[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
- To: Vera Steiner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
- From: Mike Cole <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:52:52 -0700
- Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MnIqyWMqlD1zg7EO6AB2s4EaOUeyfkBF6ukli21V0Hc=; b=J3RABeBqRjOAzKm9sxsjBFXCaLwp09Q2vmClf9iI+2fX/dw7HQZvslU2b8uunHCUoI AkR4UTWBRU07sCGYEYvejrDqk5VOAwb13NEg8IkjFspPEqJ1ZxtZpWr2P4rCNYq6I716 jNzcz62j9HOTRMrIyte5haYikDf8BhN+PY5/g=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=D/oolAPTyizuo32SrhuLP0wfCUeutRVkt3OkUtD4QxtR4p4lXGIL/KEDO+rDK5CJHh D7kIexJi/Jw6knCVu9oyuBEfYToqoi+Bdib/SmcA056STNCshtWU4sLCRCiv/xSkEJpD Qdd7asFO8G/JYCR7uls9vyFgDjymvkPwGdTtw=
- In-reply-to: <002301c9c122$aae62c70$6501a8c0@atticus>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <002301c9c122$aae62c70$6501a8c0@atticus>
- Reply-to: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
Where is the dichotomy, Vera? Its and/both, heterochronously and
heterogeneously, relationally and non-linearly.
So we murder to dissect, routinely.
(Which constantly gives us more than enough to chat about!)mike
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Vera Steiner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I keep on thinking that we,too, fall into a dichotomy when we reject the
> inside/outside dynamic process. These are at time simultaneous actions:
> appropriation, transformation, externalization and their impact on the
> community, while they are also part of the process of brain/neuronal
> When I remember one of the messages from the xmca community, I engage in an
> act that requires neuronal activity and while I am reformulating,
> communicating with the source of my thinking activity, this community, I
> co-participate in the sustained thinking activities of others. By viewing
> these activities as either/or we are shaped by our opponents' Cartesian
> beliefs and terminology. I cannot write these words without the words of
> others, but I am also moving my fingers--there is no space for other fingers
> on the keyboard. We are profoundly, irrevocably interdependent. We need a
> new set of terms to express the consequences of that interdependence when it
> comes to psychological processes which have not a single but distributed
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cole" <email@example.com>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:23 AM
> Subject: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
> To shorten the string of trailing messages and focus on just one of the
>> interesting responses:
>> From: Tony Whitson <email@example.com>
>> Date: Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking?
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>> For what it's worth:
>> Thought is what it is only by virtue of its addressing a future thought
>> which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more developed.
>> In this way, the existence of thought now depends on what is to be
>> hereafter; so that it has only a potential existence, dependent on the
>> future thought of the community.
>> No present actual thought (which is [in itself] a mere feeling) has any
>> meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies not in what is actually
>> thought, but in what this thought may be connected with in representation
>> subsequent thoughts, so that the meaning of a thought is altogether
>> something virtual.
>> Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion
>> in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts
>> in us.
>> -- Charles Peirce, Writings 2: 241,227,227
>> Reading this puts me strongly in mind of the epigram of the chapter 7 of
>> Thinking and Speech, "I forgot the word I wanted to say, and thought,
>> unembodied, returned to the hall of shadows."
>> Locally a couple of us have been re-re-re-visiting this idea and what
>> to us an incompleteness that is picked up by Pierce and which relates to
>> relationship between
>> imagining and creating as well as sense and meaning. For LSV the
>> externalized thought-in-word completes the thought, providing the "most
>> stable zone of sense." But we were focused
>> on the hearer of the utterance and how it was then interpreted and
>> subsequently given further life or not as very important..... the later
>> history of what Vygotsky called the embodied thought.
>> I fear the invitations to confusion in all the inside/outside invocations
>> what we are quoting and composing.
>> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list