[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Francois Cooren

Dear Joseph 

I see others have already had their own 'say' vis-a-vis your ideas or quotes . One thing : I sent you the script , do you think you would have been able to establish a true communication with me if I had attached a recorded tape of those same words instead of the script ? What is wrong here , then ?

And now to your point :
Ok. I give you the shortened , simplified version :

 From: Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012, 2:02:11
Subject: Re: [xmca] Francois Cooren

[[Nothing communicates as profoundly as vocal sounds,]]

The simplest of all is for us to know who says what to whom , where and when . For the sound even as word to be effective , this 'who' cannot be the same all the time ; the 'what' cannot be the same all the time ; the 'whom' cannot be the same all the time ; so on so forth . Even for one single person , the reaction of one minute might vary enormously from the reaction which comes a minute later . hence the effects of 'other' variables . Even full communication awaits appropriate goal-oriented 'action' . The other variables which are hidden behind the 'words' are so important that , at times , silence means more than articulation !

Now may you pay attention to the importance of the spoken --I would rather say any sign , the language of , not just the language-Haydi--language as Ilyenko narrates :

???When man operates with symbols or with
tokens and not with objects, relying on symbols and tokens, he does not act on
the ideal plane but only on the verbal plane. And it very often happens that,
instead of discovering the real essence of things by means of terms, the
individual sees only the terms themselves with their traditional meanings, sees
only the symbol and its sensuously perceived body. In that case the linguistic
symbol is transformed from an instrument of real activity into a fetish,
blocking off with its body the reality that it represents. Then, instead of
understanding and consciously changing the external world in accordance with
its general laws expressed in the form of the ideal image, man begins to see
and change only the verbal, terminological expression and thinks that, in so
doing he is changing the world itself.??? (originally in red)  

-- motions of the human body --   ambiguous !

 [[Everything is named, - identified -, by sounds made by our body.]]

If you mean 'Nominalism' and 'Nominalists' , you must know yourself , their times have passed . But as to 'identification' , it depends on what you mean by its mentioning . Cognition ! Never ! identification of the 'essense' of a thing ! Never ! The most it offers could be 'contemplation' , 'perception' at the level of 'sensitivity' , no more .

As to the 'dance' of the body according to the rhythm of the vocal sounds , in what you have depicted , one cannot find any trace of such things as 'world-views' or the like . It more sounds like an instinctive reaction rather than the 'forms' of geometrical objects suspending in the air as being depicted by Spinoza . With the psychic emancipation , the body of the man feels itself separate from all the other things surrounding him as the social environment and begins to challenge it with a goal to change it according to his needs by which he throws himself , too, in the abyss of 'mutations' . see

). Up to a certain point man is able to change
the form of his activity (or the ideal image of the external thing) without
touching the thing itself, but only because he can separate the ideal image from
himself, objectify it, and operate with it as with an object existing outside
him. Let us recall once more the example of the architect, cited by Marx.(originally in red)


 [[Our own body-emotional goings on
 is the currency by which all else is valued.]]

As a short 'saying' , excellent ! But there are gaps . Neither 'emotion' nor 'thought' alone runs 'life' ahead . I cannot locate 'emotion' as thus depicted . But see 

first hand, transformation of the material into the ideal consists in the
external fact being expressed
in language, which ‘is the immediate actuality of thought’ (Marx). But language of itself is as little
ideal as the neuro-physiological structure of the brain. It is only the form of expression of the ideal, its
material-objective being. Neopositivists,
who identify thought
(i.e. the ideal) with language,with a system of terms and
expressions, therefore make the same naturalistic mistake as scientists who identify the ideal with the structures
and functions of brain tissue (as Chomsky does, for instance-Haydi) . Here, too, the form only of its material expression is taken for the ideal. The
material is really ‘transplanted’ into
the human head, and not
simply into the brain as
an organ of the individual’s body, (1) only when it is expressed in
immediately, generally significant forms of language (understood in the
broadest sense of the word, including the language of drawings, diagrams,
models, etc.), and (2) when it is transformed into an active form of man’s
activity with a real object (and not simply into a ‘term’
or ‘utterance’ as the material body of language). In other words the object proves to be
idealised only when the faculty of actively recreating it has been created,
relying on the language of words or drawings; when the faculty of converting words into deeds, and through deeds into things, has
been created. (originally in colours)

 I think there's no difficulty in understanding the above quote . Now how do you accept or reject this ? Where do you put the ring of 'emotion' in this 'chain' ?


 [[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.]]

The wording superb . The content I cannot relate . I need your help . If you refrain , I would give my ideas next .


        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 mailing list