Re: [xmca] RE: meaning and sense and has anyone any opinion

From: Mike Cole (lchcmike@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 10:46:10 PDT


The Figure didn't transmit, Michael.

If you have not read it, you must read Kundera's *Book of Laughter and
Forgetting*--
I am not use to talking in terms of dialectics, often using the term,
"animonies." I
have a great quote from Marx on the subject. Thanks for helping me find a
comfortable bridge between animonies and dialectiecs. So interesting it took
so many years!
mike

On 7/22/05, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike and all,
> In a chapter for an encyclopedia on urban education, I write about
> identity, which similarly involves a triple dialectic: between same and
> other, material body and person, and between the two sets. I developed
> this from some ideas that i got from ONESELF AS ANOTHER (Ricœur, 1992),
> but which I now realize are already present in PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT
> (MIND) (Hegel, 1977)--e.g., "they (subjectivities) _recognize_
> themselves as _mutually recognizing_ one another" p.112).
>
> Meaning, too, is related to these dialectics (the same person -- other
> person dimension, for example, constituting the individual|collective
> dialectic). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity always arise together,
> are dialectically related, with social interaction occupying the
> middle, mediating ground.
>
> Meaning is
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Figure 1. Different dialectical relations emerge from the contrast of
> same and other, on the one hand, and material body and person, on the
> other, both in cultural (phylogenetic) and individual (ontogenetic)
> development.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> On 22-Jul-05, at 9:58 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> > Michael.
> >
> > You suggest:
> >
> > "personal" to situate "sense."
> >
> > Perhaps that gives us an entry point to understanding meaning, as a
> > generalized version of personal sense, that is, the possibilities of
> > sense available at the collective level.
> >
> > Personal sense certainly seems to be what is mean't. (Where personal
> > is a synthesis of self-other interactions/experiences). And meaning is
> > generalized, embodied in words and other semiotic means. Meaning
> > changes,
> > but at a cultural-historical, not an ontogenetic or microgenetic time
> > scale..
> >
> > We might be able to use this same example to illlustrate the way in
> > which
> > meaning, having become generalized (used to mediate activity in many
> > settings)
> > is "relatively" stable-- relative to the stabililty of the local
> > dynamics of life, at least.
> >
> > I hope this makes sense. I am somewhat unuzed tothinking in triple
> > dialectics, Michael,
> > but your summary is plausible to me.
> > mike
> >
> > On 7/22/05, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
> >> When I was reading Peg's lines, MY first question was not about
> >> linguistic issues but about what people are making in
> >> "meaning-making".
> >> Then after reading Mike's and Gordon's comments, I was further
> >> thinking
> >> about meaning and its relation to sense.
> >>
> >> If I understand right, sense is tied to the relation of activity
> >> (something collectively motivated) and action (something individually
> >> realized). So sense arises from the dialectic relation of self and
> >> other, individual and collective. Some writers use the qualifier
> >> "personal" to situate "sense."
> >>
> >> Perhaps that gives us an entry point to understanding meaning, as a
> >> generalized version of personal sense, that is, the possibilities of
> >> sense available at the collective level.
> >>
> >> Such an approach would allow us to approach meaning in a dialectical
> >> way, paralleling the individual|collective dialectic, and therefore
> >> locating it as the dialectic of two other dialectics.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22-Jul-05, at 8:08 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> >>
> >> > Great timing, Gordon. you answered part of my question re Halliday
> >> and
> >> > the
> >> > equivalent distinction. Thanks!
> >> > mike
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 7/22/05, Gordon Wells <gwells@ucsc.edu> wrote: >Gordon, I've
> >> often
> >> > thought along the lines you explore about how it relates
> >> >> >to Vygotsky's meaning/sense discussion.Maybe it reflects his
> >> roots
> >> >> in
> >> >> >philology.If so, then maybe we can push it a little further.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Gordon's list of alternatives were: "dynamic/everyday/narrative v.
> >> >> >synoptic/scientific/paradigmatic modes of meaning-making."When I
> >> >> see
> >> >> >"paradigmatic," I look for "syntagmatic."Maybe for Gordon this is
> >> >> in both
> >> >> >or either "dynamic" and "synoptic?"
> >> >> >I understand paradigmatic and syntagmatic as mutually constitutive
> >> >> not so
> >> >> >much "versus."So, for example, for linguists (I think whether you
> >> >> look
> >> >> >back to Prague School or further to Panini) the copula verb ("to
> >> be"
> >> >> in
> >> >> >English) as a paradigm (for example: be am is are were been) is
> >> >> relentlessly
> >> >> >tied to/emerging with its syntax (I am. She is. etc.).The
> >> >> syntagmatic
> >> >> >patterning is not just a methodological frame for the
> >> morphological
> >> >> >paradigm; neither one is necessarily primitive to the other (but
> >> >> theories of
> >> >> >language might explore to establish this).Each constitutes the
> >> >> other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So, maybe 'meaning' can be understood as the paradigmatic and
> >> >> 'sense' as the
> >> >> >syntagmatic of a mutually constitutive set.
> >> >>
> >> >> Peg,
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree that syntagmatic complements paradigmatic. One way of
> >> >> interpreting Bruner's narrative/paradigmatic distinction might be
> >> >> that narrative is concerned with the relations between
> >> constituents:
> >> >> who does what to whom, when and for what reason. Similarly,
> >> >> Halliday's dynamic/ synoptic distinction might be equated with
> >> >> narrative/syntagmatic - to some degree!!, while synoptic highlights
> >> >> the paradigmatic relationship between alternative lexicogrammatical
> >> >> realizations of the same event, with a focus on grammatical
> >> metaphor
> >> >> through nominalization.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I'm happy with your final paragraph above but I'll give
> >> some
> >> >> more thought to this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gordon
> >> >> --
> >> >>Gordon Wells
> >> >> Dept of
> >> >> Education,http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells
> >> >> UC Santa Cruz.
> >> >> gwells@ucsc.edu
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> xmca mailing list
> >> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > xmca mailing list
> >> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:08 PDT