Michael -- very interesting indeed.
while not co-equivalent, the I and Though excerpts help to flesh out,
and seem to align with, Rommetveit's psychology of the second person
(ref: MCA 10/3, 2003 and Mead's (1934) "I" and "me" distinctions,
that i've been thinking through for some time. i (and perhaps others
too) am interested in following up on Buber with primary texts.
also, the Dreyfus quote at the bottom is right on target. put another
way, relations (social and otherwise) through language are a
qualitatively different kind of mediated action than understanding
thanks for posting these --
>here a few quotes from pages 111-3 from I and Though.
>The I of the basic word I-You is different from that of the basic word I-It
>The I of the basic word I-It appears as an ego and becomes conscious
>of itself as a subject (of experience and use)
>The I of the basic word I-You appears as a person and becomes
>conscious of itself as subjectivity (without any dependent genetive).
>Egos appear by setting themselves apart from other egos
>Persons appear by entering into relation to other persons.
>. . .
>The person says, "I am"; the ego says, That is how I am."
>In relating as person to person, we use language in one way; by
>thinking of self apart from other selves (e.g., how to manipulate
>others), we use a different language. Or rather, we use language in
>a different way.
>Heidegger says, "Words accrue to significations. But word-things
>[signs] are not provided with significations" (p.162 )
>And Dreyfus (1991) comments on it, "as long as one dwells in those
>practices [of the community] rather than taking a detached point of
>view, words are simply heard and seen as meaningful" (p. 219),
>suggesting that they are not signs that refer to something else.
>All of this then tells us that language in situated relating to
>others and things is used differently and has different functions
>than using it in a detached attitude to articulate relations, that
>is, providing us with a mediated access to others, the world, and
>ourselves (we become egos).
>Heidegger further says about the sign, "signs are not things which
>stand in an indicating relationship of to another thing but are
>useful things which explicitly bring a totality of useful things to
>circumspection so that the worldly character of what is at hand
>makes itself known at the same time (74 )--he talks about the
>everyday use of language, the one that goes with Buber's I-You
>Dreyfus, commenting on the change-over from the I-You to the I-It
>(p. 230): "Dasein in making its activity intelligible to itself and
>others [using language WMR] must lose its immediate relation to the
>world and to itself" (my emphasis). That is, when we use language to
>make the world intelligible, no longer relating directly to it
>including other persons, we engage in a different kind of (mediated)
>relation, and here word has the function of the sign.
>Well, got to go catch some zzzs, still suffering from my quick trip to Taiwan,
>On 16-Jun-05, at 8:23 PM, Steven Thorne wrote:
>>you've misread me. for clarification, the point above had to do
>>with my (possible mis-) interpretation of your earlier (to me
>>unclear) statement about mediation.
>>BREAK: Ana's note just came in. Michael -- as you feel so strongly
>>about what i (and possibly others) have not taken account of/been
>>consistent with, why don't we move at least one strand of the
>>conversation in the direction Ana suggests -- that you illustrate
>>some concrete examples using Buber in particular. what do you think?
>>>Back to the above point, the mediating relationship in the
>>>activity system, or for action, cannot be the same as that in the
>>>operation case, and this is exactly the point Heidegger,
>>>Wittgenstein, Buber and others seem to make in my view.
>>Steven L. Thorne
>> Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics
>> Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
>> Communication Arts and Sciences
>> Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition
>> Associate Director, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency
>>Education and Research
>> The Pennsylvania State University
>>Interact > 814.863.7036 | email@example.com |
>>http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook
-- Steven L. Thorne Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Linguistics and Applied Language Studies and Communication Arts and Sciences Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition Associate Director, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research The Pennsylvania State University Interact > 814.863.7036 | firstname.lastname@example.org | http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:07 PDT