Hi Ana, this one is a good one.
Nancy, J.-L. (2000). Being singular plural. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
I actually show how this work is relevant in research on learning in
a recent book:
Roth, W.-M. (2006). Learning science: A singular plural perspective.
Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
:-)
Cheers,
Michael
On 23-Oct-06, at 3:04 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:
Michael,
This is a very interesting point of view. I would like to learn more
about Jean-Luc Nancy's philosophy. What of his numerous works is a
good start to read (in English)?
I am intrigued by the notion of "WITH" both differentiated and
undifferentiated -- and how to imagine ti. From your addition to
this, I can see that there is some similarity to GH Mead's ideas --
being touched and touching at the same time -- reminds me of the idea
of being addressed by another and addressing the others and oneself.
But I want more details. Send me a reference, please.
Ana
Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> Ana,
> all of this is about consciousness, so the split comes with
> consciousness; but, as people like Jean-Luc Nancy show, there has
> to be a WITH preceding this split so that it can occur in the first
> place, but it is an undifferentiated WITH, which, when
> differentiated, leads to the different individuals (subjects,
> subjectivities) that constitute the collective and inter-subjectivity.
> wmr
>
>
> On 22-Oct-06, at 5:59 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
> You wrote:
>
> This singularity splits itself into the opposition of object
> oriented
> activity as it is and reflexive or self directed activity which
> mediates the
> very object oriented activity starting from multicellular
> animals. From this
> point of view the human language is not something alien to the
> human object
> oriented activity (like conventional sign) but something basically
> congeneric to it, a definite level of its own evolution.
>
> I would like to better understand this. How are multicellular
> animals connected to the "split" between object oriented activity
> and self directed reflective activity?? Actually, how do you see
> this split occur phylogenetically and ontogenetically??
>
> On the other hand, I interpreted Vygotsky's view that language and
> thought have two different roots and then at some point become
> related -- as an illustration of the reorganization in the
> relationships between different mental functions. That issue is not
> the issue where I saw Vygotsky trying to break away from the
> paradigms he himself criticized. What I had in mind is more the
> fact that at some points it seems that LSV was trying to establish
> universal stages of ontogenetic and also of cultural development,
> while at the same time trying to balance differences between
> different cultures and their idiosyncratic systems of cultural
> lore, activities and ultimately psychological processes. So when we
> read about "primitive" and "modern" or literate cultures, it looks
> like a form of cultural centrism still pervaded LSV's (and Luria's)
> work, while on the other hand there is an attempt to break out of
> that kind of thinking.
> Ana
>
>
> Alexander Surmava wrote:
>> Hi, Ana,
>>
>>
>> You route: "I have the feeling that he is trying to break away
>> from the
>> paradigms he had criticized himself, but is not quite where he
>> wants to be".
>> I entirely agree with this statement.
>>
>> Moreover I can point mentioned problem of relation between
>> language and
>> thought as an example of such finding him "not quite where he
>> wants to be".
>> I mean that the very LSV's idea of independent routes of thought and
>> language can be hardly estimated as dialectical but rather
>> dualistic. The
>> real dialectical relation can be founded only in case of splitting
>> some
>> singular basis into opposite contradictory halves. Thus in our
>> case we will
>> have the real dialectical relation between language and thought
>> only in case
>> if we are starting from the singularity of life (taking in its most
>> elementary form as life relation of unicellular to its objective
>> field).
>>
>> This singularity splits itself into the opposition of object oriented
>> activity as it is and reflexive or self directed activity which
>> mediates the
>> very object oriented activity starting from multicellular animals.
>> From this
>> point of view the human language is not something alien to the
>> human object
>> oriented activity (like conventional sign) but something basically
>> congeneric to it, a definite level of its own evolution.
>>
>> Meanwhile LSV starting from two independent roots tried to solve an
>> insolvable task -- establish some "dialectical" relation between
>> them.
>>
>> In one of his rather old articles Andy Blunden asserted:
>>
>> "Vygotsky observes that previous study of the thought-language
>> relationship
>> considered the genesis of each side of the relation in isolation
>> and assumed
>> that the relation between the two was invariable; or alternatively,
>> mechanically identified the two. On the contrary, Vygotsky
>> proposed the
>> necessity of conceiving of the object of investigation as a unity of
>> opposites and that the inherent genesis of the relation was at its
>> very
>> essence."
>>
>> This is true, to realize the dialectical approach one has to find
>> in the
>> reality (not only in own imagination) "a unity of opposites". But if
>> according to LSV "In their ontogenetic development, thought and
>> speech have
>> different roots" the unity of such opposites will have arbitrary, not
>> dialectical character. To be dialectical opposites the sides of
>> our unity
>> must have one and the same root.
>>
>> Thus LSV's attempt to set dialectic against metaphysics of his
>> predecessors
>> failed so that his reflections (at least in case of language and
>> thought
>> relation) entirely remain in dualistic trap.
>> Surely all this can be relatively clear only from the position "on
>> the
>> shoulders" of Vygotsky, Leont'ev and especially Il'enkov.
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Ana Marjanovic-Shane
>> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:15 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Unbelievable - & Spanish
>>
>>
>> It does sound paradoxical, but in fact the word "language" does
>> not mean
>> the same in both statements from Derrida. The can both be true if we
>> have different meanings for "language".
>>
>> As for whether LSV's thinking was fully or not fully dialectical, can
>> you cans some references for the texts you are mentioning,
>> Michael? What
>> you said is interesting because I sometimes see Vygotsky's texts as
>> totally dialectical and sometimes I have the feeling that he is
>> trying
>> to break away from the paradigms he had criticized himself, but is
>> not
>> quite where he wants to be. But I have not read anybody else's
>> thoughts
>> on that.
>>
>> Ana
>>
>>
>>
>> Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In all your deliberations about (mono, bi-, multi-) lingualism,
>>
>>
>>> consider the following incompossible, contradictory propositions
>>> that
>>
>>
>>> are truly dialectical in their tenure and are sublated in actual
>>> human
>>
>>
>>> praxis:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 1. We only ever speak one language.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. We never speak only one language.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> (Derrida, 1998, p. 7)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Derrida, J. (1998). Monolingualism of the Other; or, The
>>> prosthesis of
>>
>>
>>> origin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> To anyone interested in a dialectical account that LSV never could
>>
>>
>>> achieve because he was not fully thinking dialectically---
>>> according to
>>
>>
>>> a number of texts I recently came across---I recommend this little
>>
>>
>>> booklet very highly.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think we are allowed, and this is fully compatible with a
>>
>>
>>> dialectical theory of science (see Il'enkov) to go beyond the giants
>>
>>
>>> (i.e., LSV) on whose shoulders we stand.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 20-Oct-06, at 10:08 AM, nacho.montero@uam.es wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ok guys,
>>>
>>
>>
>>> let's go with bilingualism
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Vale,
>>>
>>
>>
>>> vamos con el bilinguismo
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As a first time, I´m going to try with both languages at the same
>>> time.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Como es la primera vez, voy a intentar usar las dos lenguas.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> My comment today is that it is very important to realize that a real
>>>
>>
>>
>>> bilingualism should include scientific knowledge -whatever you
>>> want to
>>>
>>
>>
>>> understand by this.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Mi primer comentario es que considero muy importante darse cuenta de
>>
>>
>>> que un
>>>
>>
>>
>>> bilinguismo total debe incluir el conocimiento científico.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Last week, Olga Vazquez visited my University and made a
>>> presentation
>>
>>
>>> on "La
>>>
>>
>>
>>> clase mágica". One of the most relevant comments from the audience
>>
>>
>>> -all of us
>>>
>>
>>
>>> spanish researchers and undergradute students- was about the
>>> assymetrical
>>>
>>
>>
>>> bilingualism that we still perceived within that so interesting
>>
>>
>>> experience
>>>
>>
>>
>>> implemented by Olga and her collaborators.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> La semana pasada Olga Vazquez estuvo en mi Universidad
>>> presentando su
>>>
>>
>>
>>> investigación en "La clase Mágica". El comentario más repetido por
>>
>>
>>> parte de la
>>>
>>
>>
>>> audiencia fue sobre nuestra percepción de que el bilinguismo
>>> implícito
>>
>>
>>> en la
>>>
>>
>>
>>> experiencia es todavía asimétrico.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> We expressed this idea in terms of a defense of Spanish as a
>>> scientic
>>>
>>
>>
>>> language. But we also realized that it would be applied to other
>>
>>
>>> languages and
>>>
>>
>>
>>> we made a parallelism between the Mexican at the USA and the arabian
>>
>>
>>> at Spain.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Expresamos esa idea como la necesidad de defender el español como
>>
>>
>>> lenguaje
>>>
>>
>>
>>> científico. Pero también éramos conscientes de que eso afecta al
>>> resto
>>
>>
>>> de las
>>>
>>
>>
>>> lenguas. Reflexionamos sobre la situación de los inmigrantes de
>>> origen
>>
>>
>>> árabe
>>>
>>
>>
>>> en ESpaña y establecíamos un cierto paralelismo con la situación
>>> de los
>>>
>>
>>
>>> inmigrantes de origen Mexicano (hispanos en general) implicados
>>> en la
>>
>>
>>> Clase
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Mágica.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So I think is time to tackle the issue in XMCA, but I wonder if
>>> Thought &
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Language is to long as a first attempt. We can go twofold. Just some
>>
>>
>>> chapters
>>>
>>
>>
>>> from T&L. Or just some chapters from M in S. I'll delighted any way.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Así que creo que ha llegado el momento de abordar este asunto dentro
>>
>>
>>> de XMCA
>>>
>>
>>
>>> pero creo que Pensamiento y Lenguaje puede resultad demasiado largo
>>
>>
>>> para un
>>>
>>
>>
>>> primer intento. Podemos empezar por algún capítulo aunque también
>>> podemos
>>>
>>
>>
>>> hacer lo mismo con "Mind in Society". Estaré encantado con
>>> cualquiera
>>
>>
>>> de las
>>>
>>
>>
>>> dos opciones.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> NACHO.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Mensaje enviado mediante una herramienta Webmail integrada en *El
>>
>>
>>> Rincon*:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> ------------->>>>>>>> https://rincon.uam.es
>>
>>
>>> <<<<<<<<--------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>>> xmca mailing list
>>>
>>
>>
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>>> xmca mailing list
>>>
>>
>>
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.
>
> 151 W. Tulpehocken St.
>
> Philadelphia, PA 19144
>
> Home office: (215) 843-2909
>
> Mobile: (267) 334-2905
>
> ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>
>
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <http://www.speakeasy.org/%
> 7Eanamshane>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.151 W. Tulpehocken St.
Philadelphia, PA 19144
Home office: (215) 843-2909
Mobile: (267) 334-2905
ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>
http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <http://www.speakeasy.org/% 7Eanamshane>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST