RE: [xmca] Francois Cooren

[Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>]

I also wonder, what about deaf people?

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Vera John-Steiner
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 5:54 PM
To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: RE: [xmca] Francois Cooren

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


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca