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