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

[Greg Thompson]

Andy,
I wonder about Wundt's volkerpsychologieS as something that came before a
pluralizable notion of "culture" (cultural psychology as the origo of
 anthropology!).
-greg
(p.s., I'm also curious about the first use of pluralized "ontologies" -
anything more to share on that front Andy?).
p.p.s. Herder gets much more of his due in anthropological circles.


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:59 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson