange is concerned. regards, Harshad Dave On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:39 AM mike cole wrote: > Apropos of the discussion of a theory of value, the case of Banksy's art > prank seems interesting. > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/arts/design/banksy-artwork-painting.html > > mike > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181009/f58d7b6e/attachment-0001.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 9 06:19:51 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:19:51 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Minding my P's and Q's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harshad Dave Congratulations on the arrival of your son ! What particularly in the Banks prank was that the value is expected to increase BECAUSE it was shredded . It seemed to be an interesting case for your line of arguments. Mike On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:41 PM Harshad Dave wrote: > Mike Cole, > with reference to your trailing mail, I just point out as follow, > > If you go through my article URL as follow, > > Article: "An Inquiry on Social Issue, Part 1" > URL - http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/bel/issue-2/article-10/ > > and then > > "An Inquiry on Social Issue, Part 2" (on Page No. 51 ) > URL- http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/bel/issue-3/article-6/ > > Read on the page 51 at.... > ?*According to a Forbes report, World of Diamonds ? the makers of The > Jane Seymour Vivid Blue Diamond Ring ? are organizing a special $2 million > dining experience for two, which includes a luxurious journey on air, land > and sea, culminating with a dinner at Ce? La Vi, in Singapore. The cherry > on top? Owning The Jane Seymour Vivid Blue diamond ring as well?* [ > http://mashable.com/2016/07/12/2-mil-meal/#LtweMIgWZgqL]. > > You will realize that it (the event of auction that you referred) is not a > prank or it might be a prank for some people who does not care to know how > the social system and its functioning work, but they are satisfied > themselves with the perceptions about this social system that they bear in > their minds. > > Otherwise, a society where 8 hours labour is exchanged with say average 35 > to 40 Dollars, > and > at the same time, in the same society, > a painting is getting exchanged with 1.4 million dollars indicates some > serious abnormality in the system. > > A wise man will surely think there is serious error in the constitution of > this social system instead of designating it as a prank. > People might be surprised by the exchange amount dollar 1.4 million, but > more serious aspect is presence of people in this society that have such a > big sum under their command to pay practically against a painting. > > If a man exchanges a justified average sum against a bread, one can link > his need with bread to satisfy his hunger through the exchange. > > If it is a woolen coat, one might link with his need to get protection > from cold. > > If it is leather shoes, a need to get protection from many odds while > walking on ground might be linked with, but > > Which need gets linked with the above subject painting through an exchange > of such a big amount? > > If you go through the small article on "Need" on following link you will > realize... > URL - https://www.academia.edu/36372183/A_Short_View_on_Need > > It is the need of Zone 3 only that might be linked with the above subject > painting. > Satisfaction of all the needs of Zone 3 in our society is founded on the > unethical command on wealth. > No man in this world will agree to enter exchange for a thing/good or > commodity that might just satisfy his need/s of zone 3 only, where he holds > thing/good commodity or money/wealth with him earned by him purely > ethically to exchange with. > > As per my view the subject prank is not a prank but a blot on the face of > our human society as far as the subject exchange is concerned. > regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:39 AM mike cole wrote: > >> Apropos of the discussion of a theory of value, the case of Banksy's art >> prank seems interesting. >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/arts/design/banksy-artwork-painting.html >> >> mike >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181009/1ffef285/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 10 09:38:11 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:38:11 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure-track position in Developmental Psychology at UNC Greensboro In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: good job ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Janet Boseovski Date: Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 9:37 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure-track position in Developmental Psychology at UNC Greensboro To: *Developmental Psychology (Assistant Professor) position #998711* *The Department of Psychology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro* invites applications for a *tenure-track position in* *Developmental* *Psychology (Assistant Professor level)*, to begin August 1, 2019. The Department of Psychology consists of 28 full-time faculty and offers a BA and BS in psychology, an MA in General Experimental Psychology, and the Ph.D. in developmental, clinical, cognitive, and social psychology (See http://psychology.uncg.edu for more information). We seek someone to join an active and collaborative research department. Candidates must hold or anticipate a Ph.D. in Psychology by August 1, 2019. All applicants should have a clear commitment to graduate and undergraduate teaching and to working with students from diverse backgrounds. Candidates should show evidence of a strong, independent research program and should demonstrate high potential for securing external funding. We seek researchers who focus primarily on social and/or cognitive development in middle to late childhood using experimental methodology as one focal point of their research program. Researchers who study identity and social categorization, prejudice and stereotyping, selective trust and skepticism, scientific reasoning, STEM learning and learning in informal environments (e.g., museums, science centers), health-related cognition, or cross-cultural development are especially encouraged to apply. We welcome experience and expertise in conducting translational research and research with diverse populations. The department has excellent research resources, including equipment and systems for a wide array of research methods (e.g., eye-tracking, ERP, ESM), and a research-dedicated neuroimaging facility. We also have a strong relationship with the city of Greensboro and surrounding areas; several ongoing and potential community-engaged research opportunities are available to new faculty. UNCG is a Minority Serving Institution, with an undergraduate population of 44% of ethnic minority students. UNCG and the Psychology Department foster an environment of collaboration across departments and schools, and support community-engaged research. UNCG is proud of the diversity of its student body and we seek to attract an equally diverse applicant pool for this position. The university is located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian mountains. UNCG is an EOE/Affirmative Action/M/F/D/V employer and is strongly committed to increasing faculty diversity. Greensboro is a city of about 287,000 in the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina, a location providing easy access to the Research Triangle and to recreational opportunities on the coast and in the mountains. The local metropolitan area (which includes the cities of High Point and Winston-Salem) has a population of approximately 1.6 million with an excellent standard of living. We will begin reviewing applications on October 31 and will continue until the position is filled. More information may be obtained from Dr. Janet Boseovski, Chair of the Developmental Search Committee (email: jjboseov@uncg.edu). Applicants should submit all materials electronically (to apply, visit https://jobsearch.uncg.edu and click on ?Faculty?). Applicants should submit a cover letter, a vita, a detailed description of their research program, up to five representative publications, a statement of teaching interests, and a brief statement addressing past and/or potential contributions to diversity through research, teaching, and/or service. Applicants should also list the names and e-mail addresses of 3 people to be contacted for letters of recommendation. -- Janet J. Boseovski, PhD Associate Professor of Psychology University of North Carolina at Greensboro Phone: (336) 256-0015; Fax: (336) 334-5066 E-mail: jjboseov@uncg.edu Web: http://www.duck-lab.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UNCGDuckLab/ [image: https://uncgcdn.blob.core.windows.net/email/CASLogo.png] _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181010/77bccfc7/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 16 19:49:47 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:49:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor of Liberal Studies at California State University, East Bay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For Bay Area folks Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Christina Chin-Newman Date: Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:31 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor of Liberal Studies at California State University, East Bay To: Assistant Professor of Liberal Studies Tenure-track The Liberal Studies Program at California State University, East Bay, aims to provide a rich liberal arts educational experience through selected courses from a wide range of academic disciplines, while at the same time allowing students to select a field for in-depth study of their own interest. Each year, the Liberal Studies Program serves an ethnically and economically diverse group of approximately 400 majors in the beautiful San Francisco Bay Area. The Liberal Studies Program is housed in the Department of Human Development & Women?s Studies, which promotes the interdisciplinary study of human development over the life course. Our successful tenure-track candidate will teach the two Liberal Studies courses (LBST 201 Introduction to Liberal Studies and LBST 499 Liberal Studies Senior Seminar) fully online each semester, as well as other courses that meet the needs of the Liberal Studies Program and the Human Development and Women?s Studies Department. In addition to fulfilling online responsibilities, the faculty member will be required to physically come to campus and participate in student advising, and department and university service. Rank is Assistant Professor. Salary is dependent upon educational preparation and experience. The position starts in Fall 2019 and is subject to budgetary authorization. Ph.D. or earned equivalent at the time of appointment is required, in broad social science and/or humanities areas including, though not limited to, anthropology, ethnic studies, geography and environmental studies, English, history, human development, international studies, political science, psychology, sociology, women?s studies, art history, philosophy, religious studies, and any relevant interdisciplinary studies areas. Preference will be given to the candidate with a record of accomplishment, including published scholarship, teaching experience, and administrative skills including a vision for sustaining, leading and developing the Liberal Studies Program for both liberal arts education and multiple subject matter oriented teacher preparation. Applicants who represent all types of diversity, including race/ethnicity, age, disability, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation are encouraged to apply. Review of applications will begin December 15, 2018. Position will remain open until filled. Please submit a letter of application (which addresses the qualifications noted in the position announcement, including teaching, research, and experience working with diverse groups through teaching, research, mentoring, advising, and/or service), a complete and current vita, two sample syllabi, publication samples, a teaching statement, a research statement, and a service statement, and the names and contact information of three references, at: https://apply.interfolio.com/53974. More information about the campus and position is also available there. For questions about the position or application, please contact Dr. Christina Chin-Newman, Liberal Studies Search Committee Chair, Department of Human Development and Women?s Studies, California State University, East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA 94542. Phone 510-885-3076, email: christina.chin-newman@csueastbay.edu -- Christina Chin-Newman, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Human Development and Women's Studies Co-Director, Exploring LAND (Learning, Ability, and Neurological Diversity) Project Director, Arts, Creativity & Education (ACE) Lab California State University, East Bay 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd. Hayward, CA 94542 Office: MI 4035 (510) 885-4570 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181016/602b53ee/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: HDEV-LBST-TenureTrackPositionAnnouncement long version.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 189573 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181016/602b53ee/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 17 16:30:16 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:30:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Track Position in Developmental Psychology, UC San Diego In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent job, great weather. :-) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Barner Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:25 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Track Position in Developmental Psychology, UC San Diego To: cogdevsoc Dear Colleagues, The Psychology Department at UC San Diego is hiring in Developmental Psychology. Please share widely! Thanks, Dave Barner --- The Psychology Department (http://psy.ucsd.edu/) within the Division of Social Sciences at UC San Diego invites applications for a tenure track Assistant Professor position in Developmental Psychology. Candidates must have a Ph.D. or ABD, and have a record of publishable research in any area of developmental psychology, including cognitive, perceptual, and social development. In addition to research, the candidate should be prepared to mentor students and teach classes at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The preferred candidate will have demonstrated strong leadership or a commitment to support diversity, equity, and inclusion in an academic setting. Salary is commensurate with qualifications and based on University of California pay scales. Review of applications will begin November 26, 2018 and continue until the position is filled. Candidates should submit a cover letter, curriculum vita, research statement, names of three referees, and a personal statement that summarizes their past or potential contributions to diversity (see http://facultyexcellence.ucsd.edu/c2d/index.html for further information). Applications at the Assistant (tenure track) level should be submitted electronically via UCSD's Academic Personnel On-Line RECRUIT ( https://apolrecruit.ucsd.edu/apply/JPF01916). UC San Diego is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer with a strong institutional commitment to excellence through diversity. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to gender, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status. -- David Barner, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology & Linguistics http://www.ladlab.com/barner _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181017/6c02c545/attachment.html From the_yasya@yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 03:35:58 2018 From: the_yasya@yahoo.com (Anton Yasnitsky) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography: Free access expires soon References: <734383660.12025386.1539772558591.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <734383660.12025386.1539772558591@mail.yahoo.com> A kind reminder from the publisher: - The link to your book will remain valid for 2 more weeks from today, so please do keep sharing ! - Unique link to share your book: - https://rdcu.be/4fov - (This link is read online only, and the print/copy/download functions have been disabled.) | | Virus-free. www.avg.com | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181017/b4b7797f/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 08:04:14 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 20:34:14 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] An article on Division of Labour. Message-ID: Hi, Following article is published in a journal FIRM published by ARMG Publishing, Sumy State University, Ukraine. Abstract and web link are given here bellow. Hope, you will find it interesting. I well-come your comments and critics that will help me to make my views more precise. Regards, Harshad Dave Title: "Elementary investigation on Division of Labour, Part 1" fmir_212_303 Authors: Harshad Dave, Pages: 87-103 DOI: 10.21272/fmir.2(3).87-103.2018 Abstract If the ?Division of Labour? is just a process of selecting work point in social system and network by a man not only for retaining self existence but to realize the living of his dream, it is too superficial analysis of a vital term of economics. Human society could evolve with the help and application of discoveries and inventions (in short ? DIs) successfully applied on natural resources. It also required for material support and application of labour to secure targeted results. This process warranted a systematic coordination among application of DIs, exploration, control and regulation of natural resources, labour support for the application. Simultaneous and synchronized functioning of above three constituted a process to which we address as the classical coordination. However, the evolution of human society under the classical coordination realized with various preconditions to be complied by men. Here it is tried to reveal the facts of social development/evolution under the process of classical coordination. The process of division of labour is an inseparable part of the classical coordination. The classical coordination is basic to evolution of human society. The original constitution of evolved division of labour with the evolution of human society under classical coordination is perfect and without any contamination of human unethical values. Unfortunately the spoiled social environment due to frequent and innumerable breaches of preconditions encouraged application of abilities of men (members of the society) in unethical ways/means. It contaminated the naturally evolved process of division of labour. The spoiled process of division of labour introduced disappointment and agony in the minds of the people that were victimized by the unethical application of abilities to favour incompetent people or to secure self interests and ultimately it resulted into a class struggle. The consequential results of contaminated process of division of labour are also discussed in short. Link: http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-3/article-10/ ****************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181019/5e82b56a/attachment.html From moises.esteban@udg.edu Sat Oct 20 02:49:41 2018 From: moises.esteban@udg.edu (MOISES ESTEBAN-GUITART) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 11:49:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Do we still believe that networked youth can change the world? special issue In-Reply-To: <1529583780354.1810@iped.uio.no> References: <1529533555888.83854@iped.uio.no>, <1529583780354.1810@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <50847.188.85.222.251.1540028981.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> A nice and interesting discussion on activism and social networks by Henry Jenkins and James Gee. The interview to Al Shafei is really suggestive. VIDEOABSTRACT by Jenkins: https://youtu.be/unlUaS1mLYk FULL SPECIAL ISSUE: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/admin/publicacions/14.pdf Jenkins, H., Al Shafei, E., Gee, J. (2018). Do we still believe that networked youth can change the world? Special issue. Working Papers on Culture, Education and Human Development, 14(3), 1-51. best moises From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Sat Oct 20 03:57:33 2018 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:57:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we still believe that networked youth can change the world? special issue In-Reply-To: <50847.188.85.222.251.1540028981.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> References: <1529533555888.83854@iped.uio.no> <1529583780354.1810@iped.uio.no> <50847.188.85.222.251.1540028981.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Moises Thanks for this - following editorial meeting yesterday Im about to contact you again with an example of an MCA 'call' and invite you to draft one for us. Julian ?On 20/10/2018, 10:52, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of MOISES ESTEBAN-GUITART" wrote: A nice and interesting discussion on activism and social networks by Henry Jenkins and James Gee. The interview to Al Shafei is really suggestive. VIDEOABSTRACT by Jenkins: https://youtu.be/unlUaS1mLYk FULL SPECIAL ISSUE: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/admin/publicacions/14.pdf Jenkins, H., Al Shafei, E., Gee, J. (2018). Do we still believe that networked youth can change the world? Special issue. Working Papers on Culture, Education and Human Development, 14(3), 1-51. best moises From feine@duq.edu Tue Oct 23 10:59:37 2018 From: feine@duq.edu (Dr. Elizabeth Fein) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:59:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] APA Division 5 Awards Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, APA Division 5 (Quantitative and Qualitative Methods) is seeking nominations for 8 awards in the area of research methods, including 4 awards in qualitative inquiry. Please consider nominating a colleague, student or mentor for one of these Division 5 awards, and please circulate this announcement widely - these awards are an opportunity for APA to honor methodologically thoughtful and innovative work in psychology. Qualitative Awards: * Distinguished Contributions in Qualitative Inquiry Award * Distinguished Contributions to Teaching and Mentoring in Qualitative Inquiry Award * Distinguished Early Career Contributions in Qualitative Inquiry Award * Distinguished Dissertation in Qualitative Inquiry Award Quantitative Awards: * Samuel J. Messick Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions * Jacob Cohen Award for Distinguished Contributions to Teaching and Mentoring * Anne Anastasi Dissertation Award * Anne Anastasi Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award All award recipients will be given an awards plaque and an honorary one-year membership in Div. 5. Recipients attending the 2019 APA Annual Convention will be honored at the Div. 5 awards symposium, where each will have the opportunity to make a brief presentation. Neither the nominator nor the nominee need be a current or former member of either APA or Div. 5. Both self-nominations and nominations by others will be considered. Detailed nomination instructions for each award can be found on the Div. 5 awards page on the website. Please send all requested nomination materials by email to Nathan Kuncel, chair of the 2019 Awards Committee, by Dec. 1, 2018. A confirmation email will be sent when an award package is complete. The outcome of the review process will be announced by March 15, 2019. Should you have any questions concerning the awards, the nomination process and/or the review process, please contact Nathan. Best, Elizabeth Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Duquesne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181023/3be835e6/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Oct 24 05:39:32 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:39:32 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Kollontai Message-ID: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/ece22f27/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:13:46 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:13:46 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> Message-ID: Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. Best, Huw On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden wrote: > This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. > > Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers > Opposition" in Russian? > > Andy > > -- > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/4d13c569/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Oct 24 07:17:50 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:17:50 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> Message-ID: The marxists internet archive has it in various translations, but the different versions don't agree with each other, so we are looking for a definitive version. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 25/10/2018 1:13 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for > "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. > > According to this source > > it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There > appear to be many Pravda archives available online, > affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library > appears to have a full archive, although it requires a > library card/login for access. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. > > Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra > Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? > > Andy > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181025/40d36507/attachment.html From feine@duq.edu Wed Oct 24 07:22:26 2018 From: feine@duq.edu (Dr. Elizabeth Fein) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:22:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> Message-ID: Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. Best, Elizabeth On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. Best, Huw On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > wrote: This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? Andy -- ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Duquesne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/98cf639c/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 24 07:46:09 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 07:46:09 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> Message-ID: I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those awards and letting them know was generous on your part Just my 2 pence Mike On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein wrote: > Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a > wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology > in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be > recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative > sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our > division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. > Best, > Elizabeth > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and >> "quantitative" methods. >> >> According to this source >> >> it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many >> Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New >> York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a >> library card/login for access. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>> >>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers >>> Opposition" in Russian? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> >> > > -- > Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Psychology > Duquesne University > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/9f8e59a3/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:49:40 2018 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:49:40 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> Message-ID: <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole wrote: > > I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those awards and letting them know was generous on your part > Just my 2 pence > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein > wrote: > Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. > Best, > Elizabeth > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. > > According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > wrote: > This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. > > Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? > > Andy > > -- > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > -- > Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Psychology > Duquesne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/1cf1cb6d/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 08:07:32 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:07:32 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative issues as primary? Huw On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen wrote: > I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole wrote: > > I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are > many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those > awards and letting them know was generous on your part > Just my 2 pence > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein wrote: > >> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast >> a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology >> in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be >> recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative >> sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our >> division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >> Best, >> Elizabeth >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" >>> and "quantitative" methods. >>> >>> According to this source >>> >>> it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many >>> Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New >>> York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a >>> library card/login for access. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers >>>> Opposition" in Russian? >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Psychology >> Duquesne University >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/222ce9ab/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Wed Oct 24 09:37:09 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> Message-ID: <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way I think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using a qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. Martin > On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative issues as primary? > > Huw > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen > wrote: > I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole > wrote: >> >> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those awards and letting them know was generous on your part >> Just my 2 pence >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein > wrote: >> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >> Best, >> Elizabeth >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. >> >> According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >> >> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? >> >> Andy >> >> -- >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> -- >> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Psychology >> Duquesne University > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/691bf481/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 13:50:08 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:50:08 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> Message-ID: It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer wrote: > I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way I > think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using a > qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although > my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining > qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of > quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. > > Martin > > > > > On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative > issues as primary? > > Huw > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole wrote: >> >> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There >> are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those >> awards and letting them know was generous on your part >> Just my 2 pence >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein wrote: >> >>> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast >>> a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology >>> in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be >>> recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative >>> sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our >>> division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >>> Best, >>> Elizabeth >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" >>>> and "quantitative" methods. >>>> >>>> According to this source >>>> >>>> it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many >>>> Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New >>>> York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a >>>> library card/login for access. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The >>>>> Workers Opposition" in Russian? >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Psychology >>> Duquesne University >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/c6324225/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Wed Oct 24 14:19:47 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> Message-ID: <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> I?m not sure what the ?it? is, Huw. My way of thinking? My writing? :) You?re suggesting, perhaps, that quality is more basic than quantity? Hopefully you?re not reverting to the view that ?qualia? are the basic elements of experience? But I?m just making guesses about what it is you want to communicate. A bit stupefied, it?s true. Martin > On Oct 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer > wrote: > I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way I think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using a qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. > > Martin > > > > >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> >> Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative issues as primary? >> >> Huw >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen > wrote: >> I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole > wrote: >>> >>> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those awards and letting them know was generous on your part >>> Just my 2 pence >>> Mike >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein > wrote: >>> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >>> Best, >>> Elizabeth >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: >>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. >>> >>> According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>> >>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> -- >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> -- >>> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Psychology >>> Duquesne University >> > Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/d2c572ed/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 24 15:11:18 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:11:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> Message-ID: Luria liked to say that the object of scientific research is to see an object from as many sides as possible, an idea that has always applied for me with respect to my own research that affords both kinds of analysis simultaneously. An example would be in *The Psychology of Literacy, *where we were tasked with answering the question, "what are the psychological consequences of becoming literate?" Three, arguably four literacies in a single population at a single point in history. Without a year of on the ground ethnography joined in a second year by a use of survey accumulated from a variety of sources, a third year of continued survey collection and conduct of some targeted experimental-psychological-style research motivated by the ethnography and survey results, a fourth year of collecting data based on the idea that in experiments, one should design one's experiment as models of cultural practices, not models of school-based practices. Multiple regression on quantifiable data provided a lot of good information about how to dig deeper into what was giving rise to the numbers. And its great having the experience of doing all that (once) fancy arithmetic because because its so fungible. I ended up thinking of the use of multiple regression as "hermeneutic regression anlysis. "-) Now the results and our arguments may seem like so much flim flam today. After all, its ancient history. But in the process of the doing, from thinking about the problem in the first place, to hiring people with the requisite expertise to participate, to designing models of cultural practices, we always found that looking at the phenomena from a number of different perspectives simultaneously a great tool of thought. At XMCA we may be wrong, but there is not a single stupid person to be found here but a lot of smart people who have something to learn from each other. Something like what we tell our students the first days of lectures: "There are no dumb questions here." Right? mike On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:30 PM Martin Packer wrote: > I?m not sure what the ?it? is, Huw. My way of thinking? My writing? :) > > You?re suggesting, perhaps, that quality is more basic than quantity? > Hopefully you?re not reverting to the view that ?qualia? are the basic > elements of experience? > > But I?m just making guesses about what it is you want to communicate. A > bit stupefied, it?s true. > > Martin > > > > > On Oct 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer wrote: > >> I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way I >> think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using a >> qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although >> my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining >> qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of >> quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >> Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative >> issues as primary? >> >> Huw >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen >> wrote: >> >>> I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? >>> >>> H >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There >>> are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those >>> awards and letting them know was generous on your part >>> Just my 2 pence >>> Mike >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to >>>> cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing >>>> psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but >>>> deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of >>>> the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect >>>> for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >>>> Best, >>>> Elizabeth >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" >>>>> and "quantitative" methods. >>>>> >>>>> According to this source >>>>> >>>>> it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many >>>>> Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New >>>>> York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a >>>>> library card/login for access. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Huw >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The >>>>>> Workers Opposition" in Russian? >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Psychology >>>> Duquesne University >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > Martin > > *"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss > matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my > partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with > the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)* > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/478d8e7d/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Wed Oct 24 15:30:53 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:30:53 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> Message-ID: I was going to say that every approach both obscures and reveals. But Mike said it first... Martin > On Oct 24, 2018, at 5:11 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Luria liked to say that the object of scientific research is to see an object from as many sides as possible, an idea that has always applied for me with respect to my own research that affords both kinds of analysis simultaneously. An example would be in The Psychology of Literacy, where we were tasked with answering the question, "what are the psychological consequences of becoming literate?" Three, arguably four literacies in a single population at a single point in history. Without a year of on the ground ethnography joined in a second year by a use of survey accumulated from a variety of sources, a third year of continued survey collection and conduct of some targeted experimental-psychological-style research motivated by the ethnography and survey results, a fourth year of collecting data based on the idea that in experiments, one should design one's experiment as models of cultural practices, not models of school-based practices. > > Multiple regression on quantifiable data provided a lot of good information about how to dig deeper into what was giving rise to the numbers. And its great having the experience of doing all that > (once) fancy arithmetic because because its so fungible. I ended up thinking of the use of multiple regression as "hermeneutic regression anlysis. "-) > > Now the results and our arguments may seem like so much flim flam today. After all, its ancient history. But in the process of the doing, from thinking about the problem in the first place, to hiring people with the requisite expertise to participate, to designing models of cultural practices, we always found that looking at the phenomena from a number of different perspectives simultaneously a great tool of thought. > > At XMCA we may be wrong, but there is not a single stupid person to be found here but a lot of smart people who have something to learn from each other. Something like what we tell our students the first days of lectures: > "There are no dumb questions here." > > Right? > mike > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:30 PM Martin Packer > wrote: > I?m not sure what the ?it? is, Huw. My way of thinking? My writing? :) > > You?re suggesting, perhaps, that quality is more basic than quantity? Hopefully you?re not reverting to the view that ?qualia? are the basic elements of experience? > > But I?m just making guesses about what it is you want to communicate. A bit stupefied, it?s true. > > Martin > > > > >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> >> It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer > wrote: >> I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way I think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using a qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >>> >>> Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative issues as primary? >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen > wrote: >>> I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? >>> >>> H >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole > wrote: >>>> >>>> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those awards and letting them know was generous on your part >>>> Just my 2 pence >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein > wrote: >>>> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >>>> Best, >>>> Elizabeth >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: >>>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. >>>> >>>> According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Psychology >>>> Duquesne University >>> >> > > > > Martin > > "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181024/d80b60c1/attachment.html From julie.waddington@udg.edu Thu Oct 25 00:27:34 2018 From: julie.waddington@udg.edu (JULIE WADDINGTON) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:27:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> Message-ID: <52224.83.38.22.87.1540452454.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Right. > Luria liked to say that the object of scientific research is to see an > object from as many sides as possible, an idea that has always applied for > me with respect to my own research that affords both kinds of analysis > simultaneously. An example would be in *The Psychology of Literacy, > *where > we were tasked with answering the question, "what are the psychological > consequences of becoming literate?" Three, arguably four literacies in a > single population at a single point in history. Without a year of on the > ground ethnography joined in a second year by a use of survey accumulated > from a variety of sources, a third year of continued survey collection and > conduct of some targeted experimental-psychological-style research > motivated by the ethnography and survey results, a fourth year of > collecting data based on the idea that in experiments, one should design > one's experiment as models of cultural practices, not models of > school-based practices. > > Multiple regression on quantifiable data provided a lot of good > information > about how to dig deeper into what was giving rise to the numbers. And its > great having the experience of doing all that > (once) fancy arithmetic because because its so fungible. I ended up > thinking of the use of multiple regression as "hermeneutic regression > anlysis. "-) > > Now the results and our arguments may seem like so much flim flam today. > After all, its ancient history. But in the process of the doing, from > thinking about the problem in the first place, to hiring people with the > requisite expertise to participate, to designing models of cultural > practices, we always found that looking at the phenomena from a number of > different perspectives simultaneously a great tool of thought. > > At XMCA we may be wrong, but there is not a single stupid person to be > found here but a lot of smart people who have something to learn from each > other. Something like what we tell our students the first days of > lectures: > "There are no dumb questions here." > > Right? > mike > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:30 PM Martin Packer wrote: > >> I???m not sure what the ???it??? is, Huw. My way of thinking? My >> writing? :) >> >> You???re suggesting, perhaps, that quality is more basic than quantity? >> Hopefully you???re not reverting to the view that ???qualia??? are the >> basic >> elements of experience? >> >> But I???m just making guesses about what it is you want to communicate. >> A >> bit stupefied, it???s true. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >> It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer wrote: >> >>> I don???t think I???d say that there are ???qualitative issues,??? Huw. >>> The way I >>> think about it, there are simply ???issues,??? and these can be grasped >>> using a >>> qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). >>> Although >>> my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining >>> qualitative research, I don???t underestimate the power and usefulness >>> of >>> quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is >>> counting. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take >>> qualitative >>> issues as primary? >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think that was just a typo ??? ???that??? for ???than.??? >>>> >>>> H >>>> >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There >>>> are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for >>>> those >>>> awards and letting them know was generous on your part >>>> Just my 2 pence >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to >>>>> cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing >>>>> psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but >>>>> deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a >>>>> member of >>>>> the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of >>>>> respect >>>>> for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the >>>>> future. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Elizabeth >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for >>>>>> "qualitative" >>>>>> and "quantitative" methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to this source >>>>>> >>>>>> it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to >>>>>> be many >>>>>> Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The >>>>>> New >>>>>> York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it >>>>>> requires a >>>>>> library card/login for access. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The >>>>>>> Workers Opposition" in Russian? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Department of Psychology >>>>> Duquesne University >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> Martin >> >> *"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss >> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my >> partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually >> with >> the feeling that this also applies to myself??? (Malinowski, 1930)* >> >> >> >> > Dra. Julie Waddington Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia Universitat de Girona From simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za Thu Oct 25 00:30:37 2018 From: simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za (Simangele Mayisela) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:30:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> Message-ID: <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80109EBF1C7@Ekho.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> Thank you Mike for that affirming and welcoming view. Although I was inclined to doubt that by ?stupefaction? Huw meant or even thought of stupid in its literal form. Maybe it is because I didn?t expect it. I struggle to make of what he meant ? I tried to dissect the word into its miniature parts ? I found stupa, act, action, faction, I tried prefix, suffix, word root kind of logic, etc. In my quest to engage with what Huw probably meant ? I was in a way inclined to explore both qualitative and quantitative way to elicit the depth and breadth of his statement. Well, ultimately Google helped. S?ma From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 25 October 2018 12:11 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai Luria liked to say that the object of scientific research is to see an object from as many sides as possible, an idea that has always applied for me with respect to my own research that affords both kinds of analysis simultaneously. An example would be in The Psychology of Literacy, where we were tasked with answering the question, "what are the psychological consequences of becoming literate?" Three, arguably four literacies in a single population at a single point in history. Without a year of on the ground ethnography joined in a second year by a use of survey accumulated from a variety of sources, a third year of continued survey collection and conduct of some targeted experimental-psychological-style research motivated by the ethnography and survey results, a fourth year of collecting data based on the idea that in experiments, one should design one's experiment as models of cultural practices, not models of school-based practices. Multiple regression on quantifiable data provided a lot of good information about how to dig deeper into what was giving rise to the numbers. And its great having the experience of doing all that (once) fancy arithmetic because because its so fungible. I ended up thinking of the use of multiple regression as "hermeneutic regression anlysis. "-) Now the results and our arguments may seem like so much flim flam today. After all, its ancient history. But in the process of the doing, from thinking about the problem in the first place, to hiring people with the requisite expertise to participate, to designing models of cultural practices, we always found that looking at the phenomena from a number of different perspectives simultaneously a great tool of thought. At XMCA we may be wrong, but there is not a single stupid person to be found here but a lot of smart people who have something to learn from each other. Something like what we tell our students the first days of lectures: "There are no dumb questions here." Right? mike On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:30 PM Martin Packer > wrote: I?m not sure what the ?it? is, Huw. My way of thinking? My writing? :) You?re suggesting, perhaps, that quality is more basic than quantity? Hopefully you?re not reverting to the view that ?qualia? are the basic elements of experience? But I?m just making guesses about what it is you want to communicate. A bit stupefied, it?s true. Martin On Oct 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer > wrote: I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way I think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using a qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. Martin On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative issues as primary? Huw On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen > wrote: I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole > wrote: I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those awards and letting them know was generous on your part Just my 2 pence Mike On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein > wrote: Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. Best, Elizabeth On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods. According to this source it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a library card/login for access. Best, Huw On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden > wrote: This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The Workers Opposition" in Russian? Andy -- ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Duquesne University Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181025/5406a8c9/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Oct 25 01:42:46 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:42:46 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kollontai In-Reply-To: References: <08f2a928-689c-35a2-dbb0-972f26b8113a@marxists.org> <00DF9031-8C22-424B-8F3B-91170F639086@gmail.com> <162AB830-DD5C-4285-854B-295C80C0D909@cantab.net> <1D5F85F2-5D37-466E-A849-A1266499A315@cantab.net> Message-ID: The first seemingly innocuous concern is with the labelling of descriptive research as "qualitative". The second more egregious concern is the narrowing of so-called "quantitative" studies to being "non-qualitative" and being primarily concerned with established technical procedures. The third egregious concern is the treatment of these two "methods" as if they encompassed the near entirety of research methods. The fourth concern is that the relabelling, reframing, and re-scoping of descriptive research approaches and narrowly conceived "quantitative" approaches establish a de-facto non-interpretation of quality. Quality is not actually explicitly addressed! The fifth concern is that the avoiding of quality maintains an ignorance of systemic forms of understanding, which yield insights into complex phenomena such as the interest in developmental phenomena. This, by the way, means that attention to complex social processes are obstructed in society, because of the lack of a "narrative basis" for engaging into the issues. The use of phrases like "both methods" as if they jointly subsumed all methods adds support to this stupid formulation, "qualitative and quantitative", that dominates social studies in universities and obstructs insights into the phenomena. Huw On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 23:53, Martin Packer wrote: > I was going to say that every approach both obscures and reveals. But Mike > said it first... > > Martin > > > On Oct 24, 2018, at 5:11 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Luria liked to say that the object of scientific research is to see an > object from as many sides as possible, an idea that has always applied for > me with respect to my own research that affords both kinds of analysis > simultaneously. An example would be in *The Psychology of Literacy, *where > we were tasked with answering the question, "what are the psychological > consequences of becoming literate?" Three, arguably four literacies in a > single population at a single point in history. Without a year of on the > ground ethnography joined in a second year by a use of survey accumulated > from a variety of sources, a third year of continued survey collection and > conduct of some targeted experimental-psychological-style research > motivated by the ethnography and survey results, a fourth year of > collecting data based on the idea that in experiments, one should design > one's experiment as models of cultural practices, not models of > school-based practices. > > Multiple regression on quantifiable data provided a lot of good > information about how to dig deeper into what was giving rise to the > numbers. And its great having the experience of doing all that > (once) fancy arithmetic because because its so fungible. I ended up > thinking of the use of multiple regression as "hermeneutic regression > anlysis. "-) > > Now the results and our arguments may seem like so much flim flam today. > After all, its ancient history. But in the process of the doing, from > thinking about the problem in the first place, to hiring people with the > requisite expertise to participate, to designing models of cultural > practices, we always found that looking at the phenomena from a number of > different perspectives simultaneously a great tool of thought. > > At XMCA we may be wrong, but there is not a single stupid person to be > found here but a lot of smart people who have something to learn from each > other. Something like what we tell our students the first days of lectures: > "There are no dumb questions here." > > Right? > mike > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:30 PM Martin Packer wrote: > >> I?m not sure what the ?it? is, Huw. My way of thinking? My writing? :) >> >> You?re suggesting, perhaps, that quality is more basic than quantity? >> Hopefully you?re not reverting to the view that ?qualia? are the basic >> elements of experience? >> >> But I?m just making guesses about what it is you want to communicate. A >> bit stupefied, it?s true. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >> It perpetuates a stupefaction. It obscures what quality is. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:40, Martin Packer wrote: >> >>> I don?t think I?d say that there are ?qualitative issues,? Huw. The way >>> I think about it, there are simply ?issues,? and these can be grasped using >>> a qualitative approach or using a quantitative approach (or both). Although >>> my own writing has been oriented to understanding and explaining >>> qualitative research, I don?t underestimate the power and usefulness of >>> quantitative research. One simply has to know what it is one is counting. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, "than". Whoever heard of a good paper that doesn't take qualitative >>> issues as primary? >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Helena Worthen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think that was just a typo ? ?that? for ?than.? >>>> >>>> H >>>> >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 10:46 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> I thought the announcement was completely relevant Elizabeth There >>>> are many fine scholars in this discussion group who could qualify for those >>>> awards and letting them know was generous on your part >>>> Just my 2 pence >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:24 AM Dr. Elizabeth Fein >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all - Sorry if that announcement was irrelevant. We're trying to >>>>> cast a wide net with these awards, reaching scholars who may be doing >>>>> psychology in a way that may not fall within the APA mainstream but >>>>> deserves to be recognized within APA. Although I'm writing as a member of >>>>> the qualitative sub-division, we include both sets of awards out of respect >>>>> for our division-mates. I'll refrain from sending these in the future. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Elizabeth >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 AM Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds more on topic that a request for nominations for "qualitative" >>>>>> and "quantitative" methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to this source >>>>>> >>>>>> it was first published in Pravda, January 25 1921. There appear to be many >>>>>> Pravda archives available online, affiliated with libraries etc. The New >>>>>> York Public Library appears to have a full archive, although it requires a >>>>>> library card/login for access. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 13:41, Andy Blunden >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is very off-topic, for which I apologise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anyone have access to a copy of Alexandra Kollontai's "The >>>>>>> Workers Opposition" in Russian? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Department of Psychology >>>>> Duquesne University >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> Martin >> >> *"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss >> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my >> partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with >> the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)* >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181025/6cc825af/attachment.html From ben.devane@gmail.com Thu Oct 25 19:46:02 2018 From: ben.devane@gmail.com (Ben DeVane) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:46:02 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Univ. of Iowa: Open-rank search in Learning Sciences Message-ID: Open-Rank Professor in Learning Sciences https://jobs.uiowa.edu/faculty/view/73485 The Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations at the University of Iowa invites applications for an academic year tenure-track faculty position at the rank of assistant, associate or full professor in the Learning Sciences program. The position will begin August 2019. The Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations seeks applicants for an open-rank tenure-track professor position in the learning sciences. The successful candidate will have a generative approach to advancing theory and general knowledge in the learning sciences and investigating innovative learning environments. Research interests that would complement those of our current faculty include personalized and adaptive learning. The University of Iowa provides many opportunities for interdisciplinary research and collaboration with faculty in the health, social sciences, and other disciplines. The successful candidate will join the faculty of the Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences program, which currently has a Ph.D. and M.A. program as well as a strong service teaching component in our College of Education. Screening of applications will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled. Please find more information at https://jobs.uiowa.edu/faculty/view/73485 Kathy L Schuh (Search Chair) - kathy-schuh@uiowa.edu Psych & Quant Foundations Lindquist Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 319-335-5667 Department URL: https://education.uiowa.edu/pq -- *********************** Ben DeVane, Ph.D Assistant Professor Psychological & Quantitative Foundations University of Iowa *********************** From andyb@marxists.org Fri Oct 26 00:13:36 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:13:36 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Michael C. Corballis Message-ID: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181026/1e5008b6/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Oct 26 09:18:38 2018 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy, I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. May I ask what prompted your question? Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is > he any good? > > andy > > -- > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181026/cabc3b91/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Oct 26 16:52:51 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:52:51 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> Message-ID: <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: > Andy, > > I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided > Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, > and I found his perspective on the evolutionary > developments of brain, mind, and language to > be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read > it (about 25 years ago), I was > particularly focused on the evolutionary connections > between handedness, left hemispheric > dominance for language, and the evolution of the > anatomical relations between the brain regions > that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and > those of the tongue. > > So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the > shelf and re-read the parts on the neural > foundations of language and mental representation - and > found them to be chock full of good > and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis > certainly has a sound working knowledge > of the biological and neural structures of language, as > well as the basic psychological functions that are > sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't > really speak to his work as a linguist. > > In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the > Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and > so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is > indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and > clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his > older work on evolution of the human brain into his later > life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. > > May I ask what prompted your question? > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. > Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? > > andy > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181027/c2d51e0a/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 26 22:06:16 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 22:06:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Creativity Research Specialist, LEGO Foundation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A potentially interesting job Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Elisabeth McClure Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:14 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Creativity Research Specialist, LEGO Foundation To: Hi all, We just posted a research position announcement , which could be a good fit for some folks on this listserv. We're hoping to move relatively quickly, so it's a good idea to send in an application sooner rather than later. Please share with anyone you think might be interested! Quick synopsis: ?*Creativity Research Specialist, 10 month maternity cover, at The LEGO Foundation in Billund, Denmark*. Acting as the mediator between education practitioners, research partners, and colleagues, your goal will be to translate and utilise research evidence on creativity to make real-life impact on how children learn.? Thanks! Elisabeth -- Elisabeth McClure, PhD _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181026/3a2bcbc1/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Sat Oct 27 09:43:28 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:43:28 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> Message-ID: <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Andy, Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. Henry > On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. > > I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 > This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. > > I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. > > So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >> Andy, >> >> I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, >> and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to >> be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was >> particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric >> dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions >> that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. >> >> So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural >> foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good >> and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge >> of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. >> >> In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. >> >> May I ask what prompted your question? >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? >> >> andy >> >> >> -- >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181027/f84b8909/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sat Oct 27 14:42:57 2018 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 21:42:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Andy and Henry, The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in time and space would seem to be dependent on neural capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive learning of such a complex linguistic program was infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant that learning the particular grammar of one?s native language just required setting some specialized switches in the pre-given grammar program. All of this was prior to the development of parallel distributed connectionist computer architectures that model learning as massive correlation of input and output elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has impacted the debate over origins of language. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis Andy, Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. Henry On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: Andy, I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. May I ask what prompted your question? Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? andy -- ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181027/535d2b53/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Oct 27 17:16:24 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:16:24 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Henry, various animals can refer to past and future events and can also deceive. One could say that for non-humans animals these capacities are only rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and future gestures. David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that language developed as tool use. That is certainly not my guess, just that tool-production and word-use co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of science, like Freud's psychology? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > Andy and Henry, > > > > The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in > time and space would seem to be dependent on neural > capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the > Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved > culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly > innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. > > > > Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at > the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the > serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of > grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive > learning of such a complex linguistic program was > infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was > innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant > that learning the particular grammar of one?s native > language just required setting some specialized switches > in the pre-given grammar program. > > > > All of this was prior to the development of parallel > distributed connectionist computer architectures that > model learning as massive correlation of input and output > elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. > I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has > impacted the debate over origins of language. > > > > David > > > > > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > *On Behalf Of *HENRY SHONERD > *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis > > > > Andy, > > Thanks for your interest in language, if not in > linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you > about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral > or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus > has been in signed language. It is his sense that language > probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of > Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral > language displaced gesture as the human form of > communication and 2) that language allows us to > ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also > allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary > worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than > humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot > displace in their communication. But why did gesture not > become the dominant form of human communication? All > signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to > argue about which modality came first in human language. > Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent > to which gesture is important in human communication > today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of > language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written > language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with > one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because > the immediacy in time and space of gesture is > short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our > heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here > and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and > focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my > best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. > This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the > payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being > present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not > grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding > myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me > happy or able to live ethically in the world. > > > > It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a > (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, > so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. > > > > Henry > > > > > > On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have > omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not > actually that linguistics I was interested in. > > I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk > https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 > > > This is a topic which has long interested me. The > speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great > job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was > unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but > he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some > internet searches and found that he did support my > prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech > co-evolved in the origins of our species. > > I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in > Vygotsky's Development" > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > but never had any basis for making the claim and this > was always preying on my conscience, so I was > interested to know if Corballis was some crank making > unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. > I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing > the interconnection between handling ancient tools and > handling words, but this is so far out of my field > (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally > assess the idea. > > So! I am very pleased with the report you have given > me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The > Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival > in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: > > Andy, > > > > I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The > Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, > > and I found his perspective on the evolutionary > developments of brain, mind, and language to > > be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When > I read it (about 25 years ago), I was > > particularly focused on the evolutionary > connections between handedness, left hemispheric > > dominance for language, and the evolution of the > anatomical relations between the brain regions > > that control the fine motor movements of the thumb > and those of the tongue. > > > > So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off > the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural > > foundations of language and mental representation > - and found them to be chock full of good > > and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that > Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge > > of the biological and neural structures of > language, as well as the basic psychological > functions that are sub-served by these structures, > this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work > as a linguist. > > > > In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the > Department of Psychology at the University of > Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a > psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and > if he has carried the quality and clarity of > thought and understanding expressed in his older > work on evolution of the human brain into his > later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. > > > > May I ask what prompted your question? > > > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. > Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? > > andy > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > > > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181028/b4b4b23c/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Sun Oct 28 09:16:57 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 10:16:57 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: David, A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness? Andy, I think you are right that displacement should not be a dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary perspective. It?s just that without a language to talk to them about it we don?t know about what they are thinking about the past or the future, or their capacity for imagination. Henry > On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Henry, various animals can refer to past and future events and can also deceive. One could say that for non-humans animals these capacities are only rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and future gestures. > > David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that language developed as tool use. That is certainly not my guess, just that tool-production and word-use co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of science, like Freud's psychology? > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: >> Andy and Henry, >> >> The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in time and space would seem to be dependent on neural capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. >> >> Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive learning of such a complex linguistic program was infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant that learning the particular grammar of one?s native language just required setting some specialized switches in the pre-given grammar program. >> >> All of this was prior to the development of parallel distributed connectionist computer architectures that model learning as massive correlation of input and output elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has impacted the debate over origins of language. >> >> David >> >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD >> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >> >> Andy, >> Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. >> >> It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. >> >> Henry >> >> >> On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. >> I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 >> This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. >> I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf >> but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. >> So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! >> Andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >> Andy, >> >> I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, >> and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to >> be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was >> particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric >> dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions >> that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. >> >> So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural >> foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good >> and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge >> of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. >> >> In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. >> >> May I ask what prompted your question? >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden < andyb@marxists.org > wrote: >> Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? >> andy >> >> -- >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181028/e10996ce/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sun Oct 28 14:19:28 2018 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 21:19:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Henry and Andy. Yes, George Lakoff broke with Chomsky?s generative syntax in the 1960s to initiate generative semantics in part because of disagreement with the idea of autonomous grammar. But this response was independent of contemporary connectionist theory, so it could not directly counter Chomsky?s negative argument that some kind of grammatical capability must be hard wired because grammar is too complex to learn. I?m not trying to resurrect Chomsky. I?m asking if anyone knows how/if connectionist theory eventually came to play a decisive role in the language-origins debate as a counter to Chomsky?s innatist position. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:17 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis David, A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness? Andy, I think you are right that displacement should not be a dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary perspective. It?s just that without a language to talk to them about it we don?t know about what they are thinking about the past or the future, or their capacity for imagination. Henry On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Henry, various animals can refer to past and future events and can also deceive. One could say that for non-humans animals these capacities are only rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and future gestures. David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that language developed as tool use. That is certainly not my guess, just that tool-production and word-use co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of science, like Freud's psychology? Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: Andy and Henry, The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in time and space would seem to be dependent on neural capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive learning of such a complex linguistic program was infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant that learning the particular grammar of one?s native language just required setting some specialized switches in the pre-given grammar program. All of this was prior to the development of parallel distributed connectionist computer architectures that model learning as massive correlation of input and output elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has impacted the debate over origins of language. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis Andy, Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. Henry On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: Andy, I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. May I ask what prompted your question? Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? andy -- ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181028/05ec140b/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Sun Oct 28 14:32:27 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:32:27 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7A1AF6EC-07D4-4C3D-BD8F-D830361DF07B@cantab.net> Not connectionist, but an argument that compositionality ? combining small units -- can emerge rapidly? Martin Raviv, L., Meyer, A., & Lev-Ari, S. (2018). Compositional structure can emerge without generational transmission. Cognition, 182, 151-164. Experimental work in the field of language evolution has shown that novel signal systems become more structured over time. In a recent paper, Kirby, Tamariz, Cornish, and Smith (2015) argued that compositional languages can emerge only when languages are transmitted across multiple generations. In the current paper, we show that compositional languages can emerge in a closed community within a single generation. We conducted a communication experiment in which we tested the emergence of linguistic structure in different micro-societies of four participants, who interacted in alternating dyads using an artificial language to refer to novel meanings. Importantly, the communication included two real-world aspects of language acquisition and use, which introduce compressibility pressures: (a) multiple interaction partners and (b) an expanding meaning space. Our results show that languages become significantly more structured over time, with participants converging on shared, stable, and compositional lexicons. These findings indicate that new learners are not necessary for the formation of linguistic structure within a community, and have implications for related fields such as developing sign languages and creoles. > On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:19 PM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > Thanks, Henry and Andy. > > Yes, George Lakoff broke with Chomsky?s generative syntax in the 1960s to initiate generative semantics in part because of disagreement with the idea of autonomous grammar. > > But this response was independent of contemporary connectionist theory, so it could not directly counter Chomsky?s negative argument that some kind of grammatical capability must be hard wired because grammar is too complex to learn. > > I?m not trying to resurrect Chomsky. I?m asking if anyone knows how/if connectionist theory eventually came to play a decisive role in the language-origins debate as a counter to Chomsky?s innatist position. > > David > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:17 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis > > David, > A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness? > Andy, > I think you are right that displacement should not be a dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary perspective. It?s just that without a language to talk to them about it we don?t know about what they are thinking about the past or the future, or their capacity for imagination. > Henry > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > Henry, various animals can refer to past and future events and can also deceive. One could say that for non-humans animals these capacities are only rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and future gestures. > David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that language developed as tool use. That is certainly not my guess, just that tool-production and word-use co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of science, like Freud's psychology? > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > Andy and Henry, > > The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in time and space would seem to be dependent on neural capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. > > Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive learning of such a complex linguistic program was infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant that learning the particular grammar of one?s native language just required setting some specialized switches in the pre-given grammar program. > > All of this was prior to the development of parallel distributed connectionist computer architectures that model learning as massive correlation of input and output elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has impacted the debate over origins of language. > > David > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis > > Andy, > Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. > > It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. > > Henry > > > On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. > I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 > This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. > I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. > So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: > Andy, > > I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, > and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to > be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was > particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric > dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions > that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. > > So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural > foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good > and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge > of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. > > In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. > > May I ask what prompted your question? > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? > andy > > -- > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181028/6d0bf650/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Oct 28 16:23:13 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:23:13 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: According to Corballis (from memory) Chomsky's idea is totally at odds with the archaeological evidence available today and actually in contradiction to Darwin's thesis of incremental evolution. I don't know if the audio in that link I sent works outside of OZ. The text on the page is misleading. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/10/2018 8:19 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > Thanks, Henry and Andy. > > > > Yes, George Lakoff broke with Chomsky?s generative syntax > in the 1960s to initiate generative semantics in part > because of disagreement with the idea of autonomous grammar. > > > > But this response was independent of contemporary > connectionist theory, so it could not directly counter > Chomsky?s negative argument that some kind of grammatical > capability must be hard wired because grammar is too > complex to learn. > > > > I?m not trying to resurrect Chomsky. I?m asking if anyone > knows how/if connectionist theory eventually came to play > a decisive role in the language-origins debate as a > counter to Chomsky?s innatist position. > > > > David > > > > > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > *On Behalf Of *HENRY SHONERD > *Sent:* Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:17 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis > > > > David, > > A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some > abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to > semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness? > > Andy, > > I think you are right that displacement should not be a > dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some > rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary > perspective. It?s just that without a language to talk to > them about it we don?t know about what they are thinking > about the past or the future, or their capacity for > imagination. > > Henry > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > Henry, various animals can refer to past and future > events and can also deceive. One could say that for > non-humans animals these capacities are only > rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot > be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? > When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came > and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and > future gestures. > > David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that > language developed as tool use. That is certainly not > my guess, just that tool-production and word-use > co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let > Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of > science, like Freud's psychology? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > Andy and Henry, > > > > The capacity for displacement of our immediate > reality in time and space would seem to be > dependent on neural capacity, the size and > organization of our brains. But the Andy and > Corballis? position that language evolved > culturally as tool use, contradicts a more > strongly innatist position that grammatical > competence is hard-wired. > > > > Chomsky posited the innatist position in the > mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based > on the model of the serial digital computer. > Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, > Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive > learning of such a complex linguistic program was > infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar > was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG > hypothesis meant that learning the particular > grammar of one?s native language just required > setting some specialized switches in the pre-given > grammar program. > > > > All of this was prior to the development of > parallel distributed connectionist computer > architectures that model learning as massive > correlation of input and output elements rather > than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m > wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has > impacted the debate over origins of language. > > > > David > > > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *On > Behalf Of *HENRY SHONERD > *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis > > > > Andy, > > Thanks for your interest in language, if not in > linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, > with you about the origin of language in terms of > moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend > whose research focus has been in signed language. > It is his sense that language probably developed > through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? > conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral > language displaced gesture as the human form of > communication and 2) that language allows us to > ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. > (It also allows displacement in space, and to > reference imaginary worlds, another form of > displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can > communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot > displace in their communication. But why did > gesture not become the dominant form of human > communication? All signed languages displace. It?s > probably fruitless to argue about which modality > came first in human language. Maybe more > interesting and important to me is the extent to > which gesture is important in human communication > today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects > of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken > and written language we so often fail to > communicate adequately, with one another and even > with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the > immediacy in time and space of gesture is > short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up > in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space > from the here and now. I have a Vipassana > meditation practice: I sit and focus on the > breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to > be present in the here and now, to not displace. > This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. > But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to > me: being present: Not pushing away that which is > unpleasant, not grasping for that which is > pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a > fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to > live ethically in the world. > > > > It is the curse of humans that we can displace, > but also a (the?) key to our domination of the > planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but > alienated as hell. > > > > Henry > > > > > > On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should > have omitted mention of "linguistics" because > it was not actually that linguistics I was > interested in. > > I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio > talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 > > This is a topic which has long interested me. > The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) > did a great job on Chomsky and several other > theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get > to hear his punch line, but he seemed really > sound. So when I got home I did some internet > searches and found that he did support my > prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech > co-evolved in the origins of our species. > > I had made this claim in my article "Tool and > Sign in Vygotsky's Development" > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > but never had any basis for making the claim > and this was always preying on my conscience, > so I was interested to know if Corballis was > some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, > or he was the real goods. I read stuff about > his neuroscience research showing the > interconnection between handling ancient tools > and handling words, but this is so far out of > my field (insofar as I have one at all), I > couldn't rationally assess the idea. > > So! I am very pleased with the report you have > given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand > to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look > forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully > before Christmas! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum > [Staff] wrote: > > Andy, > > > > I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled > *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the > Generative Mind*, > > and I found his perspective on the > evolutionary developments of brain, mind, > and language to > > be reasonable, coherent, and very > compelling. When I read it (about 25 years > ago), I was > > particularly focused on the evolutionary > connections between handedness, left > hemispheric > > dominance for language, and the evolution > of the anatomical relations between the > brain regions > > that control the fine motor movements of > the thumb and those of the tongue. > > > > So when I saw your question, I pulled the > book off the shelf and re-read the parts > on the neural > > foundations of language and mental > representation - and found them to be > chock full of good > > and useful ideas! Alas, while I can > attest that Corballis certainly has a > sound working knowledge > > of the biological and neural structures of > language, as well as the basic > psychological functions that are > sub-served by these structures, this > seminal book doesn't really speak to his > work as a linguist. > > > > In fact, the book lists him as affiliated > with the Department of Psychology at the > University of Aukland, and so I always > assumed he was a psychologist. But if he > is indeed a linguist, and if he has > carried the quality and clarity of thought > and understanding expressed in his older > work on evolution of the human brain into > his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty > good linguist. > > > > May I ask what prompted your question? > > > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy > Blunden > wrote: > > Is anyone familiar with the work of > Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is > he any good? > > andy > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > > -- > > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > > Director, > > Office of Institutional Research > > > Fordham University > > Thebaud Hall-202 > > Bronx, NY 10458 > > > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181029/d44ba51f/attachment-0001.html From arazfar@uic.edu Sun Oct 28 16:52:24 2018 From: arazfar@uic.edu (Aria Razfar) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 18:52:24 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004d01d46f19$46d75650$d48602f0$@uic.edu> David, Chomsky?s ideas are not really at odds with the archaeological evidence since ?anatomical evidence from skeletal remains contributes little to our understanding of the evolution of language because of the difficulty of determining possible linguistic behaviors from fossilized bones.? Given the oldest archaeological evidence for symbolic use dates back 70,000 years it is difficult to determine or explain, in incremental terms at least, the appearance of complex linguistic functions about 70,000 years ago and the archaeological evidence for the origin of writing which is less than 10,000 years. Darwin?s theory of incremental evolution is not adequate for explaining the origin of language. In fact, Darwin himself recorded in his private notebooks his struggles with explaining language both in humans and to some degree animals. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.001.0001/acprof-9780199244843-chapter-8 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/human-nature/origin-language Aria Razfar Professor of Education and Linguistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147 Chicago, IL, 60607 312-413-8373 arazfar@uic.edu From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:23 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis According to Corballis (from memory) Chomsky's idea is totally at odds with the archaeological evidence available today and actually in contradiction to Darwin's thesis of incremental evolution. I don't know if the audio in that link I sent works outside of OZ. The text on the page is misleading. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/10/2018 8:19 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: Thanks, Henry and Andy. Yes, George Lakoff broke with Chomsky?s generative syntax in the 1960s to initiate generative semantics in part because of disagreement with the idea of autonomous grammar. But this response was independent of contemporary connectionist theory, so it could not directly counter Chomsky?s negative argument that some kind of grammatical capability must be hard wired because grammar is too complex to learn. I?m not trying to resurrect Chomsky. I?m asking if anyone knows how/if connectionist theory eventually came to play a decisive role in the language-origins debate as a counter to Chomsky?s innatist position. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:17 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis David, A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness? Andy, I think you are right that displacement should not be a dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary perspective. It?s just that without a language to talk to them about it we don?t know about what they are thinking about the past or the future, or their capacity for imagination. Henry On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Henry, various animals can refer to past and future events and can also deceive. One could say that for non-humans animals these capacities are only rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and future gestures. David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that language developed as tool use. That is certainly not my guess, just that tool-production and word-use co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of science, like Freud's psychology? Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: Andy and Henry, The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in time and space would seem to be dependent on neural capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive learning of such a complex linguistic program was infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant that learning the particular grammar of one?s native language just required setting some specialized switches in the pre-given grammar program. All of this was prior to the development of parallel distributed connectionist computer architectures that model learning as massive correlation of input and output elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has impacted the debate over origins of language. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis Andy, Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. Henry On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: Andy, I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. May I ask what prompted your question? Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? andy -- _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181028/f7c8a633/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 2163 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181028/f7c8a633/attachment.png From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sun Oct 28 22:07:23 2018 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 05:07:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis In-Reply-To: <004d01d46f19$46d75650$d48602f0$@uic.edu> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <5D12F082-5DFC-4375-96CC-418BE2EDE80D@gmail.com> <004d01d46f19$46d75650$d48602f0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Martin, Andy, and Aria. I wouldn?t expect that archeology would have definitively settled origins of language issues?that would be headlines. Martin, the compositionality argument is very helpful for my purposes. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Aria Razfar Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:52 PM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis David, Chomsky?s ideas are not really at odds with the archaeological evidence since ?anatomical evidence from skeletal remains contributes little to our understanding of the evolution of language because of the difficulty of determining possible linguistic behaviors from fossilized bones.? Given the oldest archaeological evidence for symbolic use dates back 70,000 years it is difficult to determine or explain, in incremental terms at least, the appearance of complex linguistic functions about 70,000 years ago and the archaeological evidence for the origin of writing which is less than 10,000 years. Darwin?s theory of incremental evolution is not adequate for explaining the origin of language. In fact, Darwin himself recorded in his private notebooks his struggles with explaining language both in humans and to some degree animals. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.001.0001/acprof-9780199244843-chapter-8 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/human-nature/origin-language Aria Razfar Professor of Education and Linguistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147 Chicago, IL, 60607 312-413-8373 arazfar@uic.edu [uic logo] From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 6:23 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis According to Corballis (from memory) Chomsky's idea is totally at odds with the archaeological evidence available today and actually in contradiction to Darwin's thesis of incremental evolution. I don't know if the audio in that link I sent works outside of OZ. The text on the page is misleading. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/10/2018 8:19 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: Thanks, Henry and Andy. Yes, George Lakoff broke with Chomsky?s generative syntax in the 1960s to initiate generative semantics in part because of disagreement with the idea of autonomous grammar. But this response was independent of contemporary connectionist theory, so it could not directly counter Chomsky?s negative argument that some kind of grammatical capability must be hard wired because grammar is too complex to learn. I?m not trying to resurrect Chomsky. I?m asking if anyone knows how/if connectionist theory eventually came to play a decisive role in the language-origins debate as a counter to Chomsky?s innatist position. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:17 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis David, A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness? Andy, I think you are right that displacement should not be a dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary perspective. It?s just that without a language to talk to them about it we don?t know about what they are thinking about the past or the future, or their capacity for imagination. Henry On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Henry, various animals can refer to past and future events and can also deceive. One could say that for non-humans animals these capacities are only rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube? When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and future gestures. David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that language developed as tool use. That is certainly not my guess, just that tool-production and word-use co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of science, like Freud's psychology? Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: Andy and Henry, The capacity for displacement of our immediate reality in time and space would seem to be dependent on neural capacity, the size and organization of our brains. But the Andy and Corballis? position that language evolved culturally as tool use, contradicts a more strongly innatist position that grammatical competence is hard-wired. Chomsky posited the innatist position in the mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based on the model of the serial digital computer. Noting the enormous complexity of grammar, Chomsky?s basic argument was that inductive learning of such a complex linguistic program was infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG hypothesis meant that learning the particular grammar of one?s native language just required setting some specialized switches in the pre-given grammar program. All of this was prior to the development of parallel distributed connectionist computer architectures that model learning as massive correlation of input and output elements rather than as induction of a rule-based program. I?m wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has impacted the debate over origins of language. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis Andy, Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. Henry On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: Andy, I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. May I ask what prompted your question? Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? andy -- ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181029/c2760a5a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 2163 bytes Desc: image001.png Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181029/c2760a5a/attachment.png From arazfar@uic.edu Mon Oct 29 08:13:18 2018 From: arazfar@uic.edu (Aria Razfar) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:13:18 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis and Displacement Message-ID: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Henry, Thanks for the reminder concerning displacement. Displacement is one of the great mysteries of language and linguistics. In the linguistic studies of animal communication and displacement, the language of bees performing the bee dance remains perplexing and one compelling exception to the comparison of animal and human communication. It is a point that has perplexed linguists since the 1950s, including Chomsky. Here?s an excerpt from Lawrence and Stockwell (2007) that captures the issue: "There is just one striking exception. A honeybee scout which has discovered a source of nectar returns to its hive and performs a dance, watched by other bees. This bee dance tells the watching bees what direction the nectar lies in, how far away it is, and how much nectar there is. And this is displacement: the dancing bee is passing on information about a site which it visited some time ago and which it now cannot see, and the watching bees respond by flying off to locate the nectar. Startling though it is, the bee dance is, so far at least, absolutely unique in the non-human world: no other creatures, not even apes, can communicate anything of the sort." Aria From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis Andy, Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. Henry On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: Andy, I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. May I ask what prompted your question? Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? andy -- _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181029/a98bb470/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Oct 29 14:29:03 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:29:03 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis and Displacement/Schouwstra and displaced reference In-Reply-To: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: Aria, Thank you for emphasizing the issue of displacement in the discussion of the evolution of language, which was, a main point of the little bit I found about Corballis. You might look at the artlce I link below, ?Displaced reference in the evolution of language and cognition? by Marieke Schouwstra. I did not find a date, but it had to be 2007 or later, based on the bibliography. I like the term ?displaced reference? better than ?displacement", since it captures better that the displacement in time and space is being communicated, not done for real. In the artlcle, Schouwstra finds that neither bees nor any other species has be shown to be, in fact, capable of displaced reference. The article is short. If you or anyone has the time, I would be interested in comments about the content of the article. Schouwstra, in the final paragraph, says: "A remaining issue is, for example, the question of what conditions should be fulfilled for an animal to start using displaced reference in communication.? In other words, the suggestion of actual research. I wonder if it has been done. Apparently, Schouwstra does not count the the work with primates done up to 2007 as settling the issue: Washoe, Nim Chimsky, etc. Primates. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28975298.pdf Henry > On Oct 29, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Aria Razfar wrote: > > Henry, > > Thanks for the reminder concerning displacement. Displacement is one of the great mysteries of language and linguistics. In the linguistic studies of animal communication and displacement, the language of bees performing the bee dance remains perplexing and one compelling exception to the comparison of animal and human communication. It is a point that has perplexed linguists since the 1950s, including Chomsky. Here?s an excerpt from Lawrence and Stockwell (2007) that captures the issue: > > "There is just one striking exception. A honeybee scout which has discovered a source of nectar returns to its hive and performs a dance, watched by other bees. This bee dance tells the watching bees what direction the nectar lies in, how far away it is, and how much nectar there is. And this is displacement: the dancing bee is passing on information about a site which it visited some time ago and which it now cannot see, and the watching bees respond by flying off to locate the nectar. Startling though it is, the bee dance is, so far at least, absolutely unique in the non-human world: no other creatures, not even apes, can communicate anything of the sort." > > Aria > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis > > Andy, > Thanks for your interest in language, if not in linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact, with you about the origin of language in terms of moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend whose research focus has been in signed language. It is his sense that language probably developed through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis? conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral language displaced gesture as the human form of communication and 2) that language allows us to ?displace" in our communication, travel in time. (It also allows displacement in space, and to reference imaginary worlds, another form of displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot displace in their communication. But why did gesture not become the dominant form of human communication? All signed languages displace. It?s probably fruitless to argue about which modality came first in human language. Maybe more interesting and important to me is the extent to which gesture is important in human communication today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken and written language we so often fail to communicate adequately, with one another and even with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the immediacy in time and space of gesture is short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space from the here and now. I have a Vipassana meditation practice: I sit and focus on the breath. It?s that simple. I thereby do my best to be present in the here and now, to not displace. This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows. But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to me: being present: Not pushing away that which is unpleasant, not grasping for that which is pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to live ethically in the world. > > It is the curse of humans that we can displace, but also a (the?) key to our domination of the planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but alienated as hell. > > Henry > > >> On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should have omitted mention of "linguistics" because it was not actually that linguistics I was interested in. >> I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342 >> This is a topic which has long interested me. The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis) did a great job on Chomsky and several other theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get to hear his punch line, but he seemed really sound. So when I got home I did some internet searches and found that he did support my prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech co-evolved in the origins of our species. >> I had made this claim in my article "Tool and Sign in Vygotsky's Development" >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf >> but never had any basis for making the claim and this was always preying on my conscience, so I was interested to know if Corballis was some crank making unfounded guesses, like me, or he was the real goods. I read stuff about his neuroscience research showing the interconnection between handling ancient tools and handling words, but this is so far out of my field (insofar as I have one at all), I couldn't rationally assess the idea. >> So! I am very pleased with the report you have given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand to Mouth ? The Origins of Language" and look forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully before Christmas! >> Andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>> Andy, >>> >>> I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind*, >>> and I found his perspective on the evolutionary developments of brain, mind, and language to >>> be reasonable, coherent, and very compelling. When I read it (about 25 years ago), I was >>> particularly focused on the evolutionary connections between handedness, left hemispheric >>> dominance for language, and the evolution of the anatomical relations between the brain regions >>> that control the fine motor movements of the thumb and those of the tongue. >>> >>> So when I saw your question, I pulled the book off the shelf and re-read the parts on the neural >>> foundations of language and mental representation - and found them to be chock full of good >>> and useful ideas! Alas, while I can attest that Corballis certainly has a sound working knowledge >>> of the biological and neural structures of language, as well as the basic psychological functions that are sub-served by these structures, this seminal book doesn't really speak to his work as a linguist. >>> >>> In fact, the book lists him as affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Aukland, and so I always assumed he was a psychologist. But if he is indeed a linguist, and if he has carried the quality and clarity of thought and understanding expressed in his older work on evolution of the human brain into his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty good linguist. >>> >>> May I ask what prompted your question? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> Is anyone familiar with the work of Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is he any good? >>>> andy >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> Director, >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> Fordham University >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181029/628788a0/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Oct 30 12:56:36 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:56:36 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: A question: the Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to list the contents of only the current issue: > Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/dd521a7c/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Oct 30 13:33:24 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:33:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajournals.equinoxpub.com+%22table+of+contents%22 On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 19:58, Martin Packer wrote: > A question: the Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to list > the contents of only the current issue: > > > > Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? > > Martin > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/9a5d5c46/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Oct 30 13:39:39 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:39:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: Or for the LST journal only, add "LHS/issue" to the search. Best, Huw On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 20:33, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajournals.equinoxpub.com+%22table+of+contents%22 > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 19:58, Martin Packer wrote: > >> A question: the Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to list >> the contents of only the current issue: >> >> >> >> Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/080d668a/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Oct 30 14:15:41 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:15:41 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: Aha! There is an Archive link tucked away at the bottom right hand corner. Thanks, Huw. Martin > On Oct 30, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > Or for the LST journal only, add "LHS/issue" to the search. > > Best, > Huw > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 20:33, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajournals.equinoxpub.com+%22table+of+contents%22 > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 19:58, Martin Packer > wrote: > A question: the Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to list the contents of only the current issue: > > > > > Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? > > Martin > > > > Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/d66eae45/attachment.html From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Tue Oct 30 14:16:18 2018 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:16:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: It's not intuitive, but on the right hand side, there is a "Browse" link with "Archives" just underneath it. Rob P On 30/10/2018 19:56, Martin Packer wrote: > A question: the?Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to > list the contents of only the current issue: > > > > Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? > > Martin > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/21db2e05/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Oct 30 14:24:32 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:24:32 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> Message-ID: <4E101725-B71D-4BFB-87B2-EEF7D96EBA37@cantab.net> Thanks for the tip. On my laptop screen those links are not visible unless I scroll down. I?m not an expert in webpage design, but? :) Martin > On Oct 30, 2018, at 4:16 PM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk wrote: > > It's not intuitive, but on the right hand side, there is a "Browse" link with "Archives" just underneath it. > > Rob P > > On 30/10/2018 19:56, Martin Packer wrote: >> A question: the Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to list the contents of only the current issue: >> >> > >> >> Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/97d08701/attachment.html From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Tue Oct 30 15:34:29 2018 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:34:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: <4E101725-B71D-4BFB-87B2-EEF7D96EBA37@cantab.net> References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> <4E101725-B71D-4BFB-87B2-EEF7D96EBA37@cantab.net> Message-ID: Neither was the person who designed that page.... Rob P On 30/10/2018 21:24, Martin Packer wrote: > Thanks for the tip. On my laptop screen those links are not visible > unless I scroll down.?I?m not an expert in webpage design, but? ?:) > > Martin > > > > >> On Oct 30, 2018, at 4:16 PM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> wrote: >> >> It's not intuitive, but on the right hand side, there is a "Browse" >> link with "Archives" just underneath it. >> >> Rob P >> >> On 30/10/2018 19:56, Martin Packer wrote: >>> A question: the?Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to >>> list the contents of only the current issue: >>> >>> >>> >>> Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/7a2d6fc2/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Oct 30 15:57:58 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:57:58 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language and Sociocultural Theory In-Reply-To: References: <019801d46f99$ed13bc40$c73b34c0$@uic.edu> <4E101725-B71D-4BFB-87B2-EEF7D96EBA37@cantab.net> Message-ID: <192D967D-6053-41C9-92BF-97D00548A94B@cantab.net> Exactly! :) Martin > On Oct 30, 2018, at 5:34 PM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk wrote: > > Neither was the person who designed that page.... > > Rob P > > On 30/10/2018 21:24, Martin Packer wrote: >> Thanks for the tip. On my laptop screen those links are not visible unless I scroll down. I?m not an expert in webpage design, but? :) >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 30, 2018, at 4:16 PM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk wrote: >>> >>> It's not intuitive, but on the right hand side, there is a "Browse" link with "Archives" just underneath it. >>> >>> Rob P >>> >>> On 30/10/2018 19:56, Martin Packer wrote: >>>> A question: the Language and Sociocultural Theory webpage seems to list the contents of only the current issue: >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Does anyone know where the contents of previous issues are hidden?? >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181030/d875c65c/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Oct 30 21:56:13 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:56:13 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Why Voicemail Intonation Sounds Weird Message-ID: Andy: Corballis isn't a linguist, but David McNeill, who taught psycholinguistics when I was at University of Chicago, is. He has a rather idiosyncratic reading of Vygotsky: instead of a ZPD, he argues for a "Growth Point" ("growth" rather than development) which includes both word and gesture, which then co-evolve. He uses this to make the argument you want to make: that tool and sign use co-evolve, and there is no genetic sequence of tool--sign or sign--tool, and he also argues that Vygotsky is wrong to imply that thinking is prior to speech in any way: they must co-evolve microgenetically just as they did sociogenetically. McNeill says that Thinking and Speech is wrong on two counts. First of all, it predicts that gesture will die away because speech can do everything gesture can and more; it doesn't. Secondly, it fails to predict the persistence of gesture in telephone communication, where it seems to have no function; nevertheless, it persists. About four years ago, I supervised an MA in which we compared how children talk in Australia and in Korea with their hands free and with their hands clasped behind their back. It made a very big difference: hands free resulted in much more prosodic variation (at word level and at phrase level), hands clasped intonation was flatter. While we were analyzing the data, I noticed that there it also made a big difference in eye contact, and I remembered that Professor McNeill pointed out that people use hands to beat stresses when they talk on the phone, but not when they talk to a tape recorder. Maybe that's why voicemail intonation not only sounds weird, it feels weird. Halliday says that interpersonal meaning is largely prosodic--that is, it's spread out over a whole sentence (unlike ideational meaning, which is nouns and verbs and adjectives), it is linearized through meter and through stress and not through componentiality (as ideational meaning is), and it realizes power differentials, like giving and getting information (you can say pretty much anything you like in English and still be polite if you have the right tone of voice, something that we linguists are always exploiting when we want to study taboo language, e.g. what you non-linguists have to refer to as the "N-word"). To me, all this hints at a real way of solving the coevolution problem, which as the other David K pointed out will never be solved through archaeological evidence: the study of child language. Children do seem to develop interpersonal meaning before they develop ideational meaning (Halliday called interpersonal meaning the "magic gateway" to ideational meaning).This to me points up the essential difference between tools and signs that McNeill's theory cannot explain: in tools, use value is primary and exchange value is derived from it, but in signs things are very much the other way around. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/ac600796/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Oct 30 22:22:40 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 16:22:40 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why Voicemail Intonation Sounds Weird In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks David. Your second paragraph gives the answer to your first paragraph (re gesturing on the phone). While palaeontology is largely a kind of secular theology, nevertheless, I do look forward to palaeonology finding an answer to when speech arose (just as we now know what the Sun is made of, not just what it looks like). And surely you are not claiming that ontology repeats phylogeny, are you David? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 31/10/2018 3:56 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > Corballis isn't a linguist, but David McNeill, who taught > psycholinguistics when I was at University of Chicago, > is. He has a rather idiosyncratic reading of Vygotsky: > instead of a ZPD, he argues for a "Growth Point" > ("growth" rather than development) which includes both > word and gesture, which then co-evolve. He uses this to > make the argument you want to make: that tool and sign use > co-evolve, and there is no genetic sequence of tool--sign > or sign--tool, and he also argues that Vygotsky is wrong > to imply that thinking is prior to speech in any way: they > must co-evolve microgenetically just as they > did sociogenetically. McNeill says that Thinking and > Speech is wrong on two counts. First of all, it predicts > that gesture will die away because speech can do > everything gesture can and more; it doesn't. Secondly, it > fails to predict the persistence of gesture in telephone > communication, where it seems to have no function; > nevertheless, it persists. > > About four years ago, I supervised an MA in which we > compared how children talk in Australia and in Korea with > their hands free and with their hands clasped behind their > back. It made a very big difference: hands free resulted > in much more prosodic variation (at word level and at > phrase level), hands clasped intonation was flatter. While > we were analyzing the data, I noticed that there it also > made a big difference in eye contact, and I remembered > that Professor McNeill pointed out that people use > hands to beat stresses when they talk on the phone, but > not when they talk to a tape recorder. Maybe that's why > voicemail intonation not only sounds weird, it feels weird. > > Halliday says that interpersonal meaning is largely > prosodic--that is, it's spread out over a whole sentence > (unlike ideational meaning, which is nouns and verbs and > adjectives), it is linearized through meter and through > stress and not through componentiality (as ideational > meaning is), and it realizes power differentials, like > giving and getting information (you can say pretty much > anything you like in English and still be polite if you > have the right tone of voice, something that we linguists > are always exploiting when we want to study taboo > language, e.g. what you non-linguists have to refer to as > the "N-word"). > > To me, all this hints at a real way of solving the > coevolution problem, which as the other David K pointed > out will never be solved through archaeological evidence: > the study of child language. Children do seem to develop > interpersonal meaning before they develop ideational > meaning (Halliday called interpersonal meaning the "magic > gateway" to ideational meaning).This to me points up the > essential difference between tools and signs that > McNeill's theory cannot explain: in tools, use value is > primary and exchange value is derived from it, but in > signs things are very much the other way around. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan > idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/53890c28/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 10:05:27 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:05:27 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? Message-ID: I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and "reliability". Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they teach a methods class? Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/dfb2f861/attachment.html From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 10:18:59 2018 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:18:59 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Beth, not too long ago I wrote Roth, W.-M. (2015). Rigorous data analysis: Beyond anything goes. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. A preview (preface, intro chapter) is here: https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2256-rigorous-data-analysis.pdf Michael On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and > wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who > will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability > of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. > > I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value > of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, > not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. > > If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and > "reliability". > > Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have > some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they > teach a methods class? > > Thanks! > Beth > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/49fff390/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 10:26:13 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:26:13 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent! Thanks, Beth On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:22 PM Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Beth, not too long ago I wrote > Roth, W.-M. (2015). Rigorous data analysis: Beyond anything goes. > Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. > > A preview (preface, intro chapter) is here: > https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2256-rigorous-data-analysis.pdf > > Michael > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > >> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >> >> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value >> of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, >> not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >> >> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >> "reliability". >> >> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have >> some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >> teach a methods class? >> >> Thanks! >> Beth >> -- >> Beth Ferholt >> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >> 2900 Bedford Avenue >> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >> >> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >> > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/e19a770e/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 10:29:35 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:29:35 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Books to Review in MCA? Send me titles -- please. Message-ID: Just a reminder that I am the book review editor for MCA. Please keep sending me the titles of any books that you would like to see reviewed in the journal. Please use this bferholt@gmail.com address. Thanks! Beth -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/7841ea20/attachment.html From shirinvossoughi@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 11:17:01 2018 From: shirinvossoughi@gmail.com (Shirin Vossoughi) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:17:01 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: What is science?: Where to start doctoral students? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I find these two pieces very helpful as well Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Comment: Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. *Educational Researcher*, *31*(8), 21-24. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X031008021 Guti?rrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. *Educational Researcher*, *43*(1), 19-23. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X13520289 On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:29 PM Beth Ferholt wrote: > Excellent! Thanks, Beth > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:22 PM Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Beth, not too long ago I wrote >> Roth, W.-M. (2015). Rigorous data analysis: Beyond anything goes. >> Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. >> >> A preview (preface, intro chapter) is here: >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2256-rigorous-data-analysis.pdf >> >> Michael >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:09 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: >> >>> I'm starting to take the role of advisor on doctoral dissertations and >>> wonder how best to begin to discuss "what is science?" with students who >>> will need to respond concisely when asked about the rigor and reliability >>> of their formative intervention, narrative and/or autobiographical studies. >>> >>> I'm looking for an overview or paper that does more than argue the value >>> of one approach -- something to start them off thinking about the issues, >>> not immerse them in one perspective quite yet. >>> >>> If not an overview then maybe a paper that contextualizes "rigor" and >>> "reliability". >>> >>> Obviously this is an endless topic but do some people reading XMCA have >>> some favorite papers that they give to their advisees or use when they >>> teach a methods class? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Beth >>> -- >>> Beth Ferholt >>> Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; >>> Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 >>> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205 >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816 >>> >> > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood and Art Education; > Affiliated Faculty, CUNY Graduate Center > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/5516c8f8/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 14:15:52 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:15:52 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why Voicemail Intonation Sounds Weird In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54807A24-1962-4EAC-AB94-69E21C3F6BDA@gmail.com> David, Relevant to the discussion of gesture and displaced reference is joint shared reference (of an object that can be seen by both) in interactions between caregivers and children in the early development of language. The interaction appears to prefigure full-fledged displaced reference termporally and spatially. Interesting also is that the interaction is rhythmically entrained turn-taking. I don?t know if David McNeil discusses this interaction in his research. Henry > On Oct 30, 2018, at 10:56 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy: > > Corballis isn't a linguist, but David McNeill, who taught psycholinguistics when I was at University of Chicago, is. He has a rather idiosyncratic reading of Vygotsky: instead of a ZPD, he argues for a "Growth Point" ("growth" rather than development) which includes both word and gesture, which then co-evolve. He uses this to make the argument you want to make: that tool and sign use co-evolve, and there is no genetic sequence of tool--sign or sign--tool, and he also argues that Vygotsky is wrong to imply that thinking is prior to speech in any way: they must co-evolve microgenetically just as they did sociogenetically. McNeill says that Thinking and Speech is wrong on two counts. First of all, it predicts that gesture will die away because speech can do everything gesture can and more; it doesn't. Secondly, it fails to predict the persistence of gesture in telephone communication, where it seems to have no function; nevertheless, it persists. > > About four years ago, I supervised an MA in which we compared how children talk in Australia and in Korea with their hands free and with their hands clasped behind their back. It made a very big difference: hands free resulted in much more prosodic variation (at word level and at phrase level), hands clasped intonation was flatter. While we were analyzing the data, I noticed that there it also made a big difference in eye contact, and I remembered that Professor McNeill pointed out that people use hands to beat stresses when they talk on the phone, but not when they talk to a tape recorder. Maybe that's why voicemail intonation not only sounds weird, it feels weird. > > Halliday says that interpersonal meaning is largely prosodic--that is, it's spread out over a whole sentence (unlike ideational meaning, which is nouns and verbs and adjectives), it is linearized through meter and through stress and not through componentiality (as ideational meaning is), and it realizes power differentials, like giving and getting information (you can say pretty much anything you like in English and still be polite if you have the right tone of voice, something that we linguists are always exploiting when we want to study taboo language, e.g. what you non-linguists have to refer to as the "N-word"). > > To me, all this hints at a real way of solving the coevolution problem, which as the other David K pointed out will never be solved through archaeological evidence: the study of child language. Children do seem to develop interpersonal meaning before they develop ideational meaning (Halliday called interpersonal meaning the "magic gateway" to ideational meaning).This to me points up the essential difference between tools and signs that McNeill's theory cannot explain: in tools, use value is primary and exchange value is derived from it, but in signs things are very much the other way around. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in Early Years, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181031/c5161222/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Oct 31 15:11:19 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:11:19 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why Voicemail Intonation Sounds Weird In-Reply-To: <54807A24-1962-4EAC-AB94-69E21C3F6BDA@gmail.com> References: <54807A24-1962-4EAC-AB94-69E21C3F6BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Andy, Henry: I think the only paleoarchaeological work I would trust whole-heartedly is Andy's own excavation of Vygotsky. With respect to Vygotsky's most instrumentalist (and in my view weakest) work, Andy remarks that even here we can find a key insight--that no matter what single aspect of anthropogenesis we choose, we are always going to find fore-runners in lower animals. Development is never a bolt from the blue: it may come as a thunderclap, but even a thunderclap requires a gathering of clouds. So if we are looking for a litmus test, we need to look on the human side, not the animal side. As a systemicist, I don't see intension, or the distal use of language or even the symbolic function as a whole as in any way criterial (every conditional response is symbolic at least for the experimenter). Instead, I see double articulation--the insertion of a layer of wording between meaning and sounding--the combination of the interpersonal and the ideational metafunctions into a single lexicogrammar--as the unique trait of human language. This doesn't really happen until the child is somewhere between one and two. I don't think that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis (although I think this idea had an important heuristic function in Tibetan medicine and also in Vygotsky, who speaks of "analogues not parallels"). But there are obvious ways in which child devleopment can falsify hypotheses about anthropogenesis that cannot be falsified through archaeology. Andy himself draws attention to one, in his work on Nicaraguan sign language (developed by deaf children after the fall of Somoza). It is not true that the beginnings of language (the natural foundations of language) cannot be spontaneously developed by children, even under the most adverse social, interpersonal and biological circumstances. it is also not true that these rudiments of language will give way to a complete language without some kind of larger linguistic community. This, to me, demonstrates that language could not have had a single origin, but must be constantly created and recreated wherever a critical mass of children begins to interpersonally interact with adults. This falsification of two important hypotheses about logogenesis (the idea that it is entirely innate and the "Babel" idea that it it had a single origin and diffused fromk there) doesn't require any recapitulationism: it only requires us to look and see what children are always doing right under our noses. I think that Halliday's "magic gateway" principle--that the interpersonal function develops before the ideational one, and they are then merged--can be demonstrated in the same way, without invoking Haeckel, Hall, or recapitulationism in any form. Tok his credit, McNeill does this: he uses child development data to make negative arguments about anthropogenesis and does not assume any positive link. But I think the conclusion he draws, which is that thinking and speech can NEVER be fully differentiated, is ultimately ahistorical even at the level of ontogenesis. Actually, people DO stop gesturing, and intonation really IS replaced by punctuation. Even as I am writing to you now. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:19 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > Relevant to the discussion of gesture and displaced reference is joint > shared reference (of an object that can be seen by both) in interactions > between caregivers and children in the early development of language. The > interaction appears to prefigure full-fledged displaced reference > termporally and spatially. Interesting also is that the interaction is > rhythmically entrained turn-taking. I don?t know if David McNeil discusses > this interaction in his research. > Henry > > > On Oct 30, 2018, at 10:56 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy: > > Corballis isn't a linguist, but David McNeill, who taught > psycholinguistics when I was at University of Chicago, is. He has a rather > idiosyncratic reading of Vygotsky: instead of a ZPD, he argues for a > "Growth Point" ("growth" rather than development) which includes both word > and gesture, which then co-evolve. He uses this to make the argument you > want to make: that tool and sign use co-evolve, and there is no genetic > sequence of tool--sign or sign--tool, and he also argues that Vygotsky is > wrong to imply that thinking is prior to speech in any way: they must > co-evolve microgenetically just as they did sociogenetically. McNeill says > that Thinking and Speech is wrong on two counts. First of all, it predicts > that gesture will die away because speech can do everything gesture can and > more; it doesn't. Secondly, it fails to predict the persistence of gesture > in telephone communication, where it seems to have no function; > nevertheless, it persists. > > About four years ago, I supervised an MA in which we compared how children > talk in Australia and in Korea with their hands free and with their hands > clasped behind their back. It made a very big difference: hands free > resulted in much more prosodic variation (at word level and at phrase > level), hands clasped intonation was flatter. While we were analyzing the > data, I noticed that there it also made a big difference in eye contact, > and I remembered that Professor McNeill pointed out that people use > hands to beat stresses when they talk on the phone, but not when they talk > to a tape recorder. Maybe that's why voicemail intonation not only sounds > weird, it feels weird. > > Halliday says that interpersonal meaning is largely prosodic--that is, > it's spread out over a whole sentence (unlike ideational meaning, which is > nouns and verbs and adjectives), it is linearized through meter and through > stress and not through componentiality (as ideational meaning is), and > it realizes power differentials, like giving and getting information (you > can say pretty much anything you like in English and still be polite if you > have the right tone of voice, something that we linguists are always > exploiting when we want to study taboo language, e.g. what you > non-linguists have to refer to as the "N-word"). > > To me, all this hints at a real way of solving the coevolution problem, > which as the other David K pointed out will never be solved through > archaeological evidence: the study of child language. Children do seem to > develop interpersonal meaning before they develop ideational meaning > (Halliday called interpersonal meaning the "magic gateway" to ideational > meaning).This to me points up the essential difference between tools and > signs that McNeill's theory cannot explain: in tools, use value is primary > and exchange value is derived from it, but in signs things are very much > the other way around. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and > maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181101/d6f80d8b/attachment.html