[Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]

[Ed Wall]

You possibly might also be interested in 

The Role of Hermeneutic Phenomenology in Grounding the Affirmative Philosophy of Gustav Gustavovich Shpet
V. G. Kuznetsov
Russian Studies in Philosophy 37 (4):62-90 (1999)

Ed

On Jan 24, 2015, at  2:49 PM, Martin John Packer wrote:

> This is the information I have, Henry.
> 
> Freiberger-Sheikholeslami, E. (1984). Gustav G. Shpet: Hermeneutical logic and philosophical semiotics. In J. Deely (Ed.), Semiotics 1984 (pp. 381-391). Bloomington: Semiotic Society of America.
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Jan 24, 2015, at 2:37 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Martin,
>> Thank you very muchfor the article on Sheet. I think the readings and dialog generated will help me understand much better Vygotsky and his context by getting a better grip on the long view, through the eyes of hermeneutics. Do you know when the Freiberger-Sheeikholes article was written?
>> Henry
>> 
>>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am sure that there are differences between LSV and Shpet, as Larry points out. But there are also striking similarities. Here is a little background:
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> <Freiberger-Sheikholeslami 1985 Gustav G. Shpet He.pdf>
>>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Martin will be sending us an article on Shpet.
>>>> I therefore did some background exploration and discovered that Shpet and
>>>> Vygotsky differed on the notion of "oscillation".
>>>> Vygotsky believed thought and language oscillated while Shpet disagreed.
>>>> 
>>>> Zinchenko clarifies Vygotsky's understanding in this paragraph
>>>> that Zinchenko wrote in his chapter "Thought and Word, the Approaches of L.
>>>> S. Vygotsky and G. G. Shpet": It uses the metaphor of rain [which I
>>>> associated with the other thread on rain]
>>>> 
>>>> "Thought and word are no less polyphonic than mind.  Yet, there is a
>>>> long way to go to arrive at this conclusion.  And it is hard to
>>>> overestimate the input of Shpet and Vygotsky, along with Aleksandr Potebnya.
>>>> Out of all the polyphony of mind and thought, out of all the various
>>>> possibilities of origins, Shpet and Vygotsky   gave their preference to the
>>>> word, although they understood it differently.  Let us start from
>>>> Vygotsky's metaphorical description: *What is simultaneous in thought is
>>>> successive in language.*  It would be possible to compare a thought with a
>>>> cloud that showers a rain of words.  This is why the transition from
>>>> thought to language is a very complicated process of *dismemberment* of a
>>>> thought and its recreation in a word.  On the next page, Vygotsky wrote,
>>>> 'continuing this picturesque comparison, we should liken the motivation of
>>>> thought to the wind that sets the clouds in motion.'  If something can *pour
>>>> itself, *it means that it already exists.  Therefore we can understand the
>>>> given metaphor as saying that thought, already existing is *expressed *in a
>>>> word"  [emphasis in the original]
>>>> 
>>>> This quote draws attention to Vygotsky perceiving *oscillation *behind the
>>>> movement of thought and language. Shpet did not see thought and language as
>>>> oscillating.  Zinchenko's goal in his article is not to place the
>>>> approaches of Shpet and Vygotsky in opposition but to present them as
>>>> mutually complimentary approaches.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope to learn from others on the complexity of the notions of
>>>> oscillating movement of thought and language situated within words.
>>>> Polyphonic notions
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>