I would agree. I wasn't exampling existence though; I was trying to
correlate the squirrel to context. Different horses but still in the
Your take would be consistant seeing as James and Hegel were not
*Andy Blunden <email@example.com>*
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
10/09/2009 08:57 AM
Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
I don't mind an operational definition of existence, but I'm
not so happy about the category of existence for me, i.e.,
an individual subjective definition of existence. I mean,
the existence of the squirrel depends on me? "Existence" is
surely something that is not dependent on my personal view
of things at the moment. Isn't that what "existence" means?
> Could we return to James' example of the squirrel circling the tree.
> person circles the tree so the squirrel is never in view does that
> the existance of the squirrel for that person? A person's context
> as the squirrel. Hence, the talking past each other that happens
> sooooooooo frequently on this listserv! I being as guilty as any in my
> misinterpretation based on my particular contextual understandings.
> Jokes also fall into this category. Some find Chris Rock to be
> other view him as a blight on the American cultural landscape.
> Context makes all the difference.
> What do other's think?
> Gregory Allan Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent by: email@example.com
> 10/08/2009 03:26 PM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
> Ha! (to Mike)
> Now the question, of course, with any instance of chaining
> complexes is: What precisely is it that is being chained i.e.,
> does Mike's "academic bullshit" refer to Bush/Palin or
> Silverstein? or even, and this is a stretch, to me?. The
> question being asked here is a question of the
> entextualization of talk-as-text - i.e., how does an instance
> of talk (as text) become entextualized such that it is
> decodable as an instance of "talking about X" (or, for that
> matter, "arguing about X").
> As participants in conversation, we build a coherent
> understanding of our interlocutor's utterance via a complex
> ethnometapragmatics of indexicalities (aka "contextualization
> cues"). It is through the congeries of indexicalities present
> in a stretch of talk that individuals can then begin to
> constitute an "X" that was being discussed. The catch is that
> the meaning of individual indexicalities will depend on other
> elements of the context of talk (which themselves are also
> invoked through various layers of indexicality, some via
> language, some via things like insittutional roles). In
> particular, the frame of the interaction (what is going on
> here? - i.e. what are we "doing" here - collegially chatting?
> arguing? berating? joking?) becomes essential for decoding
> what is being indexically conjured up as the entexutalized
> "chain complex". In addition, it is further helpful to have
> knowledge of the identities of participants (who is this
> person that has suggested this?), along with our own
> ethnopsychologies of speakers' intentionalities and things
> like this (what might such a person have "intended" by this
> utterance?). (as a footnote, I liken the complexity of
> interactions to the three body problem in Physics, each layer
> of determining context is affecting the other such that, just
> as it is impossible to predict the movement of three bodies in
> orbit around one another in three dimenasions, it is
> impossible to predict the precise outcome of a given stretch
> of talk.). And after all that, there is always the possibility
> that as a participant A) you could be wrong or B) something
> new is introduced into the conversation that flips the meaning
> of what came before (what Silverstein calls the defeasibility
> of contexts).
> [Did someone say something about academic bullshit? (but this
> does indeed point to an interesting way in which chaining of
> complexes in the denotata of discourse can cross over into the
> interactional plane such that the suggestion of "academic
> bullshit" by another can provoke me to inhabit the identity of
> "academic bullshitter" or alternatively, an identity of
> plain(s)speaker (whether one speaks 'plainly' or as one from
> the 'plains' - i.e. Midwest, "accentless", down-to-earth
> English), a tell it like it is sort of person who uses words
> like "bullshit" to cut to the core of all that high falutin'
> The above is just an idea of what the world of Silverstein can
> "do" in the pursuit of understanding language and social
> interaction (and I certainly haven't done justice to his
> ideas). I think it is an immensely powerful way of seeing
> language and yields great insights into how language and
> social interaction work. I'd also note that I'm comfortable
> with the argument that the obtuseness of the language is
> necessary precisely because we have emic ways of understanding
> language that hide many of its properties from view.
> At the same time, I think that it is often the case that
> employing Silverstein's framework for understanding something
> like activity or classroom learning is much like trying to use
> quantum mechanics to fix a car. An engineer can do better. A
> car mechanic could do still better. But that then raises
> questions about whether or not CHAT/MCA folk see their project
> as one that is more equivalent to engineering or to
> theoretical physics or to car mechanics.
> And btw, for an interesting syllabus on teaching bullshit,
> check out:
> Oh, and please call me "Greg", or even "greg", I use "Gregory"
> on my email "handle" in order to project the identity of
> someone who can competently inhabit the identity of an
> academic bullshitter, but it takes some work...
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:29:42 -0700
>> From: mike cole <email@example.com>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Leontiev and Sign (Silverstein and complexes)
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> Perfect timing, Gregory. This morning my senior seminarian
> will be
>> discussing Peter et al's paper on academic bullshit......
>> (just chaining)
> Greg Thompson
> Ph.D. Candidate
> The Department of Comparative Human Development
> The University of Chicago
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
xmca mailing list