Re: [xmca] Microcosm and Unit

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Sorry, I missed the question at the end of Martin's post 
which changes its meaning. The following is a more cautious 
reply:


-----------------------
Martin:

Andy, you must have seen this in Thinking & Speaking:

"The unit contains, in a simple, primitive form, the
characteristics of the whole that is the object of analysis"
(p 244, chapter 7)

This seems to say that, yes, unit of analysis and microscosm
have different meanings, but also that a correctly-selected
unit of analysis will be a microcosm.

------------------------
Andy:

Well "unit of analysis" and "microcosm" are relative terms.
We can talk of "the unit of analysis of the relation between
thinking and speaking" or we can talk about "the unit of
analysis of human consciousness" just as we can talk about
the height of Mt Everest and the height of Mt Blanc. Not the
same.

Then if we are comparing apples with apples: Is the
correctly-selected unit of anaysis of the relation between
thinking and speaking also a microcosm of the relation
between thinking and speaking? And is the correctly-selected
unit of anaysis of human consciousness also a microcosm of
human consciousness? Confusing questions, but I think "no."

What we have is that the unit of analysis of the relation
between thinking and speaking is a microcosm for human
consciousness. The reason is that thinking and speaking is
the most develop form of activity, not the most primitive, I
think.

------------------------
Martin:

And then the next sentence:

"We found the unit that reflects the unity of thinking and
speech in the meaning of the word."

You will agree, no, that this is saying that word meaning is
the unit of analysis of the relationship of thinking and
speaking? Why not, then, the unit of analysis of consciousness?

------------------------
Andy:

OK, So I was with you up to your question, and I missed the
question. Sorry. Why is the unit of analysis of the
relationship of thinking and speaking not also the unit of
analysis of consciousness?

Because it's a special case, and what is more, not the most
primitive but the most developed. By the time people are
talking to each other, the really interesting relations have
already been accomplished. The point is to conceptually
start at the beginning of what is being studied.

THinking and speaking is not the most primitive or primeval
modes of "joint artefact-mediated activity", but the most
developed.

---------------------------

puzzled,

Martin

---------------------------
Andy:

The two concepts are similar, but as Nikolai said, Vygotsky
said, I said and I think you said, they are different
concepts. I think "microcosm" answers to the question "where
to strike?" while "unit of analysis" answers to the question
"what in essence unites this whole field?"

Andy

----------------------------

Andy Blunden wrote:
> You are spot on in my view, Martin.
>
> "Word meaning is the unit of analysis of the relationship of thinking 
> and speaking?" (quoting you) and because of the place of speech in human 
> life as a whole, the unit of analysis for the relation of speaking and 
> thinking is a microcosm of the wider domain: "human consciousness."
>
> Andy
>
> Martin Packer wrote:
> > Andy, you must have seen this in Thinking & Speaking:
> >
> > "The unit contains, in a simple, primitive form, the characteristics 
> > of the
> > whole that is the object of analysis" (p 244, chapter 7)
> >
> > This seems to say that, yes, unit of analysis and microscosm have 
> > different
> > meanings, but also that a correctly-selected unit of analysis will be a
> > microcosm.
> >
> > And then the next sentence:
> >
> > "We found the unit that reflects the unity of thinking and speech in the
> > meaning of the word."
> >
> > You will agree, no, that this is saying that word meaning is the unit of
> > analysis of the relationship of thinking and speaking? Why not, then, the
> > unit of analysis of consciousness?
> >
> > puzzled,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 2/22/09 9:48 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "We showed that a generalised reflection of reality is the
> > > basic characteristic of words. This aspect of the word
> > > brings us to the threshold of a wider and deeper subject ­
> > > the general problem of consciousness. Thought and language,
> > > which reflect reality in a way different from that of
> > > perception, are the key to the nature of human
> > > consciousness. Words play a central part not only in the
> > > development of thought but in the historical growth of
> > > consciousness as a whole. A word is a microcosm of human
> > > consciousness." (end ch 7 Thinking and Speaking)
> > >
> > > I take this in the same way: if you can thoroughly
> > > understand how words operate in human life then you will
> > > have solved all the essential problems.
> > >
> > > On this basis, I agree with Nikolai, that "microcosm" and
> > > "unit of analysis" have quite different meanings. I would be
> > > inclined to anyway, as I do not believe that "word meaning"
> > > can be a unit of analysis for consciousness.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 
Skype andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca