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

[Xmca-l] Re: G. H. Mead and Harvey Sacks

I followed Ellen’s suggestion, went to the Mead Project, found Prefactory Remarks to Mead’s “The Philosophy of the Present” and found this:

"As I look back I can see that a great deal of the seeming obscurity of Mr. Mead's expression was due to the fact that he saw something as a problem which had not presented itself at all to the other minds. There was no common language because there was no common object of reference. His problem did not fall into the categories and classifications of either idealism or realism. He was talking about something which the rest of us did not see.”

Compare that to the “saying” that always appears at the end of Mike Cole’s posts:

All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes
you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something
that isn't even visible. N. McLean, "A River Runs Through it”



> On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Ellen Scully-Russ <scullyru@gwu.edu> wrote:
> Michael - others
> This is a great site for all things Mead ---
> http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/
> If you go to the project inventory and then to the M's, you will find an
> extensive list of Mead's publications with links to the text.
> Enjoy....
> Ellen
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> wrote:
>> Taking a first look at the article there is something that, I am really
>> confused about, maybe others can help clear up this mystery.  Almost all
>> the work cited in the article comes from the book Mind, Self and Society -
>> which was published posthumously by his students.  I was also told in
>> graduate school Mead didn't publish very much on its own.  Yet a few years
>> ago I went to a Mead archive (it is no longer open, I wish I could remember
>> the link, it is actually back somewhere in the xmca archive - search Mead
>> if you are interested) which included a number of articles including
>> contemporaneous reviews and rejoinders.  I read a few of them and they were
>> really, really good - and I got a much better understanding of what Blumer
>> came to call symbolic interactionism.
>> I would also argue against the author's interpretation of Mead.  In the
>> end he was an instrumental Pragmatist and was focused on process.
>> Anyway, anybody who has insight please let me know.
>> Michael
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Greg Thompson
>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:20 AM
>> To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] G. H. Mead and Harvey Sacks
>> Interesting article by George Psathas about G. H. Mead and Harvey Sacks if
>> anyone is interested:
>> http://www.todayscience.org/SST/article/sst.v1i1p24.pdf
>> -greg
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> -- 
> Ellen Scully-Russ, Ed.D.
> Associate Professor, Human and Organizational Learning
> The Graduate School of Education and Human Development
> The George Washington University
> 44983 Knoll Square, Suite 147
> Ashburn, VA 20147