[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Where is thinking



Mike, my experience is that if I send from the wrong email address it doesn't make it at all (which I think was the case this time with Karin), but if I send a message with format (eg indents or bold type) then the message appears blank (which is what happened with mktostes yesterday).

Andy

Mike Cole wrote:
ALL --   When a message does not make it to XMCA it is almost always because
the person has changed email addresses, even slightly.
Achilles. Please check Karin's email on the membership list with the one you
have. It will help solve the problem.

This caution is used to keep spamming from overwhelming the list.
mike

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Achilles Delari Junior <
achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear all, Karin Quast had problems with posting:


Em 19/04/2009 11:52, mktostes < mktostes@uol.com.br > escreveu:



Hope this one does not appear blanck as other messages of mine in the past.

I have found 'L. Gumplowicz' or even L. von Gumplowicz on google.

seems interesting!

Karin Quast


Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:52:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
From: lchcmike@gmail.com
To: vygotsky@unm.edu
CC: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

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 <vygotsky@unm.edu> wrote:

Hi,
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
speech
community, while they are also part of the process of brain/neuronal
changes.
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
locations,
Vera
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
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 <twhitson@udel.edu>
Date: Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking?
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>


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
by
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
is
in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that
thoughts
are
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
seems
to us an incompleteness that is picked up by Pierce and which relates
to
the
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
in
what we are quoting and composing.

mike
_______________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
Descubra seu lado desconhecido com o novo Windows Live!

http://www.windowslive.com.br_______________________________________________
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


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
From Erythrós Press and Media <http://www.erythrospress.com/>.

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