Terry, this was a great test, one I may use as an exercise with adult students. I’m amused that Claude appears to be the only bot to pick up that “what do you mean?” can be condescending or aggressive, putting the respondee on the defensive. The distinction made between subjective and objective responses is also too binary (no surprise).
Great Dan! Let me know how it goes. If I were in the classroom I think it could be really interesting and enlightening for the kids. They don’t really know what verbal thought is as a space between thinking and articulating.
Daniel is talking about meaning itself as a function of language settled in text (responding to language and finding meaning meant for a reader to find or struggle with. I am talking about meaning as a precursor of language. I think if you read the post from yesterday you’ll get a sense of thought as meaning vs text as meaning, verbal thought as meaning searching for words, which is “writing,” followed by using words to clothe meaning in words for “reading.” Daniel is talking about “reading,” criticism of texts. My interest is pretextual. So if writing has “steps” they are 1. thinking of meaning (right now as I think about meaning I’m thinking of my total grasp of Vygotsky’s concept arising after meaning is tentatively settled when my “inner voice” goes in search of a candidate words), 2. verbal thought (using my inner voice to try on words, bringing in language as a psychological tool and a material to make a suit of clothes of words), 3. Articulating (struggling to find something to say in the right words which mean together what I’ve been thinking about) 4. textualizing meaning in a linguistic artifact. Writing is provisionally finalized away a reader to begin Daniel’s reception of meaning. Daniel seems focused on literary meaning, a more specialized kind of the general phenomenon of reading any text.
Terry, this was a great test, one I may use as an exercise with adult students. I’m amused that Claude appears to be the only bot to pick up that “what do you mean?” can be condescending or aggressive, putting the respondee on the defensive. The distinction made between subjective and objective responses is also too binary (no surprise).
A practical and thoughtful activity. I'm going to share with several of my teacher friends. Thank You! 🙂
Great Dan! Let me know how it goes. If I were in the classroom I think it could be really interesting and enlightening for the kids. They don’t really know what verbal thought is as a space between thinking and articulating.
are you riffing off daniel's post: https://thejester.substack.com/p/patterned-integrity-i ?
Daniel is talking about meaning itself as a function of language settled in text (responding to language and finding meaning meant for a reader to find or struggle with. I am talking about meaning as a precursor of language. I think if you read the post from yesterday you’ll get a sense of thought as meaning vs text as meaning, verbal thought as meaning searching for words, which is “writing,” followed by using words to clothe meaning in words for “reading.” Daniel is talking about “reading,” criticism of texts. My interest is pretextual. So if writing has “steps” they are 1. thinking of meaning (right now as I think about meaning I’m thinking of my total grasp of Vygotsky’s concept arising after meaning is tentatively settled when my “inner voice” goes in search of a candidate words), 2. verbal thought (using my inner voice to try on words, bringing in language as a psychological tool and a material to make a suit of clothes of words), 3. Articulating (struggling to find something to say in the right words which mean together what I’ve been thinking about) 4. textualizing meaning in a linguistic artifact. Writing is provisionally finalized away a reader to begin Daniel’s reception of meaning. Daniel seems focused on literary meaning, a more specialized kind of the general phenomenon of reading any text.
I haven’t read it. I’ll give it a look.