Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

context is one of those words which is polysemic to such a degree that we
all use different meanings unnoticed. That is happening in this discussion.
mike

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

> Hmmmmmmmmm. . .your contextual understanding may not exist in my
> contextual understanding Michael, that was my point.
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 10/09/2009 09:23 AM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>
>
>        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>        cc:
>        Subject:        Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
>
>
> Eric,
> you are confusing apples and oranges. In the squirrel case, you
> already took a gods eye view, you already presupposed that it can be
> seen as squirrel, someone at least, and that is why it can exist for
> your person even if she doesn't see it. A nicer example is
> Schrödinger's cat. You only know whether it is dead or alive when you
> (one, science) look.
>
> Ask if the squirrel was invisible whether it existed, if there is no
> way that it could appear in our senses or devices that mediate our
> perception, would the squirrel exist? Does the unicorn exist?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On 9-Oct-09, at 7:00 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
> Andy:
>
> I would agree.  I wasn't exampling existence though; I was trying to
> correlate the squirrel to context.  Different horses but still in the
> same
> race?
>
> Your take would be consistant seeing as James and Hegel were not
> compatible.
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 10/09/2009 08:57 AM
> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>         To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
>
>
> I don't mind an operational definition of existence, but I'm
> not so happy about the category of existence for me, i.e.,
> an individual subjective definition of existence. I mean,
> the existence of the squirrel depends on me? "Existence" is
> surely something that is not dependent on my personal view
> of things at the moment. Isn't that what "existence" means?
>
> Andy
>
> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> > Could we return to James' example of the squirrel circling the
> > tree.  If
> a
> > person circles the tree so the squirrel is never in view does that
> negate
> > the existance of the squirrel for that person?  A person's context may
> be
> > as the squirrel.  Hence, the talking past each other that happens
> > sooooooooo frequently on this listserv!  I being as guilty as any
> > in my
> > misinterpretation based on my particular contextual understandings.
> >
> > Jokes also fall into this category.  Some find Chris Rock to be
> hilarious,
> > other view him as a blight on the American cultural landscape.
> >
> > Context makes all the difference.
> >
> > What do other's think?
> > eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregory Allan Thompson <gathomps@uchicago.edu>
> > Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > 10/08/2009 03:26 PM
> > Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >
> >
> >         To:     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
> >
> >
> > Ha! (to Mike)
> >
> > Now the question, of course, with any instance of chaining
> > complexes is: What precisely is it that is being chained i.e.,
> > does Mike's "academic bullshit" refer to Bush/Palin or
> > Silverstein? or even, and this is a stretch, to me?. The
> > question being asked here is a question of the
> > entextualization of talk-as-text - i.e., how does an instance
> > of talk (as text) become entextualized such that it is
> > decodable as an instance of "talking about X" (or, for that
> > matter, "arguing about X").
> >
> > As participants in conversation, we build a coherent
> > understanding of our interlocutor's utterance via a complex
> > ethnometapragmatics of indexicalities (aka "contextualization
> > cues"). It is through the congeries of indexicalities present
> > in a stretch of talk that individuals can then begin to
> > constitute an "X" that was being discussed. The catch is that
> > the meaning of individual indexicalities will depend on other
> > elements of the context of talk (which themselves are also
> > invoked through various layers of indexicality, some via
> > language, some via things like insittutional roles). In
> > particular, the frame of the interaction (what is going on
> > here? - i.e. what are we "doing" here - collegially chatting?
> > arguing? berating? joking?) becomes essential for decoding
> > what is being indexically conjured up as the entexutalized
> > "chain complex". In addition, it is further helpful to have
> > knowledge of the identities of participants (who is this
> > person that has suggested this?), along with our own
> > ethnopsychologies of speakers' intentionalities and things
> > like this (what might such a person have "intended" by this
> > utterance?). (as a footnote, I liken the complexity of
> > interactions to the three body problem in Physics, each layer
> > of determining context is affecting the other such that, just
> > as it is impossible to predict the movement of three bodies in
> > orbit around one another in three dimenasions, it is
> > impossible to predict the precise outcome of a given stretch
> > of talk.). And after all that, there is always the possibility
> > that as a participant A) you could be wrong or B) something
> > new is introduced into the conversation that flips the meaning
> > of what came before (what Silverstein calls the defeasibility
> > of contexts).
> >
> > [Did someone say something about academic bullshit? (but this
> > does indeed point to an interesting way in which chaining of
> > complexes in the denotata of discourse can cross over into the
> > interactional plane such that the suggestion of "academic
> > bullshit" by another can provoke me to inhabit the identity of
> > "academic bullshitter" or alternatively, an identity of
> > plain(s)speaker (whether one speaks 'plainly' or as one from
> > the 'plains' - i.e. Midwest, "accentless", down-to-earth
> > English), a tell it like it is sort of person who uses words
> > like "bullshit" to cut to the core of all that high falutin'
> > crap.]
> >
> > The above is just an idea of what the world of Silverstein can
> > "do" in the pursuit of understanding language and social
> > interaction (and I certainly haven't done justice to his
> > ideas). I think it is an immensely powerful way of seeing
> > language and yields great insights into how language and
> > social interaction work. I'd also note that I'm comfortable
> > with the argument that the obtuseness of the language is
> > necessary precisely because we have emic ways of understanding
> > language that hide many of its properties from view.
> >
> > At the same time, I think that it is often the case that
> > employing Silverstein's framework for understanding something
> > like activity or classroom learning is much like trying to use
> > quantum mechanics to fix a car. An engineer can do better. A
> > car mechanic could do still better. But that then raises
> > questions about whether or not CHAT/MCA folk see their project
> > as one that is more equivalent to engineering or to
> > theoretical physics or to car mechanics.
> >
> > And btw, for an interesting syllabus on teaching bullshit,
> > check out:
> > http://nathaniel.hansen.googlepages.com/
> > TellingtheTruthfinalversion.pdf.
> >
> > Oh, and please call me "Greg", or even "greg", I use "Gregory"
> > on my email "handle" in order to project the identity of
> > someone who can competently inhabit the identity of an
> > academic bullshitter, but it takes some work...
> >
> > cheers,
> > greg
> >
> >
> >> Message: 3
> >> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:29:42 -0700
> >> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Leontiev and Sign (Silverstein and complexes)
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <30364f990910080629w1a27e186y46084c55b7f8840@mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >>
> >> Perfect timing, Gregory. This morning my senior seminarian
> > will be
> >> discussing Peter et al's paper on academic bullshit......
> >>
> >> (just chaining)
> >> mike
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Greg Thompson
> > Ph.D. Candidate
> > The Department of Comparative Human Development
> > The University of Chicago
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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