[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion

[Vera John-Steiner]

To the many silent readers as well as the frequent participants,

When I first read the subject of our current stream "how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion" I had high hopes that we will 
find ways to touch on peoples' concerns and interests in an effective way. But the discussion has turned out to be limited
to a few people and has become increasingly conceptual/definitional. Those are necessary parts of our joint endeavor, but
they close off rather than encourage broad participation. We have done well when we chose a particular article or book or experience 
(I was grateful to get some glimpses of the recent ISCAR conference from Andy and David) as a shared focus. I was tempted to enter
the discussion on private speech but I was worried that we will go over our disagreements only and will leave out what to some of
us is a fertile topic for both research and theory. (Mike and Henry shared some of their experience of how they planned their
thoughts with an xmca audience in mind. I hesitated when I wrote the colloquial expression "in mind.") Are we starting to inhibit
each other when we touch contested ground? Perhaps we need to focus on our process as part of this theme.

If I did not value deeply what xmca offers to me, now that I no longer have daily contact with colleagues and students, I would not 
have written this message.

Vera  
  

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:16 PM
To: Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion

Paul, I used the word "impress" in the sense of "make an impression on me". I mean, how does it cause me to see the fallacy of genetic methodology in the CHAT tradition to hear that an American analytical philosopher gets tied in knots trying to do something you see as similar?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I have to make light of this...my speech acts were an attempt to 
> impress you...how did you ascertain that (my behavior gave you access 
> to my thinking)....Anyways.  I simply side with Derrida on the issue.
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> www.paulcmocombe.info
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andy Blunden
> Date:10/11/2014 11:02 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
>
> Well, I just don't agree, Paul.
> You want to draw my attention to a fault in the logic that I use, and 
> Mike used, by pointing to problems that Willard Quine has. Why should 
> that impress me? And quite honestly the same goes for Wallerstein, 
> Giddens, Derrida and Searle.
>
> Any real connection between two processes takes time. There is no real 
> relation between two simultaneous processes which is direct. Any 
> attempt to discuss the relationship between behaviour and thinking 
> which approaches that relation directly, that is, other than by means 
> of how behaviour is transformed into thinking and thinking is 
> transformed into behaviour, over time, is bound to end up in impossible conundrums.
> Of all these people you mention, Searle is one I have actually had the 
> joy of debating this point with, and he is indeed a classic example of 
> my point.
>
> Andy
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> > Andy,
> >
> > It does not matter in what tradition you are arguing...analytical or 
> > continental...  It still produces the same absurd logic and point.  
> > In sociology, immanuel wallerstein, anthony giddens, and a number of 
> > other structuration theorists building on hegel, marx, etc., 
> > encounter the same quineian problematic.  Your response somehow 
> > implies that the problematic does not exist in the continental 
> > tradition...definitely not the case.  The debate between Searle and 
> > Derrida speaks to this exact point.  As the feminist theorists, 
> > theresa brennan, points out in her essay, "two forms of 
> > consciouseness,"  uniting consciousness and behavior introduces the 
> > old conundrum of behaviorism and structuralism in a new form, "how 
> > do you account for alternative practical consciousnesses and the praxis of the genius..."
> >
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > www.paulcmocombe.info
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Andy Blunden
> > Date:10/11/2014 10:09 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > To: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
> > Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
> >
> > Paul, I really don't care if Willard Quine has problems.
> > My reply was in the tradition of Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky, not 
> > American analytical philosophy. Quine's difficulties shed no light 
> > on A N Leontyev's criticisms of Vygotsky.
> > Andy
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> > > But Andy, the genetic argument, the unity of consciousness and 
> > > behavior, sounds like Willard van Orman quine ' s behaviorism and 
> > > structurationism in sociology, neither adequately resolve the old 
> > > conundrum of behaviorism?  Watch quine as he struggles to resolve 
> > > the conundrum....
> > >
> > > Watch "On the Ideas of Quine: Section 1" on YouTube On the Ideas 
> > > of Quine: Section 1: http://youtu.be/1iZvycU3I9w
> > >
> > > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > > President
> > > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > > www.mocombeian.com
> > > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > > www.paulcmocombe.info
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Original message --------
> > > From: Andy Blunden
> > > Date:10/11/2014 8:22 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion
> > >
> > > Mike, in my view, your observations below, that your "private"
> > > reflections were connected to a future action is exactly the sense 
> > > in which CHAT bases itself on *action* as the unity of 
> > > consciousness and behaviour, i.e., genetically. When we simply 
> > > confront the product (private thoughts) insoluble conundrums are 
> > > presented. CHAT
> understands
> > > the relation of thinking and acting genetically.
> > > Andy
> > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > > mike cole wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > I might characterize what I was doing in the car as preparing
> for, and
> > > > simulating a next turn in an ongoing discussion with a number of 
> > > > colleagues, unsure of what my own conclusions regarding the 
> > > > issue of thought/action/semiosis are. In light of the 
> > > > discussion, I began to
> > > wonder
> > > > about that term, articulation, in Martin's note. I take
> > articulation to
> > > > mean roughly "to say out loud to another as part of a 
> > > > conversation
> > > (text?).
> > > > But, I have been asking myself, and ask you all for your 
> > > > thoughts,
> > > when I
> > > > am engaged in verbal thinking aren't I engaged in a conversation
> with
> > > > another, with an audience or my sense of an audience, as part of 
> > > > the process that generates what I say? It is often said that one 
> > > > does
> > > not stop
> > > > being a sociocultural organism simply by virtue of being 
> > > > physically separate from others. Is there, in such "conversations with oneself"
> > > a form
> > > > of articulation?
> > > >
> > > > And/or, might the fact that these thoughts were incorporated in 
> > > > my
> > next
> > > > communication as part of this conversation, not be considered a
> > form of
> > > > asychronous, semiotic, action?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for your concise answer. Sorry I cannot follow
> > > adequately some
> > > > of the points you are making.
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>