[Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
mike cole
mcole@ucsd.edu
Wed Jan 21 09:59:56 PST 2015
Larry-- Maybe we can enact that zone, as in the case my elderly friend, by
incorporating a strategically useful object into our actions. Instead of a
staff (which was both a need tool for walking and a symbol that
"re-triangulated" her with with the social world.
Phillip noted that in choosing the staff, my friend was also choosing to
resist/reject her positioning by others. Yes indeed. The mediators we
choose to use when we have a choice, seems to me, always imply rejection of
the things not chosen... although, were the goals of action different, they
might be, as they say, very handy.
mike
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rod,
> I am in full agreement with what you have written. The "watching" stance
> [observational stance] [spectator stance] ia the exact opposite of what I
> wanted to portray. I will drop the term "baby watching"
>
> The term "third space" also can be questioned and the term "zone of
> mediation" or mediated zone could be used. The question becoming when is
> this "zone" have a felt sense of "doer and done to as a complimentary zone
> of learning, and when can we reflectively enact a mediated zone. The
> question who "perceives" in this way are persons who are searching [and
> creating] alternative approaches beyond being spectators.
>
> Play also can be considered turn taking [my turn your turn, each person
> playing] and alternatively as "surrendering" to the play or being carried
> along "within" the play.
>
> There is a difference in how participation is "felt" or affected.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > I have to apologise again for dipping back in to this conversation when I
> > don't really have time to engage fully with what you have written but I
> > just wanted to throw in my unease about the term 'baby watching'. After
> > reading Vasu Reddy and others on second person perspective I am much more
> > aware of the importance of the difference between 'watching' from outside
> > an interaction (a third-person, spectator perspective) and engaging IN an
> > interaction - as Reddy puts this, the difference between how it feels
> when
> > you see someone smiling at someone else and when you see someone smiling
> at
> > YOU. While we can learn a lot about interaction from very close, careful
> > watching of how babies and partners move in response to each other it is
> > also important to recognise how much more is available when we are IN
> > interaction with another person. I think the palpable, embodied FEEL of
> > interaction is primary - babies can FEEL the difference between
> > sympathetically contingent, attentive and attuned response and less
> > co-regulated forms of interaction before they are able to have any sort
> of
> > conception of another person as another person with whom they are
> > interacting. Seeing the feeling is not quite the same as feeling the
> > feeling!
> >
> > Also, quickly, the adult's marking of an accentuated response is also,
> > surely, a form of pedagogy, demonstrating an active interest in the
> > interests of the baby.
> >
> > 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: 21 January 2015 05:03
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> >
> > Rod,
> > Another aspect of the notion of asymmetrical "marking" as understood
> within
> > reflective internalized thirdness is the way it can be understood by
> > clarifying how Jessica understands the notion of "equality".
> > Jessica writes:
> >
> > "Symmetry is a crucial part of what unites the pair in complimentarity,
> the
> > takes-one-to-know-one recognition feature of the doer/done to relation
> ....
> > In effect, it builds on the deep structure of mirroring and affective
> > matching that operates [largely procedurally and out of awareness] in any
> > dyad, when both partners glare at each other or interrupt in unison. In
> > such interactions, we can see the underlying symmetry that characterizes
> > the apparent opposition of power relations: each feels unable to gain the
> > other's recognition, and each feels in the other's power.
> >
> > In other words, the asymmetrical notion of "marking" which facilitates
> > "third space" requires in Jessica's understanding reflective "surrender"
> > as facilitated by an internal symbolic cultural historical "third
> > space". This space is an imaginal metaphorical "as if" space of possible
> > and potential "enactments" and "witnessing". However underlying this
> > symbolic space is the necessity of rhythmic attunement [accommodation]
> AND
> > asymmetrical marking [differentiation].
> >
> > Jessica's understanding of the development of creative "freedom"
> expresses
> > a distinctive sociality of freedom that involves one subject facilitating
> > the freedom of another through witnessing and hearing the other into
> > voice. However I am suggesting by acting this way [surrendering to the
> > third space] that this is an agentic act, not passive but active.
> Surrender
> > as Jessica understands the term is a possible answer to relations of
> > domination. A generative as well as generous way of facilitating the
> > development of intersubjective sociality.
> >
> > I was intrigued when I read Peg's response discussing appropriation and
> > misappropriation: Peg wrote"
> >
> > "Here, the old lady uses her "mis-appropriation" within an act of
> > transformation. With children, teachers or parents or other elders, may
> > mis-appropriate children's play -- having children trot or canter or
> > gallup into the classroom as a way to engage them in a transition
> between
> > space or activity. What's different? Well I'm teasing myself with the
> > notion of "second order" -- for the old lady there's extra consciousness
> > and that "extra" bit is acted by the adult in the case of the children."
> >
> > Peg's reflection on second order "extra" consciousness. THAT "extra bit"
> > that is acted by the adult may overlap with Jessica's notion of the
> > "symbolic metaphorical space of thirdness from within which one acts.
> > What's different" I return to Miguel's comment questioning if there are
> > subject-object performances which are distinct from intersubjective
> > subject-subject enactments.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Rod
> > > I would say that Jessica would fully endorse this understanding of
> using
> > > internalized thirdness. as a "reflective" space. This is the aspect of
> > > thirdness that she refers to as the "symbolic third "[ a metaphorical
> > space
> > > of äs if""perceiving the world through a sociocultural filter.
> > > Your focussing on the centrality of "marking"I would suggest has been
> > > deeply explored by Fonagy and Gergley in there re-searching ""affect
> > > regulation.
> > > Whether others agree or question Jessica's notions of ïntersubjective
> > > third space"[aspects of attunement, differentiation, and symbolic
> thirds]
> > > as a mediating environment, the focus on "marking" contrasted with
> > matching
> > > or mirroring] is a profound insight and notions of "self-regulation"
> can
> > be
> > > expanded by the understanding of affect regulation through asymmetrical
> > > "marking"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have had to read hastily, Larry and I am not at all sure that I have
> > >> followed you and Jessica Benjamin through the psychoanalytical
> accounts
> > of
> > >> intersubjectivity but I wanted to pick up on her point about the
> > 'marking'
> > >> of the mother's response to a baby's distress (not simply mirroring
> this
> > >> back in the same form as it came from the baby). The mother/parent is
> > >> perhaps able to use an internalised thirdness to see the (future)
> > >> autonomous self in the actions of the baby, perceiving these through a
> > >> sociocultural filter and responding 'as if' the baby was already a
> (more
> > >> competent) social agent - or perhaps it is more that the parent
> > responds as
> > >> if the interaction is already such as is had between enculturated
> > agents -
> > >> moving into a third space into which the baby is also drawn.
> > >>
> > >> Rod
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > >> Sent: 20 January 2015 15:41
> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >>
> > >> Rod,
> > >> Yes, and the surrender she is exploring is of the intersubjective type
> > >> [subject subject complimentarity transformed. This is in contrast to
> > >> submission as a relation in which some "one" [person or "idea" is
> > >> "dominant" and privileged such a patriarchal father,] To sub-mit for
> > >> Jessica enacts some "one" is "over"-seeing.
> > >>
> > >> In her example of the walk with the two year old, if this walk
> becomes
> > >> "duty" through an act of self- assertion or self-regulation this duty
> > >> becomes some"thing" which the parent submits to and there is no
> longer
> > a
> > >> sense of mutual intersubjective delight in surrendering to the "third"
> > that
> > >> mutual potential space.
> > >> Jessica describes this tension between subjective complimentary
> twoness
> > >> [i.e. patriarchal father as over lord] and the who submits to the
> "one"
> > >> [person or ideal] AND intersubjective "thirdness" as a tension which
> > will
> > >> never be dialectically resolved. Thirdness will always rupture and
> need
> > >> repair. Jessica's is a "moral" third and is a developmental
> > "achievement".
> > >> It requires first having participated and been "held" or "witnessed"
> > >> within palpable felt experience which creates a thirdness of
> > >> intersubjective attunement. This is "accommodation".
> > >>
> > >> The mother's gestures must be "marked" to the rhythm of the babies
> moods
> > >> and affect as attunement to a rhythmic "dance". This is the context or
> > ZPD
> > >> in which "differentiation" from fusion within "oneness" occurs.
> > >>
> > >> This intersubjective model recognizes that this type of developmental
> > >> "learning" must be co-created and requires the "symbolic" third which
> > >> explores as metaphorical enactments of (a)symmetry. The parent must
> act
> > >> from within "reflective" presence enacting the third by "morally"
> > >> surrendering to the rhythm or musical patterning using cultural
> > >> historical tools and understandings.
> > >>
> > >> I read Jessica as "seeing through" the historical constellation of two
> > >> independent subjectivie standpoints in relations of complimentarity
> and
> > >> one is "over" and the other "under" in relations of domination.
> > >> Submitting to a fundamental already known "one" is not intersubjective
> > >> asymmetrical enactments which call forth surrender of the person
> through
> > >> rhythmical attunements to the other as the "basis" for differentiation
> > of
> > >> the two subjectivities through the moral reflections of the care
> giver.
> > >>
> > >> This model understands maturity as the care giver having her own
> > >> subjectivity and "twoness" and "thirdness" are never resolved or
> > >> transcended . They co-exist and the care giver must develop the
> > capacity or
> > >> disposition for co-creating attuned, differentiated, and symbolic
> > >> thirdness. What Jessica is suggesting is this process collapses into
> > >> complimentary doer and done to without the recognition this is
> > continually
> > >> co-created "MORAL" thirdness that intentionally resists either/or
> > >> enactments which demand patriarchical recognition and the other must
> in
> > >> duty submit
> > >>
> > >> The tension is never overcome and it is inevitable that thirdness will
> > >> collapse into twoness. This will be felt as a loss of thirdness and
> the
> > >> moral struggle is through reflection for the more mature one to
> > >> re-establish thirdness through recognition that the thirdness shifted
> > >> towards self-assertive twoness. It takes the commitment for the person
> > in
> > >> the lead to recognize he/she returned to "twoness" and caused a
> rupture
> > and
> > >> to sincerely communicate this "truth" to the other participant(s) so
> the
> > >> felt inevitable disregulation can be validated as a felt truth.
> > >> This acknowledge is capable of reopening this space of thirdness, this
> > >> metaphorical space of potentiality and possibility.
> > >>
> > >> This model is "intersubjective" not subjective Larry
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > But Benjamin would argue that this is surrender (jointly giving up a
> > >> > focus on self in order to focus on a shared 'third' space of
> > >> > relationship) rather than submission (losing self in/to the
> > >> relationship).
> > >> >
> > >> > Bartels and Zeki (The neural correlates of maternal and romantic
> love,
> > >> > Neuroimage, 2004, 21, 1155-66) suggest that love is associated with
> a
> > >> > reduction of activity in parts of the brain associated with social
> > >> > evaluation - so love is, in some respects, blind and lovers (of
> their
> > >> > own babies or of romantic partners) may be more willing to surrender
> > >> > despite what others might see as flaws in the objects of their love!
> > >> >
> > >> > All the best,
> > >> >
> > >> > Rod
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Maria Judith Sucupira
> > da
> > >> > Costa Lins
> > >> > Sent: 20 January 2015 13:09
> > >> > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >> >
> > >> > Submission is presente also in true love.
> > >> > maria
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > >> > De: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] Em nome de HENRY SHONERD Enviada
> em:
> > >> > segunda-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2015 22:39
> > >> > Para: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> > Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >> >
> > >> > 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 narr ative 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.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ---
> > >> > Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
> > >> > http://www.avast.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> > [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.
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list