[Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal

[Martin John Packer]

Related, I think Larry, to two different models of language change. One is the genealogical tree, familiar to us all. The other is a model of waves:


“The tree model requires definite, stable languages, exactly what was denied by the Wave Model; if there are no permanent languages, then they cannot evolve as a tree. Conversely, the Wave Model regards languages as impermanent collections of features at the intersections of multiple circles. What really exists are dialect continua.” (Wikipedia)

More here: <http://dienekes.blogspot.com.co/2011/11/splits-or-waves-trees-or-webs.html>

Martin

On Jun 26, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com<mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:

Martin,
This movement of consciousness from appearance of what seems real towards a *deeper* reality brings up another question of the position or place from which appearances appear.
The notion of (center) and (periphery) in relation to perception or language or meaning.

Franson Manjali suggests:

“Every use of language, by every speaker/writer of what is called *a language* may be seen as taking place either at the center of a stable entity, resulting in reproductions or repetitions of what that entity is *already* made up of,
OR
As taking place at its tangent or periphery, subjecting it (i.e. the language) to real or potential, but often unforeseen, changes and transformations with respect to its *given* form.”

This notion of perceiving phenomena as occurring either at the center or at the periphery opens up for reflection  concepts such as (position, stance, point of view, place) as being fluid and in flux.
The notion of context shifts to the *scope* of the context.
What is appearing shifting if we are *focusing* consciousness intentionally on the *center point* or if we approach what is appearing in a more unfocused tangential peripheral way.

I am intrigued not by the either/or but by the reciprocal interweaving of both/and moving through and within a focused/unfocused way of perceiving.
This may be related to James Ma’s linking Vygotsky’s deductive focus with Peirce’s abductive inferences?




Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Martin John Packer<mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
Sent: June 26, 2016 12:19 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal

Hi Larry,

I though that Greg was asking whether it was not the case that the Ur-sign for LSV was the index, rather than the icon or symbol. I took this to be a reference to LSV’s frequent mention of the infant’s pointing - an indexical sign if ever that was one, since the gesture is literally done  with the index finger.

As I understand it, for Peirce the index was basic, the icon more complex, and the symbol the most complex kind of sign.

And for what it’s worth, I read Hegel (and many other phenomenologists) as aiming to describe the movement in consciousness from appearance to reality. Or perhaps better put, the movement from what seems real to what turns out to be the mere appearance of a deeper reality. For Hegel (for Marx, for LSV?), this movement never ends. (Well, there’s some debate over that claim, but let it stand for now!)

> On Jun 26, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com<mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I hope this topic (noumenal and phenomenal) can continue.
> Greg’s question if objects (and objectives) is the *ur* phenomenon for Vygotsky, and this model contrasting with Peirce’s triadic model where the objects ( *ur* phenomenon)  is one element of semiosis.
>
> I am going to introduce a quote from Hegel that  may add to this topic:
>
> “Philosophy is not meant to be a narration of happenings but a cognition of what is *true* in them, and further, on the basis of this cognition, to *comprehend* that which, in the narrative, appears as a mere happening.”
>
> Is this process of truth as the basis for *comprehending* noumenal or phenomenal?
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: Lplarry