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

[HENRY SHONERD]

Ahem. Dual STIMulation. 

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Thirdness and its various versions
> From: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> Date: January 19, 2015 at 7:41:11 PM MST
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> 
> 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.
>