Here is the figure in jpg.
Michael
On 22-Jul-05, at 10:46 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> The Figure didn't transmit, Michael.
>
> If you have not read it, you must read Kundera's *Book of Laughter
> and Forgetting*--
> I am not use to talking in terms of dialectics, often using the term,
> "animonies." I
> have a great quote from Marx on the subject. Thanks for helping me
> find a
> comfortable bridge between animonies and dialectiecs. So interesting
> it took
> so many years!
> mike
>
> On 7/22/05, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
>> In a chapter for an encyclopedia on urban education, I write about
>> identity, which similarly involves a triple dialectic: between same
>> and
>> other, material body and person, and between the two sets. I developed
>> this from some ideas that i got from ONESELF AS ANOTHER (Ricur,
>> 1992),
>> but which I now realize are already present in PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT
>> (MIND) (Hegel, 1977)--e.g., "they (subjectivities) _recognize_
>> themselves as _mutually recognizing_ one another" p.112).
>>
>> Meaning, too, is related to these dialectics (the same person -- other
>> person dimension, for example, constituting the individual|collective
>> dialectic). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity always arise together,
>> are dialectically related, with social interaction occupying the
>> middle, mediating ground.
>>
>> Meaning is
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Figure 1. Different dialectical relations emerge from the contrast of
>> same and other, on the one hand, and material body and person, on the
>> other, both in cultural (phylogenetic) and individual (ontogenetic)
>> development.
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> On 22-Jul-05, at 9:58 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>
>> > Michael.
>> >
>> > You suggest:
>> >
>> > "personal" to situate "sense."
>> >
>> > Perhaps that gives us an entry point to understanding meaning, as a
>> > generalized version of personal sense, that is, the possibilities
>> of
>> > sense available at the collective level.
>> >
>> > Personal sense certainly seems to be what is mean't. (Where
>> personal
>> > is a synthesis of self-other interactions/experiences). And
>> meaning is
>> > generalized, embodied in words and other semiotic means. Meaning
>> > changes,
>> > but at a cultural-historical, not an ontogenetic or microgenetic
>> time
>> > scale..
>> >
>> > We might be able to use this same example to illlustrate the way in
>> > which
>> > meaning, having become generalized (used to mediate activity in
>> many
>> > settings)
>> > is "relatively" stable-- relative to the stabililty of the local
>> > dynamics of life, at least.
>> >
>> > I hope this makes sense. I am somewhat unuzed tothinking in triple
>> > dialectics, Michael,
>> > but your summary is plausible to me.
>> > mike
>> >
>> > On 7/22/05, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
>> >> When I was reading Peg's lines, MY first question was not about
>> >> linguistic issues but about what people are making in
>> >> "meaning-making".
>> >> Then after reading Mike's and Gordon's comments, I was further
>> >> thinking
>> >> about meaning and its relation to sense.
>> >>
>> >> If I understand right, sense is tied to the relation of activity
>> >> (something collectively motivated) and action (something
>> individually
>> >> realized). So sense arises from the dialectic relation of self and
>> >> other, individual and collective. Some writers use the qualifier
>> >> "personal" to situate "sense."
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps that gives us an entry point to understanding meaning, as a
>> >> generalized version of personal sense, that is, the possibilities
>> of
>> >> sense available at the collective level.
>> >>
>> >> Such an approach would allow us to approach meaning in a
>> dialectical
>> >> way, paralleling the individual|collective dialectic, and therefore
>> >> locating it as the dialectic of two other dialectics.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Michael
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 22-Jul-05, at 8:08 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Great timing, Gordon. you answered part of my question re
>> Halliday
>> >> and
>> >> > the
>> >> > equivalent distinction. Thanks!
>> >> > mike
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 7/22/05, Gordon Wells <gwells@ucsc.edu> wrote: >Gordon, I've
>> >> often
>> >> > thought along the lines you explore about how it relates
>> >> >> >to Vygotsky's meaning/sense discussion.Maybe it reflects his
>> >> roots
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> >philology.If so, then maybe we can push it a little further.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Gordon's list of alternatives were:
>> "dynamic/everyday/narrative v.
>> >> >> >synoptic/scientific/paradigmatic modes of meaning-making."When
>> I
>> >> >> see
>> >> >> >"paradigmatic," I look for "syntagmatic."Maybe for Gordon this
>> is
>> >> >> in both
>> >> >> >or either "dynamic" and "synoptic?"
>> >> >> >I understand paradigmatic and syntagmatic as mutually
>> constitutive
>> >> >> not so
>> >> >> >much "versus."So, for example, for linguists (I think whether
>> you
>> >> >> look
>> >> >> >back to Prague School or further to Panini) the copula verb
>> ("to
>> >> be"
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> >English) as a paradigm (for example: be am is are were been) is
>> >> >> relentlessly
>> >> >> >tied to/emerging with its syntax (I am. She is. etc.).The
>> >> >> syntagmatic
>> >> >> >patterning is not just a methodological frame for the
>> >> morphological
>> >> >> >paradigm; neither one is necessarily primitive to the other
>> (but
>> >> >> theories of
>> >> >> >language might explore to establish this).Each constitutes the
>> >> >> other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So, maybe 'meaning' can be understood as the paradigmatic and
>> >> >> 'sense' as the
>> >> >> >syntagmatic of a mutually constitutive set.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Peg,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree that syntagmatic complements paradigmatic. One way of
>> >> >> interpreting Bruner's narrative/paradigmatic distinction might
>> be
>> >> >> that narrative is concerned with the relations between
>> >> constituents:
>> >> >> who does what to whom, when and for what reason. Similarly,
>> >> >> Halliday's dynamic/ synoptic distinction might be equated with
>> >> >> narrative/syntagmatic - to some degree!!, while synoptic
>> highlights
>> >> >> the paradigmatic relationship between alternative
>> lexicogrammatical
>> >> >> realizations of the same event, with a focus on grammatical
>> >> metaphor
>> >> >> through nominalization.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think I'm happy with your final paragraph above but I'll give
>> >> some
>> >> >> more thought to this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gordon
>> >> >> --
>> >> >>Gordon Wells
>> >> >> Dept of
>> >> >> Education,http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells
>> >> >> UC Santa Cruz.
>> >> >> gwells@ucsc.edu
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:08 PDT
