I forgot to add, the differentiation occurs in proximity, and the
reciprocal nature of touching and being touched and its transference
to touching one self, leading Nancy and Derrida to talk about "self-
touching you". Self and other differentiate in the difference between
touching oneself and touching the other, arising from the reciprocal
nature of the intention to touch and, in the process of touching,
being touched by the other (which, in self touching, is your other
self). wmr
On 23-Oct-06, at 8:15 AM, 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
_______________________________________________ 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