One thought that rerererere-occurs in this ongoing conversation is how fragile
our understandings of each other are, how difficult to connect with, how difficult
to change or sustain.
In no particular order:
Eva-- For Skinner culture is nothing more than a pattern of contingencies, as far
as I can tell. He would not approve of my ideas, mentalism and all that. But
who knows, maybe he would have liked "my" view of the convergence of the material
and the ideal in artifacts. Maybe he would have said, "Mike, you dope, all you
are doing is repeating what Gibson said:
Culture evolved out of natural opportunities. The cultural environment, however,
is often divided into two parts, "material" culture and "non-material" culture.
This is a seriously misleading distinction, for it seems to imply that language,
tradition, art, music, law, and religion are immaterial, insubstantial, or
intangible, whereas tools, shelter, clothing, vehicles, and books are not.
Symbols are taken to be profoundly different from things. But let us be clear
about this. There have to be modes of stimuilation, or ways of conveying
information, for any individual to perceive anything, however abstract. He must
be sensitive to stimulino matter how universal or fine-spun the thing he apprehends.
No symbol exists except as it is realized in sound, projected in light, mechanical
contact, or the like. (*The senses considered as perceptual systems, p. 26).
So while Benjamin was quoting the Quechua, I was quoting Gibson-- without
attribution. Shame shame on us!
Bill-- While we stumble backward into the future talking to each other, we feel
there, for ourselves and for others, possibilities uncountable, wonder-full and
exciting. If we did not, all we could do would be to stop, huddle down, and wait
for IT, come what may.
There is no contradiction between prolepsis and the retrospective construction
of meaning. They entail each other. Neither is a closed system, however much
we struggle to close it.
Jay-- Different time scales. Y-E-S!! I have this intuition that it is the differences
in time scales and modes of transmission between phylogenetic, cultural-historical,
ontogenetic, and microgenetic time that make "the cultural mode of thinking" (Vygotsky,
1930, et al) possible. A la the critiques of Democritus-- if everything moved in the
same direction at the same speed there would be no perceivable movement. Viva la
difference! Or, perhaps, "in diversity there is hope".
Enough for now. It is already next year in Japan and soon will be in New York. I
sniff some diapers that need attention. After all, as my Russian colleagues like
to remind me, "Our children are our future." So it smells a little sour at times.
Happy New Year.
mike