Dear Friends,
Sometimes in viewing sense/meaning, signs/tools I get caught in a static model that is not always connected to the social. In reality, there are no signs as such, but sign functions, according to U. Eco and others. I hope to transcend my static thoughts in future, by trying to introduce a flow model approach that is based with the cultural-historical method, which truly must include an understanding of dialectics and Marxism. This is a reason that I am also excited about Sasha's new section within ISCAR on Dialectical Psychology. And, I hope to focus much more on process, as opposed to product, and on the "whole" as opposed to the "parts." This also requires a return to a genetic analysis that returns to the source....for me, it is important to return to the concept of "code" going through semiotics to the "word," trying to use explanatory forms of understanding, not just descriptive. The aspects of the general genetic law of development, and the method of double stimulation!
, are
extremely important in a fluid model, I think, and need to be connected to the social/individual as a unit. Going further, it also seems very important to begin discussions within Vygotsky's understanding of language that defines what "non-classical psychology" actually is, and return to a core concept of "personality" (a concept which certainly helps to unite thoughts of Vygotsky and A. N. Leontiev and Russian activity theory). This then leads to one core aspect of personality, which is will, and another aspect, which is the "mastery of behavior," or "self-regulation," or "free action of will," etc. In returning to areas such as signs/tools, sense/meaning, there is a unity, but not identity; and, it is important to not get caught in a sense of dualism, such as mixing up philosophical genres, such as subject/object within epistemology, and mind/matter within ontology. To establish a scientific science of making inner processes more objective, there needs to be a new methodo!
logy, and
from a Vygotskian perspective it will need to be within the context of dialectics and Marxist thinking. It has become interesting for me to view common paradoxes, which flow in an asymmetrical process, and are often viewed as opposing elements in my thoughts....now, I view monism (something not individual and personal) as being completed within dialectics (which is always changing); meaning as being completed within sense (which is always changing); scientific concepts as being completed in everyday concepts (always changing); etc.The holographic model I am discovering is one of empowerment, not control; one of movement...This is what Karl Pribram (who worked with Luria) wrote years ago: "My hypothesis is that all thinking has, in addition to sign and symbol manipulation, a holographic component...Holograms are composed by transformations which, when they are simply repeated, essentially reconstruct the original from which the holographic representation was composed. Hologr!
ams are
the "catalysts of thought." (p. 370).
Best,
Dot
*Karl Pribram (1971): Languages of the Brain, Prentice-Hall.
*thoughts on codes (representation, and images) I have written are in Chapt. 7 of
Vygotsky's and A. A. Leontiev's Semiotics and Psycholinguistics, Praeger Pub., 2003.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:06 PDT