[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation

[mike cole]

Larry--

Certainly the participants of xlchc, as xmca was called at the time, felt a
bond with each other.
It was a time of rapid change, new ideas and new modes of
interaction-at-a-distance offered the possibility of mobilizing enough
internationally distributed resources to allow us to make a quantum leap in
our understanding of the role of culture in human development and the many
associated issues that such an interest require mastery of.

Two of the central participants have died subsequently, others have moved
on to other ventures. Now the quantum leap seems a little more like the
slow uneven, blurred movement of sand sliding down a sand dune in the
Sahara, but it sure enough felt like lived experience at the time!

There are a LOT of substantive issues taken up by Alfred in that document.
Somewhere in there must be a good summary of his on semiotic/ecological
framework. Whether those currently pursuing the possible synergies to be
had by putting Peirce in conversation with LSV have superseded this early
two decades old scholarship I am unsure. I often found Alfred difficult to
understand; the payoff was in the trying and the friendships that evolved
from the shared effort.

mike


On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I have been reading the link that Andy sent and am experiencing a deep
> (bond) among the participants in this act of culture.
>
> Reflecting on the image of bridges connecting  entities in relation to
> this (bond) I experienced in my encountering you and Alfred and Arne on
> this site, where do we locate this bond. Is this bond a “living” entity?
>
> Do the **persons** I am encountering here and now have any substance or
> essence?
>
> Is it permissible to say these **persons** bonding exist or are real as a
> **living** presence.
>
> Is this occurring only inside my **mind** as imaginary or imagination.
>
> Or is there a 3rd realm that I will call **imaginal** as an adjective.
>
> To ask if this (bond) I experience as I interpret the words is actually an
> imaginal image that presents itself through encountering this  living
> presence as this (bond).
>
> I am using **imaginal** image to convey a sense of the presence of these
> 3 persons bonding that is a living (vital, animated) presence. This
> presence is not captured or expressed in the same way when using the words
> imaginary or imagination.
>
> If others who are reading the link are also experiencing this (bond) then
> it is not merely private nor objective. It seems to be a third way (via
> media).
>
> I do not think the bridge metaphor expresses this **imaginal** image as
> what is occurring is **deep within** our meeting in this third space.
>
> I have a hunch that Peirce as a third way may contribute something to my
> question.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>
>
> *From: *mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> *Sent: *June 21, 2016 5:23 PM
> *To: *Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky.Peirce.Mediation
>
>
>
> I mis-wrote, Andy. I did not mean to say that YOU held that view, Andy.
>
> Rather, your note about a bridge presupposing two entities raised the issue
>
> clearly. Alfred held challenged me on this very point, insisting he was a
>
> dualist and using Peirce as his tool of thought. In any event, the document
>
> you forwarded has a lot of history of semiotics, Peirce, and LSV, and xmca.
>
> And the belief among some that Vygotsky was a dualist remains. That is what
>
> makes Peirce such an interesting 'third'.
>
>
>
> If one googles Alfred Lang on the lchc website homepage lchc.ucsd.edu, a
>
> list of relevant documents comes up.
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Goodness, I will really have to work harder to make my meaning clear, I
>
> > was trying to say that in the tradition running through Hegel and Marx
> that
>
> > Vygotsky was *not* a dualist.
>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure which document captures the discussion Mike was talking of
>
> > but try this:
>
> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/LAEMDI.PDF
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
> >
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Andy Blunden
>
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy
>
> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
> > On 22/06/2016 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> The header is a three word summary of the topic that seems to have
> emerged
>
> >> to engage discussion, James, so maybe use that
>
> >> or put together a header of your own. Semiotics could be there.
>
> >>
>
> >> A discussion of this topic might begin by unearthing the discussions in
> an
>
> >> earlier xmca generation. Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang
>
> >> led discussion on this topic as has, I believe, Jay Lemke. Alfred was
>
> >> steadfast in his interpretation of Vygotsky as a dualist in
>
> >> precisely the way that Andy did in a recent note. Its in the newsletter
>
> >> and
>
> >> the archives, or perhaps in Andy's computer.
>
> >>
>
> >> Given that as background,  what new insights can we gain from
> considering
>
> >> these early efforts at mutual enlightenment via computer *mediated*
>
> >> discourse??
>
> >>
>
> >> Could some of the core discussers organize to point us to prior
>
> >> understandings of this nexus of topics from the xmca/xlchc archives?
>
> >> That would provide a starting point for assessing the answer to my
>
> >> question. Otherwise, I fear we will be unable to supercede a collective
>
> >> level of discourse that corresponds more or less to chaining in a
>
> >> Vygotskian conceptual hierarchy.
>
> >>
>
> >> Summer Solstice Suggestion
>
> >>
>
> >> Mike
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
>
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>



-- 

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