[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Levy-Bruhl, "primitivism", progress and etc.
Larry:
I think I will stick with the old subject line for now. It's not just that I am afraid of incurring Mike's IRE (an acronym for a particularly baleful form of behavioristic discourse analysis pioneered by Sinclair and Coulthard, namely Initiate-Respond-Evaluate). It is that I really agree with the points he made about access to material. If we are going to offer open access--both to readers and to writers--then the subject line is our only hope for indexing and thus the sole promise of eternal life.
I also think that xmca is our equivalent of an open access journal, and I agree with Andy that we should have also have a non-open access print version; I am only extremely frustrated--as I think many other writers are--that I cannot actually get anything accepted by the journal, not even by co-authors who have been accepted by the journal. But perhaps that is the whole point; some areas of publication must have standards, and standards can be highly exclusive without being particularly high.
And so you see--any good conversation is diffusive as well as discursive. I would like to use this post to comment on a number of different threads--the primitivism thread, the progress thread, the open access thread, and the cohesion/coherence distinction, with a brief aside to answer Mike's query about N. Ia. Marr. But that won't fit in the subject line.
There are two possible solutions. One is centripetal; it is to ignore the surrounding context and to simply choose a subject line that includes all of the things I want to talk about and none of the things I don't want to talk about. And the other is centrifugal; it is to take the subject line as I find it and to ignore all of the things in it that I don't want to talk about.
This time, I choose the latter, because I find in Jay's post the hook that I think ties the all together, and I want to connect Jay's post to the thread. Jay raises the issue of linguistic egalitarianism (not, I think, relativism at all, because relativism is about difference and this is about sameness).
Is it the case that any language can express any thought more or less well, and thus that all languages, that is, all of the diverse mediums so central to the development of human thinking, are in some essential, existential, potential sense equal? If so, then we we are all intellectually equal. If not, some of us are more equal than others.
Jay is a Hallidayan (as, somewhat critically, I am). As a Hallidayan, he thinks that English underwent a fundamental transformation with Newton (as did Latin, Italian, and European languages generally with Galileo). Newton transformed the language in the direction of mathematics: processes such as "to grow" and attributes such as "deep" could be nominalized in forms such as "growth" and "depth".
This allowed processes and attributes to become terms in verbal equations--"Growth" could be the subject of a sentence and could be placed in a relationship with other nouns. We can even talk about the "depth of growth" and "the growth of depth" and even "the depth of growth", which is pretty weird, when you think about it (probably why we say it without thinking very much). These processes and attributes, nominalized, could then be classified, defined, and enter into other thematic relations (which Jay brilliantly describes in one of his earliest books, "Talking Science").
Now, what I want to argue is that this process is only one step (not even the culimination) of a much longer historical process. We can see something of what this process might have been like when we observe how child language develops.
If you think of a three year old nagging his or her mother for a treat on a hot day, you can imagine a series of very very short turns of talk ("I wanna....why not....but I wanna....so gimme...") to which there are somewhat longer rejoinders ("Well, I'm worried that it will spoil your appetite" and "Wait until after you have your dinner" and so on). We can imagine that a great deal of text was once like this: theatrical and dialogic in precisely this way.
But a few years go by, and soon the child's speech much more clearly resembles that of the mother. Now, partly this is because the child has learned to imitate but it is not at all a mindless imitation; far from it. The chld says things no adult would ever say, e.g. "Mommy you said that I could have a double spumoni super duper magnum soda if it woudn't spoil my appetite and I ate a whole diet salad for lunch and it's already three o'clock in the afternoon so....
It's really only when the child goes to college, graduates, and gets a job in a small advertising agency that we find the child writing in a Newtonian manner, and even then it is mostly in a particular kind of language reserved for business contracts ("Distribution of rewards is commensurate with the satisfaction of the following conditions:...") and not in writing advertising slogans (which must be read by little children and their parents) or emails to the boss.
Now there is a very important sense in which Jay is right when he tells us that the Newtonian and Galileian manner of writing is more developed and produces more developed thinking. But it is equally true that this manner of writing is narrower, and that it can always be deconstrued into the forms of writing and speaking which composed it, historically and developmentally.
It seems to me that when linguistic egalitarians like me claim that all languages can express all human thoughts, we are actually making a fairly trivial claim, rather like saying that all writing systems can express, more or less well, every sound that the human vocal tract is capable of making.
It also seems to me that this claim is related, by blood, to Bruner's claim contra Piaget that it is possible to teach any child any truth in some way that it is still true, something I also believe.
Some language (e.g. the child's nagging the mother, and the literary language of Beowulf) do this by giving us one thing and then another. There is complexity, but it is the complexity of the ant walking along the seashore, one step at a time.
The potential coherence, and the actual coherence, of the argument is provided by others, or by the environment, and the actual language user experiences his or her agency only as a potential and not as real free will.
Other language (e.g. the older child who incorporates possible objections from the mother into syntax, and of course the Newtonian and Galileian verbal mathematical language) does this through conceptualization, encouraged, in the case of Enlgish, by a process of nominalization which allows us to place nouns in a hierarchical tree diagramme.
The complexity is much more like the complexity of a vertebrate, because it is incorporated into the text (either as syntax or as complex morphology) rather than placed outside it in the environment or worn externally as an exoskeleton.
Are these languages equal? Yes, and not simply potentially, and not simply because we know, from historical and even developmental experience that we can construe and reconstrue the one into the other.
When we take the view of COHERENCE, we see that the only real difference is that they construe coherence in different ways: the Newtonian model has much more explicit markers of this coherence which linguists call "cohesion", while the small child relies on interpersonal negotiation of coherences as he goes along.
The claim of linguistic egalitarianism, if it were ONLY made on the pie-in-the-sky grounds of "meaning potential" (that is, all languages have the same meaning potential) would be an empty claim. However, it's not empty--it is educationally extremely rich. I would like to base it not on the distinction between meaning potential and realized meaning, but rather on the distinction between coherence and cohesion.
Consider a sentence like:
"I had lunch, because I was hungry."
We will call this "coherence with cohesion". In this sentence, the word "because" realizes coherence as cohesion; it is the speech marker of a relationship which is actually thinking, and not speech.Compare:
"I had lunch, so I was hungry"
We can call this "cohesion without coherence". Of course I know that it is possible to construct a context where this sentence is coherent (e.g. I ate lunch in our professors' cafeteria, which is now experiencing a severe round of cutbacks) but the coherence is not realized by the conventional meaning of the word "so" and instead lies, like the complexity of the child's understanding, in the context, in the sense (smysl) rather than in the canonical, conventional, meaning (znachenie) of the actual speech.
Compare again:
A: Hungry?
B: I had lunch.
We can all this coherence without cohesion, because there is no linguistic overlap of any kind, no repetition of canonical, conventional elements, only pure variation.
I think that the way in which equal meaning potential can be realized by different people and different cultures is (for the moment, in our present period in this century) by means that gradually turn external coherence (interpersonal congruence of wh-questions and answers) into internal cohesion (e.g. the use of wh-clauses not as questions but as clause elements) in speech.
When we consider this process from the point of view of thinking, however, we can see that it is almost the opposite. From the point of view of thinking, it is the external markers of cohesion (e.g. wh-words, or y/n modal elements) which are transformed into internal coherence.
So I think that the claims of linguistic egalitarianism are not empty or simply based on abstract meaning potential. They are in a real, historical sense EDUCATIONALLY very full, because they are based on a real skill: the ability to take coherence without cohesion, to reconstrue it as coherence with cohesion, and to re-reconstrue interpersonal cohesion as various forms of intra-personal coherence.
But that is a very long name for a skill that we must use every single day of our lives. Let us reconstrue it as a single everyday word: teaching.
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
.
--- On Sun, 3/4/12, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Levy-Bruhl, "primitivism", progress and etc.
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, March 4, 2012, 8:23 AM
Tammy
Thank you for gathering together the threads on the topic Progress:
Illusion or Reality.
The term "illusion" and the term "fiction" have something in common.
Therefore
As a play on words I believe "progress" may also be considered as a
different relation of the terms "illusion" & "reality"
"Progress: Illusion IS Reality"
"Progress: Fiction IS Reality"
[see comment to David below]
David
Seems we need to start a new thread with the title
Coherence: Repetition, Variation, or a NECESSARY tension?
I have been circling this topic recently as I have been exploring the theme
of "repetition" [In particular the concepts of "the uncanny", "unheimlich"
and "unhomely" as the tension between the themes of "being at HOME in the
world" in contrast to experiencing the world as "unhomely".
Concepts such as the "repetition complex" in our search for a sense of
coherence and the alternative theme of the world as a place/space of
variation.
The tension within themes of "reality" as "material reality" or "aesthetic
reality" I have been "playing " with recently.
David, over the last year I have noticed your continuing exploration of the
place of the aesthetic [poetic vision] within cultural historical theory.
Today's post on the concept of "coherence" seems to be one more example of
this exploration of variation or repetition.
Larry
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:05 AM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
> I would just like to say a few words in defense of changing the heading on
> threads, something which I have often incurred Mike's ire by doing.
>
> I recognize why Mike dislikes this and I sympathize.It does indeed make it
> much harder to follow the thread, to archive it, and to find a thread that
> you want to refer to (for example, if you look at Tammy's digest of our
> conversation you will notice that the subthread "Progress: Illusion or
> Reality" is entirely missing).
>
> It also emphasizes individuality and even quirkiness (singletons rather
> than waves in the ether) and even suggests that our list is not a
> continuous conversation but only a set of speeches by people largely
> talking past each other.
>
> All of these are heavy criticisms and major drawbacks. But I still think
> that conversations are every bit as much about TENSION as about
> COHERENCE--they are about VARIATION as much as REPETITION. In fact, I
> rather think the tension is more important than the coherence, and the
> variation more essential than the repetition.
>
> Sometime in the twenties, N. Ia. Marr, who participated in Vygotsky's
> seminar on semiotics alongside people like Sergei Eisenstein, suggested
> that we perform the Gedankenexperiment of imagining a language that
> consists of a single word, to be differently intoned.
>
> Marr suggested that this is what early man's speech must have been like
> (and he even pointed to the fact that the child's first language is
> precisely of this nature). He asked if such a one word lexicon could be
> considered a complete language.
>
> I think that Voloshinov and Vygotsky, on the basis of Dostoevsky example
> of the drunken workmen (cited, identically, in Marxism and the Philosophy
> of Language and in Chapter Seven of Thinking and Speech) would concur: The
> answer is yes, because the essence of language is really the mutable
> formulation and not the self-identical form. But if they had posted this
> answer to Marr's question on a listserv, they would have given it different
> subject lines.
>
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>
> --- On Fri, 3/2/12, Anthony Barra <tub80742@temple.edu> wrote:
>
>
> From: Anthony Barra <tub80742@temple.edu>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Levy-Bruhl, "primitivism", progress and etc.
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Friday, March 2, 2012, 4:32 PM
>
>
> Quite helpful! Thank you, Tammy.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:28 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tammy Powell created this summary of the discussion up to recently. It is
> > still moving in a couple of threads, at least. Perhaps having it brought
> > together like this would be helpful to others? Or is it a distraction in
> > the flow?
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Tamara Powell <tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Levy-Bruhl, concrete psychology and "primitivism"
> > To: lchcmike@gmail.com, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >
> >
> > Okay, here's the updated versions. I added Larry Purss' comment from a
> day
> > ago.
> >
> > Tammy :)
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:10 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, thenh. Tammy Make small changes Andy suggested and send out to me,
> > As
> > > life allows, I will read, listen, watch, and deal with it.
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I hesitate to enter this kitchen.
> > >> Couple of comments. The vimeo link appears a second time. Not
> required.
> > >> *words inside asterisks* can be bold.
> > >>
> > >> I guess when it's complete, put it on the web site and send a message
> to
> > >> the list about it,
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >> mike cole wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks a lot, Tammy. I am going to cc Andy on this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andy, the idea is to pull together a bunch of different, but
> > >>> interrelated, threads so that the overall topic is more visible.
> > >>> I gotta get off line, but this needs purusing. It should be fed
> > >>> back into xmca.
> > >>> mike
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Tamara Powell <
> > >>> tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com<
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hey Mike,
> > >>>
> > >>> Here's a .pdf and .docx with all three conversations and with
> > >>> notes about where conversations split/go to.
> > >>>
> > >>> I hope this is helpful!
> > >>>
> > >>> Tammy
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Its not a hurry up thing, but a thing to be done. An example
> > >>> of how a single discussion that is really worthwhile is
> > >>> degraded by different headers etc, and confusions. ..... but
> > >>> with some effort, the core topic can be discerned and maybe
> > >>> some knowledge crystalized.
> > >>> mike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Tamara Powell
> > >>> <tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com <
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> No problem, should be fine. I probably won't be able to
> > >>> finish until tomorrow afternoon, but I'll try to figure
> > >>> out a good way to condense things.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tammy :)
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:14 PM, mike cole
> > >>> <lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If you can. I think they are all part of the same
> > >>> topic. Am i nuts?
> > >>> m,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Tamara Powell
> > >>> <tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com<
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The two other threads I see that seem connected
> > >>> are:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [xmca] Bateson's distinction between digital and
> > >>> analog
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [xmca] Levy-Bruhl, concrete psychology and
> > >>> "primitivism" (was: Re: [xmca] Bateson's
> > >>> distinction between digital and analog)
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you want me to put all three threads together?
> > >>>
> > >>> Tammy
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:40 PM, mike cole
> > >>> <lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Beautiful, but there is stuff by kellog on
> > >>> this I am pretty
> > >>> sure. Check the archive for about past two
> > weeks.
> > >>> m
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Tamara Powell
> > >>> <tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com<
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Mike,
> > >>>
> > >>> How's this? Do you want me or you to send
> > >>> it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Tammy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM, mike
> > >>> cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Tammy-- Could you find a way to make a
> > >>> single document that contains this
> > >>> discussion and the link to the vimeo
> > >>> to send out to xmca. I am really
> > >>> interested in getting the discussion
> > >>> straight, but l am way too
> > >>> pressed to go back and make a coherent
> > >>> set. Could you?
> > >>> mike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM,
> > >>> Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com
> > >>> <mailto:stevegabosch@me.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin, to supplement your
> > >>> analysis below, could you attach,
> > >>> or copy to text the slide you used
> > >>> at ISCAR quoting the babalawo
> > >>> teaching his client about the
> > >>> astral? It can be read but not
> > >>> all at once in the Vimeo - which I
> > >>> highly recommend, btw (only 20
> > >>> minutes long) - thank you Andy for
> > >>> putting that up and pointing it
> out.
> > >>>
> > >>> The astral is a very interesting
> > >>> concept. I cannot think of an
> > >>> equivalent word in English, or
> > >>> even a quick definition for the
> > >>> term - yet your presentation gives
> > >>> me just enough to get an intuitive
> > >>> sense of it. The meaning is
> > >>> familiar - but I don't have clear
> > >>> words for it. What is your take
> > >>> on what the concept of the astral
> > >>> is to a babalawo and others who
> > >>> use the term?
> > >>>
> > >>> And what an imposing translation
> > >>> job this kind of research must
> > >>> require - across modes of
> > >>> production, continents, eras,
> > >>> classes - and of course,
> > >>> languages. No wonder so few
> > >>> researchers try to do something
> > >>> like this! It must be extremely
> > >>> difficult to translate concepts
> > >>> across such expanses in time,
> > >>> space, class and mind. It grossly
> > >>> oversimplifies the task to just
> > >>> describe it as the challenge of
> > >>> translating a localized, religious
> > >>> and mostly oral use of Spanish to
> > >>> written and formal CHAT-ese
> > >>> English - but that begins to give
> > >>> a flavor of how complex it must
> > >>> be. I salute you, Martin, and all
> > >>> those in CHAT, with Mike as the
> > >>> great-granddad, who have been
> > >>> doing this remarkable kind of
> > >>> work. It is one of the
> > >>> cutting-edge aspects of CHAT.
> > >>>
> > >>> What intrigues me about the astral
> > >>> is how psychologically *concrete*
> > >>> this concept seems to be in the
> > >>> lives of the people interested in
> > >>> the Oruba and Santaria religions.
> > >>> Its concreteness strikes me in at
> > >>> least two ways.
> > >>>
> > >>> One is the role of the concept of
> > >>> the astral in making lifestyle
> > >>> choices about loaning out personal
> > >>> belongings such as clothing,
> > >>> towels, soap. You point to the
> > >>> solidity of the babalawo's
> > >>> argument. My intuition is telling
> > >>> me he can do this because of the
> > >>> concreteness of the concept of the
> > >>> astral he is relying on and
> > >>> explaining.
> > >>>
> > >>> Another aspect of concreteness I
> > >>> think I detect is the role of the
> > >>> concept of the astral as part of
> > >>> what is apparently an elaborate
> > >>> system of psychological and social
> > >>> concepts that can be used to
> > >>> describe, explain and predict
> > >>> human behavior. I think of that
> > >>> endeavor as 'concrete' because I
> > >>> can't think of anything people
> > >>> like to talk about more! And the
> > >>> concept of the astral seems to
> > >>> clearly enable that kind of
> > >>> conversation. (And it is much
> > >>> catchier than "higher mental
> > >>> functions," don't you think?)
> > >>>
> > >>> The babalawo describes the astral
> > >>> as luck, as stability, as being
> > >>> potentially negative, of having
> > >>> your astral or your luck stolen,
> > >>> as enveloping or being enveloped,
> > >>> etc. Many complex possibilities
> > >>> and configurations are indicated
> > >>> in a single stream of
> > >>> explanations. Like concepts such
> > >>> as karma, soul, aura, etc. there
> > >>> seems to be some long-developed
> > >>> knowledge about the nature of
> > >>> human relations contained in the
> > >>> concept of the astral. But I
> > >>> can't quite put this implicit
> > >>> knowledge into explicit words.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> - Steve
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 1:57 PM,
> > >>> Martin Packer wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I was hoping someone might
> > >>> analyze this passage for me,
> > >>> but I guess I'll have to do it
> > >>> myself!
> > >>>
> > >>> Much of the babalawo's talk
> > >>> takes the form of advice,
> > >>> recommendations, obligations
> > >>> for the future conduct of the
> > >>> client. What she has to do, or
> > >>> ought to do, includes “go to
> > >>> the church and make mass for
> > >>> you deceased relatives,” “look
> > >>> after your mother, by phone,”
> > >>> “arrange a sacrifice,” “pray,”
> > >>> “wear your hair loose,” and so
> > >>> on. In the excerpt above, the
> > >>> advice is to stop lending her
> > >>> clothes.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is worth considering in
> > >>> detail the way this advice is
> > >>> offered. In this excerpt it is
> > >>> grounded in what “Orula says”
> > >>> (93) but immediately a warrant
> > >>> is added: “because that is
> > >>> stealing your luck” (we have
> > >>> translated suerte as ‘luck,’
> > >>> but it could equally be
> > >>> ‘fate’). This is then
> > >>> clarified, and then the
> > >>> babalawo recommends to the
> > >>> client that she make her own
> > >>> observation; if she does so,
> > >>> she will see that her sister,
> > >>> who on occasion uses her
> > >>> clothes, is happy, content,
> > >>> while she, the client, is not
> > >>> (94-96). This is presented as
> > >>> an empirical demonstration of
> > >>> the Orula’s point: due to the
> > >>> fact that her sister has worn
> > >>> her clothes, the client’s
> > >>> astral has been stolen. It
> > >>> also counters a possible
> > >>> rebuttal: the “If not…” can be
> > >>> glossed as “If you don’t
> > >>> believe me, consider this…”
> > >>> The consequence of this is
> > >>> that the client is unhappy,
> > >>> while her sister is happy. The
> > >>> babalawo then offers
> > >>> additional clarification,
> > >>> “because…” one can wash ones
> > >>> clothes a hundred times, the
> > >>> astral of the person who wore
> > >>> them cannot be removed
> > >>> (96-98). This displays a
> > >>> counter to a possible
> > >>> qualification that the loss of
> > >>> one’s astral might be
> > >>> prevented by the simple
> > >>> expedient of washing the
> > >>> clothes that have been
> > >>> borrowed. Then he adds what
> > >>> could be taken as an appeal to
> > >>> his authority, or a
> > >>> confirmation that he himself
> > >>> lives by the advice he is
> > >>> offering to her: “We, the
> > >>> religious, don’t loan our
> > >>> clothing…” (98). This
> > >>> functions as backing to the
> > >>> validity of the central
> > >>> claims. He elaborates further;
> > >>> not only clothing should not
> > >>> be shared, but also shoes,
> > >>> towels, soap. Nor do they do
> > >>> the reciprocal: they don’t
> > >>> “wear the clothes of another
> > >>> person” (101), this countering
> > >>> the possible objection that if
> > >>> the effect works one way, it
> > >>> ought to work in the opposite
> > >>> direction, but this has not
> > >>> been mentioned.
> > >>>
> > >>> The passage displays a complex
> > >>> and subtle argumentative
> > >>> organization. It starts with
> > >>> the central claim, then a
> > >>> warrant (“because…”), then a
> > >>> more explicit statement of the
> > >>> mechanism that is claimed to
> > >>> be operating (“wear someone’s
> > >>> clothes… steals their luck”),
> > >>> then it counters a possible
> > >>> rebuttal, then counters a
> > >>> possible qualification. Then a
> > >>> backing is provided, and a
> > >>> further warrant. Finally,
> > >>> another possible qualification
> > >>> is countered.
> > >>>
> > >>> Recall Toulmin's model of
> > >>> argument:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> <Toulmin.pdf>
> > >>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:54 AM,
> > >>> Martin Packer wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Steve mentioned the
> > >>> presentation I gave at
> > >>> ISCAR, on a study
> > >>> conducted by a student
> > >>> here in Colombia (Silvia
> > >>> Tibaduisa) of the
> > >>> babalawo. I discussed an
> > >>> excerpt from a divination
> > >>> session; here it is:
> > >>>
> > >>> Let me ask a little
> > >>> question. You live in a
> > >>> aparte-studio... in an
> > >>> apartment, with other
> > >>> people. What person wears
> > >>> your clothing?
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. Sometimes my cousin
> > >>> or my sister uses them
> > >>>
> > >>> Orula says not to lend
> > >>> your clothes any more,
> > >>> because that is stealing
> > >>> your luck. That the person
> > >>> who wears someone’s
> > >>> clothes steals their
> > >>> astral, steals their luck.
> > >>> If not, make an
> > >>> observation yourself, of
> > >>> how your cousin lives and
> > >>> how you live. She's all
> > >>> happy, all content, and
> > >>> you’re not. That is how
> > >>> someone’s luck, stability,
> > >>> leaves them. Because
> > >>> [when] one lends their
> > >>> astral, although one
> > >>> washes it 100 times, it
> > >>> takes holds of the astral
> > >>> of the other person as
> > >>> well, and if it’s a
> > >>> negative astral, it also
> > >>> includes one. We, the
> > >>> religious, don’t loan our
> > >>> clothing, we don’t bathe
> > >>> with the same towel or the
> > >>> same soap. We don’t lend
> > >>> underwear, socks, shoes,
> > >>> anything. Because these
> > >>> are one's personal things
> > >>> and that takes hold of
> > >>> your astral. Nor wear the
> > >>> clothes of another person.
> > >>>
> > >>> The English reads a little
> > >>> oddly because I prefer
> > >>> literalish translations.
> > >>> There are a number of
> > >>> interesting
> > >>> characteristics to this
> > >>> exchange, but I want to
> > >>> focus on the reasoning
> > >>> involved. I would suggest
> > >>> that it is perfectly
> > >>> recognizable to us.
> > >>> Substitute a more familiar
> > >>> premise: not "when someone
> > >>> wears your clothes they
> > >>> steal your astral" but
> > >>> "when someone uses your
> > >>> toothbrush they give you
> > >>> bacteria" and the rest
> > >>> follows logically, doesn't
> > >>> it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > ______________________________
> > >>> ____________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> xmca mailing list
> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> <mailto:
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >>>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/*
> > >>> *listinfo/xmca <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> ______________________________**
> > >>> ____________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> xmca mailing list
> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**
> > >>> listinfo/xmca <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ______________________________**
> > >>> ____________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> xmca mailing list
> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**
> > >>> listinfo/xmca <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Tamara
> Powell
> > >>> tjpowell@ucsd.edu
> > >>> <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com<
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Tamara Powell
> > >>> tjpowell@ucsd.edu <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**
> > >>> gmail.com <tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Tamara Powell
> > >>> tjpowell@ucsd.edu <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com<
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Tamara Powell
> > >>> tjpowell@ucsd.edu <mailto:tamarajeanpowell@**gmail.com<
> > tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > >> ------------
> > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > >> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<
> > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
> > >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<
> > http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tamara Powell
> > tjpowell@ucsd.edu <tamarajeanpowell@gmail.com>
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca