[Xmca-l] Re: The Semiotic Stance.pdf

[mike cole]

Interesting sequence, Andy.
Reading your beginning of an a cultureS concept and ontologIES put me
quickly in mind of Herder who died in 1803, but whose ideas seemed to be
part of the intellectual background that is connected to
Hegel. Or so I discovered when I looked up Herder to refresh my memory of
dates and came upon this useful entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/herder/

mike

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I checked, and was surprised to find that the date at which "ontology" was
> first used in the plural was 1855. I would have thought it much later.
> "Culture" was first used as a count noun in 1860 (all acc. to the OED) , so
> Franz Boas was not actually the first to use "culture" in the plural.
> "Epistemologies," the OED has no information on.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>> So, ontologies writ large can be plural, but an ontology of scientific
>> psychology is singular (and contradicts at least some of the plural
>> ontologies, which, for example posit things like "mind," "spirit", "God",
>> etc.).
>> Do horizons somehow account for this apparent contradiction? The
>> simultaneous truth and untruth of these entities?
>>
>> And can you remind us of the candle in the mirror metaphor?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that’s a fair comment, Larry. It must appear that I’m being
>>> inconsistent introducing gods after being so hard on Michael for invoking
>>> intelligent design. But, while I want to follow Latour (and Viveiros de
>>> Castro) in arguing that there are multiple ontologies, many ways of
>>> existing, in which case mind can be said to exist in the ontology of
>>> Western folk psychology, I also want to insist that the ontology of a
>>> scientific psychology has to be consistent and non-contradictory, which
>>> means it must be non-dualist. No mind in a scientific psychology (except as
>>> an appearance to be explained, like a candle seemingly ‘behind’ a mirror),
>>> and no god either.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>> This shift in the relationship between (mind) and (meaning)  towards
>>>> meaning being primordial or primary and mind arising as one particular way
>>>> of imagining meaning seems to be a radical shift in ways of approaching or
>>>> orienting towards (mind) as an object.
>>>> Mind becomes one way of imaging and diagramming, and symbolizing
>>>> (meaning potential) in other words -mind as object.
>>>> As Martin says, this may be *fictional* but is *real* in a way similar
>>>> to God being *real* in particular traditions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Greg Thompson
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

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