This is a second pass at your latest message. I hope you don't mind.
Firstly, you quite rightly conclude that I believe in
>"the priority of language in psychological functioning."
That's the whole idea of Flores' statement that 'We Live In Language.'
He is saying that ours is a linguistic reality, different from that of
any other creature, if only because of the difference in our linguistic
capacities.
What I am wondering is what you mean by "sign activity," and your claim
that "it is but one vehicle [vehicle?] of psychological functioning." I
would appreciate hearing your comments in support of these two points,
if you are willing.
Secondly, I appreciate your example from Piaget, but I must confess I
have difficulty, from the description, in visualizing the situation. So
your point is lost on me. Could you try again?
In any event, how are you able to conclusively say what the child is
doing or not doing? Isn't this a kind of mind-reading effort?
And, finally, as to your point that "we think and relate in many
> ways, sensori-motor actions, images, emotional expereicne...." Can you supply evidence of this?
>
> --
Best, Gary
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'WE LIVE IN LANGUAGE'
"We come to others and they come to us, in language.
"Without language,we have no relationships.
"In language we are faithful and we betray;
contract marriage, and file divorce.
"In language we raise children, and bury our dead.
"In language we sing, dance, and make love.
"In language, we forgive, celebrate and commit.
"We live in language."
-Fernando Flores,PhD,author,Ontological Design Course;
and (w/ T.Winograd,PhD),"Understanding Computers & Cognition."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%