[Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology

[Aria Razfar]

Hi Martin,

Metaphor was my take and other cognitive linguist's take (i.e. Lakoff). I
believe his rejection of "Metaphor" at least in the embodied cognition sense
is rooted in the "Linguistics Wars." Several people in this thread as well
others in the field of cognitive linguistics made the claim that he was and
remains a Cartesian dualist. He definitely does not consider himself as
such. In order to establish the field of linguistics, he had to position it
within the broader arch of western enlightenment and romanticism. Hence, the
title of the book.

Aria  

Aria Razfar, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture
Director of Graduate Studies, Curriculum and Instruction
University of Illinois at Chicago
1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147
Chicago, IL, 60607

Director of English Learning through Mathematics, Science and Action
Research (ELMSA)
www.elmsa.org

Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd
Tel: 312-413-8373
Fax: 312-996-8134


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:47 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology

Hi Aria,

It would help to see the message that Noam is responding to! I don't see,
for example, how metaphor crept into this discussion. (Actually, looking
back through the thread, I see that this was your proposal.)

I suppose a lot depends on what one means by being "a Cartesian." As I just
wrote in another message, Chomsky was, I think, positioning his approach to
linguistics in a tradition in which Descartes was prominent: in which one
tries to figure out what makes possible a specific characteristic or ability
of the mind. Chomsky asked what universal competence would be necessary to
make language possible - any language.

I'm not trying to attach a label to the man; but he give the book its title
for a reason, and a very respectable one. 

Martin

On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:

> Here is Chomsky's response to whether or not he is a Cartesian. Not
surprisingly, he categorically rejects the idea of "metaphor" as well. At
least he's open to change. Now whether our subject is dead or alive that is
a different question.  
> 
> Aria 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noam Chomsky [mailto:chomsky@mit.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:16 PM
> To: Aria Razfar
> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
> 
> The reason for the phrase "Cartesian linguistics" was explained very
clearly in the opening pages of the book.  No one who read at least that far
could believe that I am "a Cartesian," let alone anyone who read farther.  I
can't account for the illiteracy of "notable folks."
> 
> It's also not a metaphor.  Rather, exactly as I described it, which I
would repeat verbatim today.
> 
> There's no need to argue against "mind-body dualism." As I've discussed
repeatedly, Newton's discoveries terminated the thesis, at least in its
classical form, through Descartes and beyond.
> 
> Of course I've changed my views since the '50s and '60s, in fact in the
past few months.  That's normal in subjects that are not dead.
> 
> Noam Chomsky
> 
> 
>