Re: [xmca] "Inner Form" of Word, Symmetry, Ivanov Bateson?

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

That is a fascinating way of rising to the concrete in this case, David.
Thanks
mike

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> On Sunday, the NYT Magazine had this:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/could-conjoined-twins-share-a-mind.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1
>
> In Vancouver, there is (are?) a pair of craniopagus conjoined twins (that
> is, "Siamese" twins joined at the head. It appears that they share a good
> bit of their brains (though not all) including the thalamus, which according
> to Cannon (the main opponent of the James/Lange "centripetal" theory of
> emotion) is the seat of self-consciousness.
>
> But what the children appear to have is exactly the opposite of what Cannon
> would predict: instead of different sensations and common reactions, they
> have shared sensations, but they have very different selves in response to
> it.
>
> So for example Tatiana likes ketchup and Krista does not. When Tatiana eats
> ketchup, Krista tries to scrape it out of her own (Krista's!) mouth even
> though she isn't actually eating any. Similarly, if you put a toy
> thermometer in Krista's mouth, Tatiana's tongue will curl up to hold it in
> place.
>
> Vygotsky remarks in Chapter Four (of Thinking and Speech) that the
> discovery that apes are perfectly capable of tool use but rather balk at
> sign use is not really much of a surprise to Marxism. I think this kind of
> "asymmetry", not between brain halves, but between lower level psychological
> sensations and higher level psychological evaluations of those sensations
> (that is, shared feelings but divided thoughts) is not THAT surprising for
> cultural historical psychologists either.
>
> I think the self, like everything else in Thinking and Speech, has two
> roots. One is, of course, interfunctional connections, and that is obviously
> to some extent shared in Tatiana and Krista. But there's another root: the
> "imaginary friend" that the child at six or seven begins to create,
> a unified character who performs various roles, not necessarily coherent
> with each other or even compatible. One of these tendencies unites Krista
> and Tatiana from below. But the other one, which would unite them from above
> if they were not conjoined, instead divides them.
>
> Let's take Andy's definition of inner form: it's the meaning of Tatiana's
> "action" (in which Andy includes Tatiana's word) for Tatiana herself. But in
> order for that inner form to be understood by someone else, say, Krista, it
> must become an outer form. And the nature of understanding that outer form?
> It seems to me that the way it happens is that it becomes inner form for
> Krista; that is what understanding really is.
>
> That gets us out of the idea of an immutable inner form in a hurry! So it
> seems to me I was completely wrong: Bakhtin is not religious, because for
> him the inner form of the word is Protean and polymorphous; there is nothing
> of eternity there at all, only the endless passing back and forth of inner
> to outer and back again. Shpet, on the other hand, is seriously tinged with
> ahistorical metaphysics, and so is any form of cultural historical
> psychology that sees the sign as merely a form of tool. When I use a tool on
> the environment, it has inner form for me and outer form for the environment
> and this state of affairs does not change. When I use a word on my twin,
> what is outer for me is inner for her.
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>  5/30/11, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] "Inner Form" of Word, Symmetry, Ivanov Bateson?
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 3:41 PM
>
>
> On 30 May 2011 18:42, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David, Tony, Martin..........
> >
> > I am still pondering this note, even though the discussion has moved
> along.
> > The issue that is pestering me is change in word meaning over ontogeny
> and
> > cultural history.
> >
> > In the 1980's I got to know VV Ivanov. He was preoccupied at the time
> with
> > the importance of A-symmetry and talking a lot of right brain/left brain
> > stuff that did not
> > particularly excite me at the time.
> >
> > Your discussion of inner/outer form of word got me thinking about him and
> > Bateson.
> > I have been unable to find this essay in English
> >
> > *The Asymmetry of the Brain and of the Sign Systems*). Moscow,Sovetskoe
> > radio, 1978.
> > Ivanov was/is a fan of Tartu semiological theories.
> >
> > If the symmetry position is associated with timelessness/religion, might
> > there be help here for further thought about inner/outer forms of words
> in
> > the process of thought?
> >
> > Then I remembered Bateson's focus (in Mind and Nature) on assymetry as
> > foundational to development. I do not have my copy of the book to hand,
> but
> > I believe that it is assymetry that underlies the shape of a snail's
> shell
> > and the symbol on the lchc home page.
> >
> > Any help out there in xmcaland?
> > mike
> >
>
> Re, asymmetry.  The Footnote from page 10 seems appropriate:
>
> "In the serial case it is easy to imagine that each anterior segment may
> give information to the next segment which is developing immediately behind
> it.  Such information might determine orientation, size, and even shape of
> the new segment.  After all, the anterior is also antecedent in time and
> could be the quasi-logical antecedent or model for its successor.  The
> relation between anterior and posterior would then be asymmetrical and
> complementary.  It is conceivable and even expectable that the symmetrical
> relation between right and left is double symmetrical, i.e., that each has
> some complementary control over the development of the other.  The pair
> would then constitute a circuit of reciprocal control.  It is surprising
> that we have almost no knowledge of the vast system of communication which
> must surely exist to control growth and differentiation."
>
> With respect to inner form, the pieces that I find intriguing are Bateson's
> take on Lamarkian-like development in conjunction with Waddington's
> discoveries and Beer's approach to requisite variety.  That is, that one
> can
> get a limited form of Lamarkian-like evolution, based upon a feedback to a
> system with sufficient variety to express the genetic alternatives.
>
> Huw
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:08 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin and I have been puzzling over Vygotsky's occasional references
> to
> > > the "inner form" of a word: where did Vygotsky GET the idea? What did
> he
> > DO
> > > with it? And above all why does it MATTER?
> > >
> > > Well, I recently read two books that I think solve these questions, but
> > > introduce a whole slew of new ones. The two books are:
> > >
> > > Tihanov, G. (2009) Gustav Shpet's Contribution to Philosophy and
> Cultural
> > > Theory. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
> > >
> > > Seifrid, T. (2005) The Word Made Self. Ithaca and London: Cornell
> > > University Press.
> > >
> > > >From the Tihanov volume (an edited text) we learn two important things
> > > about inner form. First of all, the idea of inner form of LANGUAGE does
> > > indeed go back to Humboldt and even further (the Port Royal Grammarians
> > > apparently used it!). But it's Potebnia who says that a WORD has inner
> > form.
> > >
> > > This Potebnian formulation obviously begs to be qualified: a word like
> > "of"
> > > or "the" or even "to be" wears its inner form on its sleeve, and may
> have
> > > less of it than a word like "hedgehog" or "God" or  even "to run".
> > >
> > > Well, Seifrid argues that this Potebnian interpretation of Humboldt
> came
> > > with a LOT of religious baggage. Potebnia believed that the "inner
> form"
> > of
> > > a word was its "nearest psychological meaning", i.e. its sense. But he
> > ALSO
> > > believed that this essence (or maybe "es-sense") was innate and stable,
> > as
> > > opposed to the historically changing outer form.
> > >
> > > That idea, of a God-made word whose inner "self" is unchanging but
> which
> > > can manifest itself in "you" (Christ) and even in "he" (the Holy
> Spirit),
> > > was very attractive to Russian Orthodox philologists, including the
> > > Symbolists, later the Acmeists, Florensky, Bulgakov, and possibly
> > Bakhtin.
> > >
> > > Bakhtin, who Seifrid does not discuss much, is a VERY curious case. I
> > used
> > > to think, along with Emerson and Morson, that there is no serious
> > evidence
> > > that he was a deeply religious man, not even his early writings. But
> > Seifrid
> > > points out that one of the conceits that Florensky and Bulgakov had was
> > that
> > > the human body was basically SYMMETRICAL: not only along the head to
> > crotch
> > > axis but even along a left hip right hip axis: the kidneys correspond
> to
> > > lungs, the asshole to the mouth and so on. Florensky and Bulgakov (and
> > > I think Bakhtin too) played with the idea that semen and language were
> > > equivalent effluvia, one from the upper and one from the lower bodily
> > > stratum.
> > >
> > > There are three reasons why I think Bakhtin might have been in on the
> > joke:
> > > First, and worst, although Bakhtin claims to be interested in novels,
> he
> > > never expresses any sustained interest in the work of any woman
> novelist
> > of
> > > any nationality whatsoever, and the novel is, at least in English and
> > > French, an overwhelming feminine mode of expression.  Secondly, in his
> > > Rabelais book he writes almost obsessively about the "lower bodily
> > stratum"
> > > and its effusions and is particularly amused by the correspondance of
> > > flatulence to laughter, and other forms of inverting high and low.
> > Thirdly,
> > > the Rabelais book was, as we know, rejected, when Bakhtin submitted it
> as
> > a
> > > Ph.D. although to all appearances it is a very sound, even miraculous,
> > work
> > > of medieval scholarship. If it was recognized as a work associated with
> > > Florensky and Bulgakov, that would explain it.
> > >
> > > Shpet also signs up to this idea of an unchanging "inner form", and
> > rejects
> > > "psychologism" on precisely these grounds. But it's EXACTLY the
> opposite
> > of
> > > Vygotsky's view. Yesterday I pointed out that the Donizetti aria
> presents
> > > two DIFFERENT views of causation, both of which may be said to be
> > > "mechanical": Adina says her infidelity is caused by her inner essence,
> > and
> > > Nemorino says her unchanging love is caused by an outer force.
> > >
> > > This is, I think, Vygotsky's view! Inner form is actually what CHANGES
> > from
> > > moment to moment, flitting and fluttering, pattering and puttering.
> Outer
> > > form changes too, but more slowly, the way that the river, grieving and
> > > grooving the mountains, drags them down grain by grain to the sea.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > 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