These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Very well taken points and questions, Jay.
I'm afraid I can't do justice to those points & question by responding now. I
have stuff I need to prepare for an early morning meeting tomorrow, even
though I'm supposed to be on sabbatical now.
Just some brief notes: your vague memories are valid re: Peirce. This gets
into his speculative metaphysical cosmology, which I don't much subscribe to,
but which I find helpful for understanding the terms in which he thought.
Just as a kind of marker for everybody here, it might be helpful to
recapitulate these levels in seriatum:
3. semiosic
2. dynamic
1. static
"Dynamic" is often used as THE alternative to "static." That's an interesting
case of thinking along the lines of Saussure/Greimas binary oppositions. But
the binaries are not exhaustive of important differentiations.
That should be all from me for tonight.
-- Tony
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Jay Lemke wrote:
Quite right Tony. I am usually sloppy about Perceian terminology, since
most other people wouldn't get the distinctions.
But am I right that in some version of Peirce it's not just a distinction,
but there is a sense in which semiosis process piggybacks on
dynamic-material-causal process? As with development, the later more
elaborated forms build on the prior ones. We are used to a fully semiosic
world-for-people, where form, material action, and meaning are all always
present, requiring only the right interpretant to foreground them. But one
of our questions here has been whether in biological evolution, or
cosmological evolution, it's always been that way?
I assume that there has not always been semiosis in the history of the
universe? or not always been Thirdness? and as a physicist I can imagine
an argument that maybe there was a time before Secondness as well.
Mythology seems to think there was a time before Firstness, too (when the
void was without form ...).
I seem to recall Peirce making a sort of emergence/evolution/development
argument about the universe coming to have more complex kinds of form in
it, and I think that was meant to include some sort of arising of the
grounds of at least Thirdness, and maybe all three logical relations? He
had a nice phrase for this, which I can't now remember.
What's your take on it?
JAY.
PS. For those less versed in Peirce, he can be read sometimes as a bit
schizophrenic. On the one hand a pure logician looking at formal
categories. On the other a sort of natural scientist with a very
materialist take on things. He did not see it that way, I'm pretty sure,
hence his unique interpretation of monism, which is not quite like what
we're used to in the Cartesian regime.
Jay Lemke
Professor (Adjunct)
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
On Oct 6, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:
Thanks, Jay,
I own a copy of that book; and I remember where it was on what shelf
some time ago; but it's not there now so I'll have to get another!
BTW, this has come up before on xmca, but where people often refer to
sign activity as "dynamic," I would follow Peirce in saying that it's
semiosic, expressly for the differention with dynamic (as in the
policeman pushing someone by his elbow). For CSP dynamic interaction is
at the level of secondness; at thirdness, it's semiosic.
-- Tony
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Jay Lemke wrote:
Tony,
Somewhere in my book Textual Politics, I think in the
appendix/afterword (actually written many years before the rest of the
book), I have a discussion of meaning making in terms of improvisation
in the creation of a dance on the dancers by a choreographer. Gave me
a lot of good ideas I've used since.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor (Adjunct)
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
On Oct 2, 2009, at 8:57 PM, Tony Whitson wrote:
Thanks, Ana,
At first I was going to send this just to you, off-list, but then I
thought I'd send it to the list.
First, Congratulations!
.. and, I thought others outside the US might be interested in
hearing that we in this country are being treated to the spectacle
of right-wing USA super-patriots rejoicing (cheering, applauding
vigorously, etc.) at the news that Chicago's bid for the Olympics
was not successful. They see this as a failure that will disgrace
Obama, and they are welcoming any failure for the USA that they
think can be treated as a failure by Obama.
I wanted to also mention that at our International Curriculum
meeting in South Africa last month, we decided that our next meeting
will be in Brazil in 2012. Not sure yet which University will host,
or in which city; but it would be great if you would join us -- I
will update the list as details emerge.
Finally, points in your message encourage me that maybe the
manuscript I'm writing might not be too crazy after all. In one part
I am working (maybe overworking) an analogy between meaning and
dancing, arguing that just as dancing is what dancers do, meaning is
what mean-ers do (speakers, writers, thinkers -- but also words,
texts, and signs in general). So "I mean ..." , "she means ..." ,
"that word means ..." "that text means ..."; with "meaning" as a
verb, and not a noun (i.e., not something that could be a "content,"
or something "conveyed").
Anyway, your message also reminded me of the teacher who said,
"Mary, put that book away; it's time for reading now!" (I guess
that's not intelligible outside of countries where "reading" is a
subject and a class that has been taught using systems and materials
that bear little relationship to the reading that people do with
books outside of schools and classrooms.)
Again, Congratulations! President Obama offered his congratulations
to Rio and to Brazil when he returned, and he also expressed pride
in Chicago. "Sometimes you can play a great game and still not be
the winner."
To the right wing in our country, any time Obama falls short of what
he's trying to do (even on things like reducing unemployment, or
finding a way to provide health care for people here -- not just
something like the Olympics), they see failure for the USA as a
great victory for the American that they are loyal to.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ana Paula B. R. Cortez wrote:
Thanks, Mike!
I loved the talk. It makes completely sense. I was teaching PFL
(Portuguese as Foreign Language) at the American School of São
Paulo this morning and I called one of my student's attention for
chatting so much in class. Do you know what she said to me?
"Sorry, Ms Cortez, I need to talk in order to think". Well, if a
great dancer needs to move in order to put all her creativity into
action, who I am to disagree with this student of mine? ;)
Warm regards to all,
Ana Paula Barbosa Risério Cortez
English Language and Literature Professor
Faculty of Language and Education
University of Mogi das Cruzes-VL, Brazil
Av. Imperatriz Leopoldina, 550
Vl. Leopoldina, São Paulo, SP - Brazil
05305-000
55 11 3648-5050
apbrcortez@yahoo.com.br
--- Em qui, 1/10/09, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> escreveu:
De: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Assunto: [xmca] schools kill creativity?
Para: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Data: Quinta-feira, 1 de Outubro de 2009, 21:30
Perhaps of some interest.
mike
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
____________________________________________________________________________________
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z
(1970)_______________________________________________
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
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z
(1970)_______________________________________________
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
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)