[Xmca-l] Re: Political constructions of selfvspoliticalconstructionsof identity

[Lplarry]

To continue to explore alternative notions of self and identity.
Earlier Paul Kockleman was referenced in his article “The Semiotic Stance”.
In that article (page 237) Paul references Mead and his concept of *interaction* being a *third*.
Kockleman says to reference a *third* is an abstraction and is also a *general* notion. Keep in view that Rein is questioning if  general phenomena  actually *exist* so I present Mead’s general perspective with Reid in view as an open question.

To turn to Mead’s generality:
All *interactions* are *thirds*.
If all interactions are thirds than *any particular* interaction is a *third*.
Mead gives the example of pulling back my fist (1st phase of an action or SIGN).
You ducking is a reaction or INTERPRETANT *insofar* as my next move (second phase of possible action or OBJECT) *would be* to punch you.
Notice that the OBJECT does not yet *exist* 
Kockleman then *generalizes* this *particular* example to say *any interaction is a third* whose sign is the 1st phase of a *controlled* behaviour.
The behavior is *revealed* as controlled behavior by the spatiotemporal *location* and physical form of the 1st phase AND whose interpretant is another’s reaction which takes (grasps) the 2nd phase of the controlled behavior *into account*.
By this grasping the *object* (2nd phase) into account this *object* can be *likened to* (semblance) a *purpose*
Insofar as this *object* is (not yet but could be) *actualized* ( be existant).

This likening of -  (object) (2nd) (purpose) (not yet but could be) - as the general 2nd phase  of *controlled* interaction is a particular way or mode of accounting for semiosis as *thirds*

To now return to Rein and Dogen and *ity* as something *kenritsu* which is a key notion of *ity*.

*Kenritsu* is often translated as *arising*.
Rein points out that (kenritsu) has often been translated as *forming* as *construction* and left untranslated.

Rein says all these solutions to refer to (kenritsu) are problematic because the term (kenritsu) should not be used to refer to something that *pre-exists* becoming manifest, or even worse, kenritsu being given its shape by some other agent.  Even *becoming* is not really a correct word for (kenritsu) because this word hints of finality – arriving at the endpoint of a transformative process.
But (kenritsu) – becoming itself (the ity) never stops, is never reached in a *tangible* final form

Moving back to Mead and objects (as 2nds) that *appear* as *purposes* or *goal directed* Rein offers a Japanese word (genjo) for goal-oriented approaches.

I will pause here with an open question of self and identity as implicated within *control/able* thirds including objects being likened to *purposes* AND  contrasting this (mode) with Dogen’s notion of *ity* (arising) that is not form, construction, or becoming that reaches an end point.

Arriving at a place of reflection 




Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Larry Purss