Re: [xmca] Toolsfor thought (corrigendum)

Your summary certainly makes it appear that Luria is being
self-contradictory, David.
Bella's responses make it seem less so, but it seems worthwhile for us to
try to get
the original articles in common among us for discussion. The issues are
clearly
more complicated than my brief response of a few days ago assumed.

Your article was very interesting, Bella. There were so many papers given at
the Luria
memorial in Moscow in 2002 that I missed many and your among them so it is
great to see.

As coincidence would have it, I am working on a large, collective, review
article with Ardilla
and colleagues on literacy and the brain. I have sent separately a draft of
a review article
that has some of this material in it, but your article has references I have
never encountered.
Thanks for sending it.

The general area of reciprocal relations between cultural experience and
brain development are
a generally under-studied area of research in the CHAT tradition, and it is
great to see increasing
interest in it now.
mike

On 7/6/07, bella kotik <bella.kotik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear David!
> *On p. 193 Luria associates inner speech with Chomsky's "deep structures"
> and implies that these are located in the brain. , , which ARL associates
> (194) with Chomsky$B!v(Bs deep structure!
> *I'd like to see it.
>
> I read the chapter "Neuropsychological analysis of understanding of speech
> message" in "Basic problems of neurolinguistics" (in Russian). Though it
> is
> "Neuropsychological analysis", Luria refers to Chomsky's terminology but
> does NOT connect his concepts to ANY brain structure. In citing you use I
> do
> not see it either.
>
>
> *b) He then discusses $B"((Bthought$B!x(B, and claims that all words have thought
> with
> the possible exception of collocations/exclamations ($B"((Bugh!$B!x(B $B"((Blook!$B!x(B $B"((Bdamn
> it!$B!x(B) and to some extent dialogue speech. I don't agree with this at all;
> it
> seems to exclude affect from the realm of thought.*
> **
> That is your conclusion, not Luria's, he followed Vygotsky's concept of
> unity of affect and intellect.
> What he meant is that when in cases of total aphasia sometimes patients
> can
> only exclaim such utterances and curse.
>
>
> * I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that. Is music less
> "thoughtful"
> than literature simply because it is less verbal? Is mathematics less
> thoughtful than social science?*
>
> Hope these ??? are rhetorical. But think of recent data in the field of
> Emotional intelligence which show that amigdala can control rather complex
> behavior with reaction time impossible for any thought.
>
> *Even more puzzling is the cases where Luria says that in an exchange
> where
> "the content of the answer is determined to a considerable degree by the
> interlocutor and in which the existence of finer thought is assumed only
> in
> cases in which the answer prepared is not wholly determined by the
> question." If I understand this correctly, Luria thinks that in the
> following exchange, A is thinking but B is not.*
> A: Marry me or I will kill myself.
> B: OK.
>
> **
> Luria would not agree with you so do I- it seems you take it to such an
> extreme where it is already something different. He as Vygotsky in
> "Lang.&Thought" speaks about the role of contexts
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Sat Jul 7 11:49 PDT 2007