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

[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

That is quite right, Mike.

Herder's place in the genealogy of a whole number of ideas which are crucial to our current of thinking is broadly overlooked. When I submitted a German translation of my paper on Goethe and Hegel to a journal in Berlin, I found such hostility to the place I gave Herder, that I had to remove him in order to get published. It was good to see that Stanford Encyclopedia entry gave him his due.

Here is his archive on maxists.org: https://www.marxists.org/archive/herder/index.htm

and his FaceBook page: https://www.facebook.com/Johann-Gottfried-Herder-278589731820/

Vygotsky people would perhaps be interested to know that the very first appearance of the idea of "unit of analysis" in the Vygotskyan sense, we owe to Herder. He called it /Schwerpunkt/, which is usually translated as "centre of gravity," but I think that in the social context, it is best translated as "strong point."


Andy Blunden
On 4/07/2016 1:59 AM, mike cole wrote:
Interesting sequence, Andy.
Reading your beginning of an a cultureS concept and ontologIES put me quickly in mind of Herder who died in 1803, but whose ideas seemed to be part of the intellectual background that is connected to Hegel. Or so I discovered when I looked up Herder to refresh my memory of dates and came upon this useful entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia.



On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    I checked, and was surprised to find that the date at
    which "ontology" was first used in the plural was
    1855. I would have thought it much later. "Culture"
    was first used as a count noun in 1860 (all acc. to
    the OED) , so Franz Boas was not actually the first to
    use "culture" in the plural. "Epistemologies," the OED
    has no information on.


    Andy Blunden
    http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>

    On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
    <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:

        So, ontologies writ large can be plural, but an
        ontology of scientific psychology is singular (and
        contradicts at least some of the plural
        ontologies, which, for example posit things like
        "mind," "spirit", "God", etc.).
        Do horizons somehow account for this apparent
        contradiction? The simultaneous truth and untruth
        of these entities?

        And can you remind us of the candle in the mirror


        Sent from my iPhone

            On Jul 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Martin John
            Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
            <mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>> wrote:

            I think that’s a fair comment, Larry. It must
            appear that I’m being inconsistent introducing
            gods after being so hard on Michael for
            invoking intelligent design. But, while I want
            to follow Latour (and Viveiros de Castro) in
            arguing that there are multiple ontologies,
            many ways of existing, in which case mind can
            be said to exist in the ontology of Western
            folk psychology, I also want to insist that
            the ontology of a scientific psychology has to
            be consistent and non-contradictory, which
            means it must be non-dualist. No mind in a
            scientific psychology (except as an appearance
            to be explained, like a candle seemingly
            ‘behind’ a mirror), and no god either.


                On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Lplarry
                <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:

                This shift in the relationship between
                (mind) and (meaning)  towards meaning
                being primordial or primary and mind
                arising as one particular way of imagining
                meaning seems to be a radical shift in
                ways of approaching or orienting towards
                (mind) as an object.
                Mind becomes one way of imaging and
                diagramming, and symbolizing (meaning
                potential) in other words -mind as object.
                As Martin says, this may be *fictional*
                but is *real* in a way similar to God
                being *real* in particular traditions.

                Sent from my Windows 10 phone

                From: Greg Thompson


It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch