RE: [xmca] Francois Cooren

["Vera John-Steiner" <vygotsky@unm.edu>]

Hi Joseph
I wonder whether the ultimate finality of the word--"everything is relative
to the word"--provides a too narrow, monistic view. Euclidean geometry is
rich in proofs which are presented through visual abstraction. These can be
explained verbally but their persuasive power is visual.
This is an interesting though wandering discussion from toes to Euclid.
Vera
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Joseph Gilbert
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 3:32 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Francois Cooren

Nothing communicates as profoundly as vocal sounds, - motions of the  
human body -. Everything is named, - identified -, by sounds made by  
our body. Our own body-emotional goings on is the currency by which  
all else is valued. We relate to our world with our word. Everything  
is reletive to the word. The "final word" on anything IS the word.  
The only handle we have on the meaning of our world is the effect on  
us of the sounds of our words. We can prove nothing and can only feel  
our vocal sounds for information of how we are affected by things. It  
takes different words to communicate different information. Bear in  
mind that words are fundamentally sounds and secondarily, referential  
tools. When we refer to a thing, the referential tool is between  
ourselves and the thing. We perceive and are affected by the tool -  
the word - first and foremost and then also by the thought of the  
referred-to thing. Subliminally, the word defines the thing:  
Consciously, the thing defines the word.

		Joseph Gilbert

On Jun 2, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Greg Thompson wrote:

> Anyone out there know much about Francois Cooren or the Montreal  
> School of
> Organizational Communication?
>
> As for the former, Cooren's book Action and Agency in Dialogue asks:
> "What if human interactants were not the only ones to be considered,
> paraphrasing Austin (1962), as "doing things with words"? That is,  
> what if
> other "things" could also be granted the status of agents in a  
> dialogical
> situation?"
>
> As for the latter, the MSOC is characterized by wikipedia as:
> "taking communication as the "site and surface" of organizations,  
> meaning
> that the latter emerge from and are maintained by communication  
> processes."
>
> Both of these seem to be very important points that, I thought,  
> articulate
> well with recent XMCA conversations.
>
> Anyone have any insight?
> Perhaps a recommendation?
> -greg
>
> -- 
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
> Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition
> Department of Communication
> University of California, San Diego
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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