[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance [Language as a form]

[mike cole]

Carol Et al

It is a short holiday week in the US and I am on the road visiting family
and friends. I have only limited access and am trying to think about what
it means to have participants with such varied histories with the discourse
community and its topic and such varied backgrounds. Uncharted territory.

For those who care to see XMCA continue, I suggest that you read and
reflect on the 30+ history of this discourse community. The summaries that
I know of can be found at
LCHC.ucsd.edu under history archives. There are two summaries there that go
back to roughly 1983.

Further comment without people stopping to familiarize themselves with
prior history and without having participants ceasing to seek  solutions to
the current confusions in the iniatives taken by others rather than in
collective action in which they share responsibility seems unlikely to bear
fruit that can nourish a productive future.

All sorts of alternatives are possible.

One alternative is not possible, and that is to eschew personal
responsibility and lay it on the shoulders of a 76 year old "retired
professor" whose inadequate understanding of the core issues of the role of
culture in the development have been thoroughly documented by numerous real
experts over decades.

The record is there, open to all.
Check it out. Then we can assess the future.

Good luck to us all

Mike



On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carolmacdon@gmail.com');>> wrote:

> Hi
>
> There have been some off list postings about this phenomenon. None of it
> complimentary.  This cannot be sorted out in one move.
>
> I propose that we move onto a different thread -  topic.
>
> Mike, would you like to start us off on something new?
>
> Carol
>
> On 27 November 2014 at 02:49, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> wrote:
>
> > Andy, if you're going to retire, then retire. But don't aim one or two
> > more underhand blows behind the feint of retiring.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Well this bloke will retire again at this point. I thought for a brief
> > moment there, I thought we had a breakthrough. Certainly, Huw's "real
> > illusion" is perfectly apt to my mind (it's an expression Marx uses), or
> > in  Eric Fromm's words, an illusion with "survival value." Martin says
> > "Consciousness is an objective process that *sometimes* can *give rise
> to*
> > illusions." As Vygotsky says "For him psychology is partly
> phenomenology."
> > > Andy
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > > Bruce Robinson wrote:
> > >> Henry,
> > >>
> > >> Your wife's question leads to another: who speaks for the silent
> > majority, many of whom, like me, must be getting fed up with what David K
> > calls a "rather blokish struggle for power over particular words'? [Not
> > Richard Nixon :)]
> > >>
> > >> Bruce R
> > >>
> > >> PS: You may also note that I have not changed the subject heading of
> > this message so that it bears no relation to the content. Something else
> I
> > find irritating...
> > >>
> > >> On 26/11/2014 17:16, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> > >>> Sister Analisa,
> > >>> Thank you for responding! I was just talking to my wife (getting
> > personal!) about the chat. She asked me, "How does anyone get to
> > participate in the (XMCA) chat if only a few people take part?" I
> wondered
> > in my email below if too much was expected of written communication in
> the
> > XMCA chat. With 800 people potentially taking turns, well...what is even
> > possible logistically? Mike Cole has talked about this, and, I think, has
> > some suggestions on how to deal with the bottlenecking. But even small
> > scale communication can be daunting. I watched, with my wife, a Richard
> > Linklater movie last night, "Before Midnight". Two people, face to face,
> in
> > a totally committed relationship, smart people, good people, trying so
> hard
> > to get it right. Always a work in progress. But it's worth it. The
> > alternative is despair. I am sure of this: This chat, which seems to get
> > bogged down in abstractions, pure thinking in the mud, is really
> > consequential beyond the sensitivities of academics. I said we
> > >> va
> > >>>  lue Vygotsky's "heroism", but that's too macho. I should have said
> > courage.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is a powerful idea, often called
> > the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis. Google it. Really. See what you think. One
> > gauge of the power of an idea is if it has found its way into popular
> > discourse. I just this morning heard an NPR radio program (thanks again
> to
> > my wife, who was listening when she heard something she thought I would
> be
> > interested in) that dealt with the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis in its strong
> and
> > weak form.
> > >>>
> > >>> Henry
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear Henry,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you for your reply.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't think being personal (or even personable) requires being
> > heated. Does this have to do with my comment of warmth as a sign of
> welcome?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To speak about culture non-personally is not something I am adept at
> > doing. We are always speaking from where we stand, the culture that we
> are
> > in or from, what-have-you.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Respectfully, I do not know what "linguistic relativity hypothesis"
> > is. So please be patient with me while I connect this academic idea you
> > have offered to this conversation so that I can relate that to my
> personal
> > experience speaking on this thread, though clearly I'm not speaking
> > literally right now, but it is speech from me, not a sock puppet with my
> > voice thrown from the position of objective reality.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You are talking about speaking two languages. But it seems we are
> all
> > speaking English on this list. So I'm a bit lost right there what you are
> > trying to say to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Then, you speak of metalinguistics and how it represents different
> > worldviews, if you don't mind me swapping your use of "perspective" for
> > worldview. There is a lot of time clearing muckups to get it right. I'm
> not
> > sure that it ever gets right though, which troubles me. I have found that
> > many people who have different worldviews communicate by "talking to,"
> > rather than "talking at." I feel, for example, you and I are talking to
> one
> > another, despite our likely different POVs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't know what the "perish and dapple of Andy" means when you say
> > that. From what I can tell he's trying to define something for himself
> > asking for the help of others. That's fine and I'm learning that
> > definitions are very bas-relief for him. I think my interests are a
> little
> > different. So I'd prefer to orient to my interests, if that is OK.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Speaking of metalinguistics, rather than debate over definitions,
> I'm
> > more interested in speaking to the very different people who are on this
> > list. The rumor is there are 800 folks out there. Where are you? :) To
> > reference a highly academic quote from the Wizard of Oz:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Come out, come out wherever you are, and meet the young lady who
> > fell from the star!"
> > >>>> --Glinda, the Good Witch from the North (waves magic wand)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm curious how others have been inspired by Vygotsky and
> > sociocultural theory, and even other manifestations of his ideas, such as
> > CHAT, etc and how people are using these approaches in their work. What
> is
> > that like for you? And to be more specific, what is that like for women
> and
> > people of color? I'm also interested in thinking-out-loud with others
> about
> > Vygotskian concepts that are not easy to understand; to employ in real
> time
> > dialogue and social interaction to leap over zopeds together. Isn't that
> > what a listserv is for? Or am I being too idealistic?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have tried to speak in an open, easy, and immediate manner, to
> > allow others to engage. But I fear that engagement is never going to
> happen
> > because all that persists are conversations about definitions, or whether
> > nothing can come from nothing, and voila! subsequent debates ensue. Or
> > someone will say, "We already discussed this 20 years ago!" Which means I
> > missed the party, I suppose. Unfortunately, if I disagree with a position
> > because I interpret differently, then I'm told to go read something
> without
> > really a clear explanation why I'm supposed to go read something.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't really agree with the approach of "read this," as an
> academic
> > argument. Anyone is free to use it, and I have myself, but because I know
> > how obtuse that can be, I couch it with my reasons why I think it would
> be
> > a good read for that person, and what I think there is learn from
> reading.
> > I think the "read this" approach, when it is offered with the tone of
> "now
> > go eat your vegetables!" fails in the making of speech between people.
> All
> > it does is shut things down.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If the reading truly is relevant, it seems far more productive in
> the
> > moment of speech to cue a person what to look for, to supply a context,
> > especially when referencing an entire book, for example, or the link to
> an
> > entire website full of texts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Your assessment in the physicality of language is something with
> > which I am completely in agreement. Especially since we all seem to agree
> > with the material aspects of language. So the question at hand is a
> matter
> > of form. Form has an aesthetic but also has a purpose. Are we throwing
> > ropes or throwing boulders? If throwing boulders, where does that need to
> > throw boulders come from? If throwing ropes, then at least connections
> are
> > being made for those who might not be very clear about ideas and who may
> > require a helping hand.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Then there's the old, but handy, elliptical comment, something like
> a
> > boomerang... meant to be subtle or ironic at the expense of someone who
> may
> > not understand.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> At this point, I'd to emphasize that being ignorant is not being
> > stupid, but it seems someone who is ignorant is frequently treated as
> > stupid (um, on this list). This "phenomenon" has made me reflect upon how
> > little time is spent upon the nature of ignorance in education and the
> > dynamics of ignorance in speaking. Every one of us is ignorant about most
> > things in the world. And yet being ignorant is seen as an embarrassment,
> a
> > deficiency, a lapse in character. I vehemently disagree with this
> reception
> > to ignorance. Even Einstein said something like, "The more I know, the
> more
> > I see how much I don't know." Such an aggressive position toward
> ignorance
> > is nothing but hurtful, even arrogant. Arrogance is a blister, a defense
> > mechanism from previous hurt. A person who is honest about one's own
> > ignorance is a very strong person and is showing a willingness to learn
> > something. I think all teachers will agree that a person who knows one
> > doesn't know is an easier student to teach tha
> > >> n
> > >>>   one who doesn't know one doesn't know.
> > >>>> Iconicity is something I can hang my hat on. I see it is related to
> > pointing. What I like about pointing is that it is a gesture, which
> implies
> > movement, in the way the word is also movement. I hope I have made
> > sufficient personal connections to your concepts without the heat. Thank
> > you for offering them to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kind regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Annalisa
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
> Developmental psycholinguist
> Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>


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