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

[Larry Purss]

Mike,
I chose that metaphor in relation to Zinchenko proposing two types of
"embodiment" the primary [lived through] embodiment such as motor and
perceptual movement and ways of  orientation [which is enacted at the level
of intonation, affect regulation, rhythmicity etc] AND
secondary embodiment.

Yesterday WAS first experienced as primarily embodied as lived through
being-in-the-world. The question Zinchenko asks is "What sort of flesh
[material form] this *initial meaning takes.*
*Meaning *is not just a property of thinking. Meaning penetrates [infuses]
the structure of motor and perceptual activities.
Zinchenko argues we do not "know" intellectually what the *initial primary
original* meaning or conception was embodied in.
To "know" intellectually requires *second embodiment*.  [objectification,
or if you wish signification] of the initial embodiment witnin perceptual,
operational, motor, and verbal meanings. THIS second embodiment I imagine
as an alternative "level" [metaphors of surface and deep]
Zinchenko suggests it is within this second embodiment [the level of
images] that the initial original meaning *reveals *itself to the person
for the *first *time and in this second embodiment "yesterday" is "born"
[for the first time]

This second embodiment in which the primary embodiment is revealed for the
first time may turn *out to BE embodied as* an image, an action, or a
thought. If this primary embodiment is expressed as a thought it will *be*
expressed in a word [as a second embodiment or objectification or
signification.
The original embodiment becomes a "yesterday" as a second embodiment
Zinchenko is questioning making a discrete "boundary" between meaning and
sense. He imagines the relation  [images or figural]  through the metaphor
of the Mobius strip. More like meaning infusing sense and sense infusing
meaning.

I find Zinchenko's approach clarifying where different traditions overlap
Larry

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:51 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> I found the mobius strip metaphor a lot more understandable than the
> "yesterday has not
> yet been born" metaphor, Larry. From the former I kept look for the
> sense/meaning distinction because it seemed as if needed to be there. Still
> mulling that idea over.
> mike
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have imaginally been walking with Zinchenko who is telling me about his
> > chats with Schpet and Vygotsky.
> > Zinchenko is engaged in rehabilitating the centrality of the meaning
> > of "meaning" to processes of phenomenological historical understanding,
> and
> > interpretation.  His conversation is in the form  of a rejoinder [or
> > joining back] with Vygotsky and Schpet with who he wants to bring out
> their
> > mutually shared thesis on the relation of thought and word.
> > Zinchenko uses metaphors to poetically embody his attempt to have
> > "meanings" more modest place with Vygotsky take on a more prominent and
> > central quality.
> >
> > Zinchenko wrote:
> > "A good image for the mutual relationships of meaning and sense is a
> Mobius
> > strip.  In the process of understanding or thinking, we encounter
> > oppositely encountered *acts of making sense of meanings and sense giving
> > meaningful signs to senses *[authors emphasis], which are transformed
> into
> > each other. In Russian, 'meaning' ['znachenie'] and 'sign' ['znak'] have
> a
> > common root and, hence, the untranslated italicized phrase sounds like a
> > Russian pun. On the outer side of the strip may be meaning, which is
> > transformed into sense as a result of the act of making sense, and this
> > *becomes* the internal side of the *same* strip. Assigning a meaningful
> > sign to sense  makes an *analogous *transformation. Anyway, it was
> highly
> > productive for Vygotsky to change the *focus* from *'meaning*' to sense.
> > *Such
> > a change *brings his views closer to those of Shpet. [page 228]
> >
> > I will pause here but want to point out how the metaphor of the Mobius
> > strip has a similar quality to the hermeneutical movement of "fusions of
> > horizons"
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:51 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you, Martin!
> > > Henry
> > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Martin John Packer <
> > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> > > 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
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>