[Xmca-l] Re: Cultural historical

Mon Mar 19 09:35:35 PDT 2018

Dear colleagues,

The Marxist conception of both societal and linguistic development places
the activities of humans at the center of these developments - but not in a
conscious mode. Both political economy and speech communication arose
without deliberation. They only become (or are becoming) conscious
practices as the process of development proceeds.

It sure would be a leap forward if Activity Theory could accommodate and
elucidate this fact.

My two cents.

(p.s. - I'm glad to be back and participating in these lively discussions
once again!)

In solidarity,
Peter

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM, robsub@ariadne.org.uk <
robsub@ariadne.org.uk> wrote:

> Is there not a sense in which humans do design language? Perhaps our
> ancestors did not deliberately develop the noises they made, but since then
> people do develop their languages to meet particular needs and motives. Are
> we not constantly developing a language to enable discussion of CHAT?
>
> From another angle perhaps while "language" was not designed, "some
> languages" may have been.
>
> Esperanto was deliberately developed for unification purposes.
>
> And Klingon and Na'vi were developed for whatever reasons we might
> attribute - aesthetic, commercial, status seeking....
>
> Or, maybe the issue of when a language becomes a tool is the same as other
> tools. We pick up a rock to smash open a shell; later we smash the rock to
> create one we can hold more easily; later on we rub our new rock against
> another to produce a sharper edge. At what point does the rock become a
> tool?
>
> On 19/03/2018 14:57, David H Kirshner wrote:
>
>> I hope this question is addressed.
>> Language is different from technology in the sense that it has not been
>> designed by humans (who still struggle to understand it's structures).
>> Of course, a rock which is used as a weapon also has not been designed by
>> humans.
>> Still, in picking up a rock to use as a weapon, the wielder is cognizant
>> of its size and shape, and uses it deliberatively and strategically.
>> In some cases, language is used in a similar deliberative and strategic
>> sense to accomplish ends. But as I understand it, the Vygotskian
>> understanding of language as a tool references language in its
>> non-deliberative and strategic deployment, so the usual prescriptions that
>> apply to understanding tools and technologies does not apply.
>> David
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:13 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural historical
>>
>> Isn't spoken language a technology?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman
>> .ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:08 AM
>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural historical
>>
>> The thing that intrigues me  is that it seems that spoken language
>> pre-dates (at 150-350,000 years ago) the rapid development in technology.
>> I thought the migration patterns were pretty well settled by now, and
>> that "hobbit" found in Flores is a diversion),
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 19/03/2018 11:50 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>>
>>> Somewhere in the discussion of Monica and Fernando's article, Fernando
>>> made the remark that history does not know "ifs". Similarly, Monica
>>> implied at one point that large technological changes must be taken as
>>> given; they are not something over which humans have control. But even
>>> if we accept the "Out of Africa" story which this article undermines,
>>> we are left with the apparently conscious decision of early hominids
>>> to leave the home continent, something none of the other great apes ever
>>> determined upon.
>>> Vygotsky remarked that rudiments of all four forms of higher
>>> behavior--instinct, enculturation, creativity, and free will that is
>>> none of these--appear even in infancy. So it appears that free will
>>> was always part of anthropogenesis, and consequently that
>>> history--including present history--knows nothing but ifs. We just
>>> don't see the others because we are sitting in one of them.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> Recent Article in *Early Years*
>>>
>>> The question of questions: Hasan’s critiques, Vygotsky’s crises, and
>>> the child’s first interrogatives
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> tandfonline.com_doi_full_10.1080_09575146.2018.1431874&d=
>>> DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3y
>>> hpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=87L1r2yc_dKUJAd-s4O
>>> QOmXpAqnBvM2mYeg8heDrnxU&s=UGDyItaXb0H7RIcmW3CfQNw0muBaeiOAI
>>> 0IPAeNTKsQ&e=>
>>>
>>> Free e-print available at:
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.tan
>>> dfonline.com_eprint_6EeWMigjFARavQjDJjcW_full&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqM
>>> fXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3K
>>> ioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=87L1r2yc_dKUJAd-s4OQOmXpAqnBvM
>>> 2mYeg8heDrnxU&s=7v5mBuROWZ-xbuP8pY840jy-a4cp9P0wikKUuCUEQH8&e=
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:33 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> This synoptic story of the current state of research on human origins
>>>> seems relevant to the cultural-historical folks around.
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sap
>>>> iens.org_evolution_human-2Devolution-2D&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvE
>>>> JQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0E
>>>> CmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=87L1r2yc_dKUJAd-s4OQOmXpAqnBvM
>>>> 2mYeg8heDrnxU&s=jVJeRQ4bO0CKGI6ODPJFz4AEeVKf6IGHK5_Cx-6QJ4o&e=
>>>> australia-asia/?utm_source=SAPIENS.org+Subscribers&utm_
>>>> campaign=1b31c25316-Email+Blast+12.22.2017&utm_medium=
>>>> email&utm_term=0_18b7e41cd8-1b31c25316-199570669
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
Director,
Office of Institutional Research
<https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
Fordham University
Thebaud Hall-202
Bronx, NY 10458

Phone: (718) 817-2243
Fax: (718) 817-3817
email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu