[Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions

[HENRY SHONERD]

Mike,
When you posted your conjecture the first time I thought, “Makes sense to me.” I only failed to let you know I grok it. I love dual simulation, absolutely the best way to assess learning. Project-based learning with tools and signs. Respect and trust twixt learner and learner. No new thread. I’m in the groove here.
Henry

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> I am listening politely, Henry.
> 
> I am guessing that from a CHAT point of view (I am making this up as I go
> along), every time we choose a word to speak or a tool to fix our car with,
> we must submit to the specialized constraints of using that particular
> means of achieving the end-in-mind.
> 
> ​I do not want to start another subject line here, because I think they are
> connected, but if someone has time to respond to my suggestion that the old
> lady and the staff story might be interpreted as her use of the method of
> dual stimulation. She subordinated herself to the conditions of using a
> large staff instead of a handy cane, and thereby transformed herself by
> transforming the way others responded to her.
> 
> Any takers? Wrong headed? Has potential?
> ​
> ​mike​
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:38 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Larry,
>> Do you think it’s sad-masochistic of me to suggest that we give submission
>> a chance? Unanalyzed, “submission”, not even a suggestion of  a hyphen, as
>> a juicy chunk, I think of Islam, or what I know of it through a hodge podge
>> of media and friendships. But break it down, without even going to the
>> dictionary, “sub-mission” has the ring of commitment to a project. As a
>> legal term, my dictionary has “submission” as “an agreement between parties
>> involved in a dispute”. Here’s more from the semantic cluster: A synonym
>> for “submission” is “yield”, from the Middle English. It’s worth mashing up
>> latinate and germanic etymology and morphology to set up mnemonics for the
>> discourse. So, when, if ever, is it good to “submit”, “give in”? I submit
>> to the good will of la gente of this chat. There’s gotta be respect and
>> trust. Among other things, that means it has to be voluntary and de buena
>> voluntad. And transparent? Let me suggest a prototypical narrative of
>> submission: Motherhood. Giving birth and all of that jazz. Creativity with
>> a capital “C”. Here’s another: death. Everything in between is up for grabs
>> I guess. Probably lots of diversity as they say in the game. Please,
>> chatters, don’t feel the need to respond. I’ll take silence as good sign.
>> Like, you’re listening politely.
>> Submissively
>> Henry
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Rod,
>>> In the spirit of your caution and acknowledging its truth value, I want
>> to
>>> say I was hesitant to use the term "surrender" for how it would be
>>> misunderstood.  In a similar way to the misunderstandings of the term
>>> "mind".
>>> 
>>> I will mention that Jessica is consciously using the word "surrender" as
>>> NOT "submission" as she tries to articulate a nypothesis that sees
>> through
>>> "domination" and the struggle to the death of complimentary "recognition"
>>> I fully expect Jessica's work to instigate passionate responses.
>>> Her work does develop from Habermas, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm and the
>>> Frankfurt school.
>>> Jessica says we have conflated "surrender" with "submission" and
>> Jessica's
>>> use of the term "surrender" must be seen as being engaged in exploring
>> [and
>>> putting in play] notions of instrumental internalized "self-regulation"
>> AND
>>> notions of the "third space" as coming into being through "surrender" to
>> a
>>> place of potentiality and possibility that is moving "beyond"
>>> self-assertion as a complimentary struggle to the death.
>>> 
>>> Rod, the play of "active" and "receptive" thirds [in contrast to active
>> and
>>> passive twoness] is the place which Jessica is inviting us to occupy.
>>> 
>>> Notions of "surrender" carry huge baggage and and will invite palpable
>>> rejection as concepts. This is a fact. It is challenging particular
>> notions
>>> of "subjective" and "intersubjective"
>>> However, if we begin within a dialogical awareness and acknowledge that
>>> using a term such as "surrender"  will be read by most and rejected  as
>>> implying "submission" and "domination" and "passivity" and "loosing the
>>> self", then the process that you and I are engaged in at this moment is
>> the
>>> hermeneutical enactment of differentiating and "marking" the distinctions
>>> the distinctions between "surrender" and "submission" Jessica is asking
>> us
>>> to pause and be reflective and consider this distinction.
>>> 
>>> Rod, Jessica is working within a "tradition" [the Frankfurt School where
>>> she is in dialogue with Hegel, Habermas, Adorno, Horkheimer. Her project
>> is
>>> to "see through" the patterns of complimentary "twoness" [doer and done
>> to
>>> giver and given to]. The term "surrender" is being used within this
>>> tradition.
>>> 
>>> This term "surrender" [as exemplified in Stephen Mitchell's story
>>> of letting go of his "idea" of "a walk" to enter his daughter's enactment
>>> of "a walk" is central to Jessica's notion of living-in-truth. Yes, it
>>> invites further dialogue and will be misunderstood. It requires further
>>> dialogue.
>>> 
>>> I could have tried to write an essay fully outlining the term "surrender"
>>> This word has sparked considerable response within the tradition of
>>> feminism. I could also she it being challenged as Eurocentric or too
>>> psychological [emphasizing both accommodation and differentiation].
>>> 
>>> Posting to the listserve and inviting commentary and further questions on
>>> the term "surrender" is another approach.
>>> 
>>> I also hoped to find a "bridge" to Kris' understanding of "third space"
>> and
>>> her exploration of intersubjective testimonio as hybrid co-creative
>>> mutual rhythmic patterns forming within third spaces. I see a quality of
>>> "surrender" [as Jessica uses the term] in Kris' exploration of third
>>> spaces.
>>> 
>>> Vygotsky explores internalized "self-regulation" as a developmental task.
>>> Jessica suggests the development of self regulation moves through
>>> asymmetrical accommodation AND differentiation. For Jessica
>>> this psychological development [if it is to form third spaces] requires
>>> asymmetrical agentic active "surrender" as a way beyond a struggle to the
>>> death of complimentary twoness.
>>> In summary, I understand Jessica's work as an aspect of cultural
>>> historical understanding, that includes social theory of emotions and
>>> cognition and culture that is historical.
>>> The term "surrender" is a discursive and dialogical form of enactment.
>>> It was offered in the spirit of open ended dialogue but I was aware and
>>> took a chance in using the word "surrender"  Another word would have been
>>> less controversial but I do question if being misunderstood and then
>>> requiring  further clarification is an approach with some value.
>>> 
>>> I do not intend the use of "surrender" as an alternative approach to
>>> cultural historical theory.
>>> The use of this term is meant in a spirit of dialogue and the "piety" of
>>> questions inviting answers.
>>> Rod, in the way I presented the term "surrender", I may have elaborated
>>> further, and clarified more, but I was not sure if there were others
>>> who shared an interest in this topic of complimentary twoness and
>>> co-creative thirdness. I was interested in going deeper into
>> understanding
>>> "third spaces" and by posting was feeling my way in by probing the level
>> of
>>> interest.
>>> 
>>> Larry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <
>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Larry,
>>>> As I said, I like Benjamin's distinction between surrender and
>> submission
>>>> but I also think that it is not so simple to introduce new shadings of
>>>> meaning to a word/concept which is already part of people's vocabulary.
>> For
>>>> most people, outside the group of those who know about Benjamin's work,
>>>> surrender WILL still carry felt associations with unwillingly giving up
>>>> ownership or control of something prized/valued. This is bound to result
>>>> in  miscommunication unless those who use surrender in its new sense
>> signal
>>>> and explain this use. I think an awareness of how we can expect others
>> to
>>>> react (body, mind and soul) is a core aspect of communication and
>> ethical
>>>> behaviour. We can't just occupy that third space and expect others to
>>>> surrender to the meanings we want to introduce!
>>>> 
>>>> Rod
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Larry Purss
>>>> Sent: 19/01/2015 01:29
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
>>>> 
>>>> Miguel,
>>>> The article I have been referencing is from Jessica Benjamin's article
>>>> "Beyond Doer and Done To: An Intersubjective View of Thirdness"  There
>> is
>>>> an extensive bibliography .  Interestingly Jessica's dissertation was
>>>> written in 1978 with the title, "Internalization and Instrumental
>> Culture:
>>>> A Reinterpretation of Psychoanalysis and Social Theory"
>>>> Rod,
>>>> Jessica references Colwyn Trevarthen as a source of her notion of
>>>> "surrender". Yes, this word will make some uncomfortable, but this term
>>>> must be seen as clearly differentiated from the notion of "submission"
>>>> which Jessica believes are often conflated. I view "surrender" as
>> Jessica
>>>> uses the term as an "agentic" act that is ethical. It is an act [or
>>>> enactment] which is felt as expansive, not as restrictive of "self"
>>>> I am going to share a quote from Jessica's paper that she offered to
>>>> differentiate the palpable difference between "surrender" and
>> "submission".
>>>> She is quoting Stephen Mitchell who is a key person in developing
>>>> relational and hermeneutical psychoanalysis.
>>>> Mitchell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> When my older daughter was about two or so, I remember my excitement at
>> the
>>>> prospect [LP-imaginal] of taking walks with her, given her new
>> ambulatory
>>>> skills and her intense interest in being outdoors.  However, I soon
>> found
>>>> these walks agonizingly slow.  My idea of a walk entailed brisk movement
>>>> along a road or path.  Her idea was quite different.  The implication of
>>>> this difference hit me one day when we encountered a fallen tree on the
>>>> side of the road....
>>>> The rest of the "walk" was spent exploring the fungal and insect life
>> on,
>>>> under, and around the tree.  I remember my sudden realization that these
>>>> walks would be no fun for me, merely a parental duty, if I held onto my
>>>> idea of walks.  As I was able to give that up and SURRENDER to my
>>>> daughter's rhythm and focus, a different type of experience opened up to
>>>> me.....  If I had simply RESTRAINED myself out of duty, I would have
>>>> experienced the walk as a compliance.  But I was able to become my
>>>> daughter's version of a good companion and to find in THAT another way
>> for
>>>> me to be that took on great personal meaning"  [Benjamin, page 26]
>>>> 
>>>> For Benjamin and Mitchell this quote expresses the principle of
>> necessary
>>>> asymmetry, by accommodating to the other as a way of "generating"
>>>> thirdness. and within the "surrendering" the person is transformed,
>> through
>>>> opening up to mutual pleasure.
>>>> 
>>>> Jessica is asking how we distinguish between the compliance of "twoness"
>>>> from the transformational learning of thirdness. For Jessica the answer
>> is
>>>> ethical, in the form of reflections on what will create intersubjective
>>>> connection in our relationship, and through this reflection, opening up
>> to
>>>> surrender and transformation.  This creative enactment expresses agency
>> and
>>>> is not coerced. It is an ethical response. This "intention" to connect
>> and
>>>> the resulting self-observation create what Jessical calls "moral
>>>> thirdness", the connection to a larger expansive connection beyond giver
>>>> and given to that is felt as palpably "right".
>>>> In all Jessica's work she is distinguishing "surrender" from
>> "submission"
>>>> [including submitting to an "ideal" of "pure" empathy. which is a
>> denial of
>>>> self and leads to complimentary doer and done to.
>>>> 
>>>> For Jessica this moral third space is the space where "self-regulation"
>> and
>>>> "co-regulation" meet. But that would require further elaboration.
>>>> Larry
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
>>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Larry,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many thanks for your very clear account of Jessica Benjamin's
>> distinction
>>>>> between 'submitting' and 'surrendering' (though I suspect that both
>> terms
>>>>> might trigger associations for many which might make them uncomfortable
>>>>> about using them in these ways). Your observations about possibility
>>>>> (doableness) make me wonder about how a shared history and common
>>>>> experience might contribute to the building of richer and more
>> extensive
>>>>> possibilities among a community or a group of people who spend time
>>>>> together (especially 'down' time, when they are more relaxed and their
>>>>> social guards are down). It is easier and more agreeable to 'surrender'
>>>>> into this sort of group, to 'go with the flow' of social conversation
>>>> with
>>>>> no real concern about where it might lead and, in so doing, to
>> contribute
>>>>> to the co-construction of a third space which is shaped not so much by
>>>> the
>>>>> thingness or iddity of participants as by the movement of interactions
>>>>> between them. This sort of surrendering into a group feels very
>> different
>>>>> from submitting to the ordered, planned procedures of a 'getting things
>>>>> done' sort of meeting (though there is room for overlap).
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From a baby watcher's perspective, this surrender sounds very much
>> like
>>>>> what Colwyn Trevarthen called primary intersubjectivity - when baby and
>>>>> caregiver 'lose themselves' in interaction purely for the sake of
>>>> engaging
>>>>> with each other (or rather, perhaps, of engaging with the 'great we').
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is a lot to be said about the way our sense of our own
>> and
>>>>> other selves moves in and out of this sort of third space. Vera
>> captured
>>>>> some lovely aspects of this in her book 'Creative Collaboration' - how
>>>> the
>>>>> 'dailiness' of being with other members of a group lubricates the
>>>>> possibilities, allowing idea sharing to blossom.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rod
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
>>>>> Sent: 18 January 2015 16:26
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rod, I concur with your interpretations.
>>>>> I would add to your comment:
>>>>> 
>>>>> In terms of signification, the choice of a staff is likely to prompt
>>>>> others into a slight lurch of expectations which might help to remind
>>>> them
>>>>> that things are not simple, categorised and predictable - what looks at
>>>>> first like a frail old woman may turn out to be a person!
>>>>> 
>>>>> The "choice" emerged from within a symbolic imagining of others
>>>>> expectations.  This interpretation is within the subject's internalized
>>>>> "scripts".
>>>>> This is exploring "my" act and your return act.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Third space notions ask or question if there are "intersubjective" ways
>>>> to
>>>>> enact "shared imaginal places which are first symbolic imaginal
>>>> "potential"
>>>>> places.  Shared mutual metaphorical spaces/places that do not yet exist
>>>>> but are "possible"  The focus on the morpho-genesis of "posse" [meaning
>>>>> can] with the suffix ibilas "causing" a "transformation" through
>>>> activities
>>>>> [enactments, performances from WITHIN this "middle shared realm".
>>>>> 
>>>>> This way of understanding is playing with notions of metaphorical and
>>>>> imaginal and symbolic "places" as "existing" WITHIN shared potential
>>>>> spaces.  This posits shared mutually imagined third spaces of
>>>> "possibility"
>>>>> within "as if" realms of becoming that open up spaces in which things
>> are
>>>>> not yet "things" and "facts" that are simple, categorized, predictable,
>>>> and
>>>>> with a yearning to be known as "real" and "actual".
>>>>> 
>>>>> What both Kris and Jessica share is an exploration of "intersubjective"
>>>>> mediated metaphorical third spaces "as if" real and actual.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jessica Benjamin also makes a distinction between "surrendering" to
>>>> "exist"
>>>>> in third spaces in contrast to "submitting" to the other. [other as
>>>> things
>>>>> or persons]. Sumitting to objects or persons is experienced being
>> reduced
>>>>> by the other. It abstracts us from "third spaces" and collapses into
>>>>> complimentary "twoness" of "giver and given" or "doer and done to"
>>>>> Third spaces are palpably "liberating" through "surrendering" and
>>>>> "becoming  within the "potential" or the "possible" symbolic "third"
>> that
>>>>> which does not yet exist in actuality or "facts"
>>>>> The third space must be enacted performed or take action but moving out
>>>>> from within this imaginal shared space.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This notion is playing with the not yet but shared "existence" becoming
>>>>> actual simple categorized concept-y. There is no absolute freedom
>>>>> fundamentally nor is there absolute constraint fundamentally.
>>>>> However for transformative liberation there must be imaginal symbolic
>>>>> shared and mutual ways within which we "surrender" This in no way means
>>>>> "submit"
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
>>>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am feeling my way into the talk around thirdness - dimly conscious
>>>>>> of a variety of contexts in which thirdspace has been explored.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In your example, Mike, your friends choice of a staff has a
>>>>>> significance because it plays off the cultural expectation that it
>>>>>> should be a cane. In this sense it is a particularly striking example
>>>>>> of what we all do every day when we make choices about how we will
>>>>>> represent ourselves to the world. Our choice of clothes, how we do our
>>>>>> hair, what we smell like, how we stand and walk, how we greet people
>>>>>> etc. all play off our knowledge of what different choices are likely
>>>>>> to be taken to mean (by different groups of people). I think this
>>>>>> links to what Larry (I think) was saying about the concept-y-ness of
>>>>>> the context-y environment in which babies play their way into
>> meanings.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In terms of signification, the choice of a staff is likely to prompt
>>>>>> others into a slight lurch of expectations which might help to remind
>>>>>> them that things are not simple, categorised and predictable - what
>>>>>> looks at first like a frail old woman may turn out to be a person!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wonder how much we need to be aware of the internalised cultural
>>>>>> knowledge which informs our choices about how we will present
>>>>>> ourselves? I suspect this contributes to the (palpable) feeling of
>>>>>> ease or unease which comes from knowing or not knowing how we are
>>>>>> 'meant' to behave in a familiar or unfamiliar context. When the
>>>>>> rhythms are part of our embodied experience it is easy to join in but
>>>>>> when we encounter different, exotic rhythms we need to watch from the
>>>>>> periphery for a while before we presume to know what we are doing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=
>> plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
>>>>>> Sent: 18 January 2015 07:56
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>> You mentioned multi-modality and I agree. Yes cognition and social
>>>>>> emotions are intimately involved along with other "musical" rhythmic
>>>>>> modalities.
>>>>>> Thought and language and the figural  within enactments [performances]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You asked if the staff is a sign? or a tool? I would have to say it is
>>>>>> a "sign" but the word "prop" also comes to mind.  I want to explore
>>>>>> what I see as the "imaginal" at play in the "symbolic" and cognitive
>>>>>> enactment of using the staff rather than a cane in setting the "scene"
>>>>>> The notion of a "middle way" within "third spaces" is exploring
>>>>>> enacting [or performing] within imaginal symbolic play.  Is the
>>>>>> "image" of a cane being replaced by a staff a "fact" or is it a more
>>>>> metaphorical enactment.
>>>>>> Do the staff or cane exist as "facts" having objective truth? Or is
>>>>>> the cane and staff imaginal symbolic ways of imagining being in the
>>>>>> world as "possibility".
>>>>>> In Winnicott's language is this middle way or third space a
>>>>>> "potential space" or a "transitional" space which when enacted brings
>>>>> into "actuality"
>>>>>> the rhythmic pattern or dance of relating to an old lady [as a
>>>>>> possible "scene"] or a pattern of relating to an eccentric person and
>>>>>> enacting this alternative possible "scene".
>>>>>> The "scene" when enacted or performed always expresses palpable felt
>>>>>> experience. In the enactment the possible becomes "actual" and becomes
>>>>>> "factual"  Mike your friend in choosing a staff over a cane was acting
>>>>>> from within an imaginal symbolic "place" Is this "place" internal or
>>>>> external?
>>>>>> or is it a "potential place" of possibility which does not yet exist?
>>>>>> Within this imaginal symbolic presenting [not representing] presence
>>>>>> [both internal imagining and external performances] there are always
>>>>>> palpable felt experiences and every "interpretation" is guided by
>>>>>> these multi-modal ways of understanding.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Third spaces as ways of understanding explore "self-regulation" and
>>>>>> "dis-regulation" within intersubjective enactments and palpable felt
>>>>>> experience. I am also emphasizing their imaginal symbolic dimension as
>>>>>> "potential" or "transitional" spaces
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The aspect that is being highlighted by the notion of  third spaces is
>>>>>> there embodied presence  and there witnessing quality which is often
>>>>>> marginalized or disowned when we privilege a particular "type" of
>>>>>> rationality and thinking.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What seems to be shared in common across multiple notions of "third
>>>>> spaces"
>>>>>> is privileging ethical or moral aspects of enactments. Who is included
>>>>>> and who is excluded.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am working backwards here, but I have been thinking a lot about
>>>>>>> what I was conceiving in my own way as a form of thirdness that I
>>>>>>> think links to what is being said here. Straighten me out if I am
>>>>>>> wrong. (I promised to get out of here shortly, but its interesting!).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We have a friend, now in her 60's, who is a college classmate of my
>>>>>>> wife and a life long friend of our family. She has been in ill
>>>>>>> health for sometime and looks a good deal older than her years.
>>>>>>> Balance is an issue for her.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When I first saw her the other day after many years I noticed that
>>>>>>> she was carrying a large staff.
>>>>>>> I laughted, and my first words  were "You look just like Gandalf!
>>>>>>> and gave her a big hug."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Over tea she discussed that by carrying the staff instead of a cane,
>>>>>>> she lost the invisibility created by old age and she became a perons
>>>>>>> to others. People constantly started up conversations with her and,
>>>>>>> being a skilled conversationalist interested in people, it made her
>>>>>>> feel like a whole person.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Seems interesting to me. Is it a kind of thirdness? A sign or (?) a
>>>>> tool?
>>>>>>> Seems like cognition and social emotions are somehow involved as
>>>> well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Miguel, Rod,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am moving our conversation to a new thread to honour the other
>>>>>>>> thread exploring "laws" of history and writing systems. I see
>>>>>>>> these topics as overlapping but notions of "thirdness" that
>>>>>>>> contrast with
>>>>>> "twoness"
>>>>>>>> [Jessica's doer and done to, or giver and given two, or knower and
>>>>>>> learner,
>>>>>>>> etc.]
>>>>>>>> Rod I must acknowledge when I read Jessica using the term "baby
>>>>>>> watcher's I
>>>>>>>> was thinking of your work and posts. Jessica's work is one stream
>>>>>>>> in intersubjective notions of thirdness. Lacan privileges language
>>>>>>>> in his notion of thirdness. There is also the work of Stolorow
>>>>>>>> Atwood, and Donna Orange, [intersubjective psychodynamics] who do
>>>>>>>> not imagine "intersubjectivity" as a developmental achievement as
>>>>>>>> bothDaniel Stern
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Jessica Benjamine understand thirdness.
>>>>>>>> In Jessica's words:
>>>>>>>> "I see such engagement in reciprocal recognition of the other as
>>>>>>>> growing naturally out of the experience of being recognized by the
>>>>>>>> other, as a crucial component of attachment responses that require
>>>>>>>> mutual regulation and attunement, and therefore, as ultimately a
>>>>>> pleasure and not a chore"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Miguel you mentioned our Western bias to privilege "seeing" and
>>>>>>>> other cultures may privilege hearing and sound and rhythmicity.
>>>>>>>> My bias is to suggest when these various modes [seeing and
>>>>>>>> rhythmicity] are felt to be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> sync then they mutually constitute thirdness. However, when there
>>>>>>>> are inevitable (mis)understandings and ruptures on the way to
>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> may have a tendency to fall back on seeing and reasoning as our
>>>>>>>> primary mode and to discount the rhymicity of the ear and felt
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>> Jessica's work engages with Hegel and the notion of the "struggle
>>>>>>>> for recognition" as an aspect of creating "twoness" and "thirdness"
>>>>>>>> Her
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>> is to critique notions of complimentarity "twoness" as a model for
>>>>>>>> expressing this struggle for recognition.
>>>>>>>> She would suggest the way through this complimentary struggle for
>>>>>>>> recognition is through a developmental trajectory of
>>>>>>>> intersubjective development of thirdness.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Miguel, I would like to follow your lead that through privileging
>>>>>>>> sight [seeing and reasoning] that we are biased to come to "know"
>>>>>>>> the other as "object" As you say "the subject-object relation as
>>>>>>>> this analytic kernel
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> one "type" of knowing the other. You are asking if there are
>>>>>>>> alternative subject-subject relations that are not mediated by
>>>>>>>> objects? This may be another "mode" and a distinct kind of "seeing"
>>>>>> [with the mind's eye?].
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Miguel when you say you speak from personal experience as a
>>>>>>>> father, and this is a spiritual space of connection, it gestures
>>>>>>>> to another
>>>>>>> dimension,
>>>>>>>> another quality of thirdness as embodied enactments/performances.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> like to offer that Enrique Dussel's "ethical hermeneutics" can
>>>>>>>> offer validation for Jessica and Daniel Stern's embodied hearing
>>>>>>>> the other [rhythmically] into voice.  I would emphasize your
>>>>>>>> notion of
>>>>>>> "intersecting"
>>>>>>>> multiple truths. I would also offer the term "transversal" [across
>>>>>>> verses]
>>>>>>>> truths as multiple and plural and "palpable"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rod, I concur with your reflections that there are other forms of
>>>>>>> learning
>>>>>>>> [especially social learning] which do not emphasize concept-y ways
>>>>>>>> of thinking. I want to also acknowledge the centrality of
>>>>>>>> concept-y ways of seeing and reasoning but as you emphasize the
>>>>>>>> children were able to join
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> WELL before they were able to understand conceptually or be able
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>> what was being enacted. This does not refute that the "world" or
>>>>>>> "context"
>>>>>>>> in which the children are joining in is symbolically formed and
>>>>>>>> historically situated.
>>>>>>>> What Daniel Stern, Jessica Benjamin, V. Reddy, Winnicott,
>>>>>>>> Trevarten, Fonagy, Gergely and other "baby watchers" are
>>>>>>>> indicating is the
>>>>>>> centrality
>>>>>>>> of "gestures" [meaningful performances or enactments as also
>>>>>>>> profoundly implicated in the formation of our contexts and worlds.
>>>>>>>> Worlds of experience are "palpable lived experiences" and this
>>>>>>>> does have a phenomenological quality, a hermeneutical quality, and
>>>>>>>> a cultural historical quality.  Worlds are also deeply concept-y
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> institutionalized
>>>>>>>> and places of doer and done to. The question is how do we
>>>>>>>> ethically and morally respond to these palpable conditions?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Thirdness" in its multiple versions may offer possible new
>>>>>>>> understandings to guide us symbolically AND  rhythmically
>>>>>>>> co-creatively inventing AND discovering [both/and]  "third spaces"
>>>>>>>> AS potentially liberating contexts.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sanders understands palpable rhythmic resonance as one of two
>>>>>>>> basic "principles" of all human interaction. Jessica's project is
>>>>>>>> to underline this aspect of rhythmic resonance as primal in
>>>>>>>> understanding the notion
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> "recognition".
>>>>>>>> As the way through and beyond complimentary "twoness" of doer and
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> or giver and given toperson must experience a palpable "witnessing"
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> thirdness.
>>>>>>>> THIS is an intersubjective way of understanding thirdness
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an
>>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
>>>>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
>>>>>> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not
>>>>>> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
>>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely
>> on
>>>>> it.
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
>>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
>>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
>>>>>> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to
>>>>>> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
>>>>>> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this
>>>>>> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services
>>>>>> unless accompanied by an official order form.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
>>>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>>>> 
>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
>> for
>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
>>>> it.
>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
>> accepts
>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
>>>> emails
>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
>> responsibility
>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
>> accompanied
>>>>> by an official order form.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
>>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>>> 
>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
>> for
>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
>> it.
>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
>> accepts
>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
>> emails
>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
>> responsibility
>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
>> accompanied
>>>> by an official order form.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.