Re: [xmca] Where is thinking

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

ALL --   When a message does not make it to XMCA it is almost always because
the person has changed email addresses, even slightly.
Achilles. Please check Karin's email on the membership list with the one you
have. It will help solve the problem.

This caution is used to keep spamming from overwhelming the list.
mike

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Achilles Delari Junior <
achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear all, Karin Quast had problems with posting:
>
>
> Em 19/04/2009 11:52, mktostes < mktostes@uol.com.br > escreveu:
>
>
>
> Hope this one does not appear blanck as other messages of mine in the past.
>
> I have found 'L. Gumplowicz' or even L. von Gumplowicz on google.
>
> seems interesting!
>
> Karin Quast
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:52:52 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
> > From: lchcmike@gmail.com
> > To: vygotsky@unm.edu
> > CC: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
> > Where is the dichotomy, Vera? Its and/both, heterochronously and
> > heterogeneously, relationally and non-linearly.
> > So we murder to dissect, routinely.
> > (Which constantly gives us more than enough to chat about!)mike
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Vera Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I keep on thinking that we,too, fall into a dichotomy when we reject
> the
> > > inside/outside dynamic process. These are at time simultaneous actions:
> > > appropriation, transformation, externalization  and their impact on the
> > > speech
> > > community, while they are also part of the process of brain/neuronal
> > > changes.
> > > When I remember one of the messages from the xmca community, I engage
> in an
> > > act that requires neuronal activity and  while I am reformulating,
> > > communicating with the source of my thinking activity, this community,
> I
> > > co-participate in the sustained thinking activities of others. By
> viewing
> > > these activities as either/or we are shaped by our opponents' Cartesian
> > > beliefs and terminology.  I cannot write these words without the words
> of
> > > others, but I am also moving my fingers--there is no space for other
> fingers
> > > on the keyboard. We are profoundly, irrevocably  interdependent. We
> need a
> > > new set of terms to express the consequences of that interdependence
> when it
> > > comes to psychological processes which have not a single but
> distributed
> > > locations,
> > > Vera
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:23 AM
> > > Subject: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >  To shorten the string of trailing messages and focus on just one of
> the
> > >> interesting responses:
> > >>
> > >> From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu>
> > >> Date: Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:44 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking?
> > >> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For what it's worth:
> > >>
> > >> Thought is what it is only by virtue of its addressing a future
> thought
> > >> which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more
> developed.
> > >> In this way, the existence of thought now depends on what is to be
> > >> hereafter; so that it has only a potential existence, dependent on the
> > >> future thought of the community.
> > >>
> > >> No present actual thought (which is [in itself] a mere feeling) has
> any
> > >> meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies not in what is actually
> > >> thought, but in what this thought may be connected with in
> representation
> > >> by
> > >> subsequent thoughts, so that the meaning of a thought is altogether
> > >> something virtual.
> > >>
> > >> Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that
> motion
> > >> is
> > >> in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that
> thoughts
> > >> are
> > >> in us.
> > >>
> > >> -- Charles Peirce, Writings 2: 241,227,227
> > >>
> > >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Reading this puts me strongly in mind of the epigram of the chapter 7
> of
> > >> Thinking and Speech, "I forgot the word I wanted to say, and thought,
> > >> unembodied, returned to the hall of shadows."
> > >>
> > >> Locally a couple of us have been re-re-re-visiting this idea and what
> > >> seems
> > >> to us an incompleteness that is picked up by Pierce and which relates
> to
> > >> the
> > >> relationship between
> > >> imagining and creating as well as sense and meaning. For LSV the
> > >> externalized thought-in-word completes the thought, providing the
> "most
> > >> stable zone of sense." But we were focused
> > >> on the hearer of the utterance and how it was then interpreted and
> > >> subsequently given further life or not as very important..... the
> later
> > >> history of what Vygotsky called the embodied thought.
> > >>
> > >> I fear the invitations to confusion in all the inside/outside
> invocations
> > >> in
> > >> what we are quoting and composing.
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Descubra seu lado desconhecido com o novo Windows Live!
>
> http://www.windowslive.com.br_______________________________________________
> 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