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

[Andy Blunden]

I agree, that in the formation of a methodology for cultural 
psychology, Wundt has an important place. I think the 
recognition as "culture" as a count noun has its place in 
that genealogy but I have nothing to offer on Wundt and 
count nouns. Good to hear that Herder get recognition in the 
culture of anthropology!

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 4/07/2016 10:24 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
>     >
>     http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>     > On 3/07/2016 3:19 PM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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