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

[HENRY SHONERD]

Larry,
Please help me:
1) What is “inner form”?
2) I can’t find the Zinchenko article in my emails. Was it sent out or a link to it?
Thanks for your help.
Henry

> On Jan 26, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would like to share a page from the Zinchenko article which puts in play
> Vygotsky's and Shpet's understandings of the play of word and thought. It
> may be going to the "heart of the matter" The quote is from page 237
> 
> According to such logic, inner forms do not disappear,
> 
> but rather continue to participate in perception, memory, thinking, and
> 
> action.
> 
> Action, image, word, feeling, thought, and will – in other words everything
> 
> that is united by the concepts “mental processes,” “mental acts,”
> 
> or “forces of the soul” – are living forms. And because they are living,
> 
> they are, therefore, active, meaningful, unfinalized, and restless *. . . *
> Like
> 
> a soul! Each one of them is not “pure culture.” One form contains in
> 
> itself the others. The ancient principle of “All in one, one in all” is at
> 
> work, and this does not interfere with their relatively autonomous
> existence.
> 
> But even while they maintain their autonomy, they “remember”
> 
> their origins and remain heterogeneous forms.
> 
> The heterogeneity of images, words, and actions is noted in various
> 
> poetic metaphors: “eyes of the soul,” “poetic senses,” “organs of sense as
> 
> theoreticians,” “kinetic melody,” “picturesque idea,” “reasonable eye,”
> 
> “sighted mind,” “soul in flight” (about ballet), “shame of sighted fingers,”
> 
> and so forth. The internal forms of action and image have their
> 
> own dynamic forms subordinated to the sense of movement or perceptual
> 
> (or perhaps thinking) tasks. We know that we can play out action
> 
> before action, and after action (if it is not too late!), we can manipulate
> 
> an image, mentally rotate it, and so forth.
> 
> The dynamic forms of words, images, and actions enrich each other.
> 
> Images and actions, like words, perform operational functions, which, as
> 
> in the case of word, may be separated from meaning. Shpet paid attention
> 
> to meaning. The instantaneousness of thought may be related to
> 
> the simultaneity of image, and perhaps the internal playback of action.
> 
> Finally, the interchange of function is possible between word, image, and
> 
> action, perhaps, including intellectual functions. Don’t we talk about
> 
> visual or musical thinking? Doesn’t the experienced conductor play the
> 
> whole symphony in the internal plane in one or two minutes?
> 
> I have said enough here to come back to the “wordless impulse,” or
> 
> “unembodied intention,” to the situation, paradoxically presented by
> 
> Potebnya and Bibikhin when they say: “there is word even where there
> 
> is no word.” The word does not die in thought. More likely, thought dies
> 
> by drowning in words. After all, truth may be born and regenerated in
> 
> discussions, but it may degenerate as well. Perhaps, thought has its own
> 
> internal form, and this has to become a subject of serious reflection. It is
> 
> no accident that the beginning of this chapter contains the whole gamut
> 
> of answers on what stands behind thought. And if, for example, the
> 
> internal form of thought contains images, the internal form of images
> 
> contains the word."
> *The cornerstone of Zinchenko's insight is the notion that these
> forms exist and have inner form - "LIVING FORM". -*
> *He constructs [and discovers] that if we reduce or abstract this living
> form we "have" created [or discovered]specimens which we observe as
> spectators. In this move we cut out the living form and are left with a
> dead body*
> *Larry*
> :
> 
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>> wrote:
> 
>> This time, the BBC has come up with quite a good discussion of
>> phenomenology, from Husserl to Heidegger and onwards (though not to Spet,
>> unfortunately)!
>> 
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04ykk4m>
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Jan 24, 2015, at 10:19 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> 
>>> I would be interested in the "intro to Husserl" by Shpet, as I have long
>> been curious how the Husserl got to LSV.
>>> 
>>> Is it possible/doable to get some scans of chapter(s) from Appearance &
>> Sense? you know, the ones you believe to be most juicy?
>>> 
>>> You may at any time hermeneutically determine what is "most juicy."
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Annalisa
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>