Re: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Larry & Michael --

I we used the fixed images experimental results as a kind of model-to-think
with
than reality is *part* a fiction of the moment, the durability of which we
can know only after the fact.

No either or from a triadic perspective. Just Both/And in confusing melange,
part of it constructed as we struggle for continuity. I think that Eco
understands this. But who knows, maybe I am just imagining it.
:-)
mike

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:

> One thing we get with fiction that we don't get with actual (I am
> struggling to come up with a term because it seems real is too close to the
> philosophical position of realism) is that fiction is certain while actual
> processes are by nature - or through nature - indefinite.  I took this to be
> one of Eco's major points.  Well drawn fictional charcaters are more
> attractive to us, more real to us (and this time I do accept the realist
> perspective) because we are certain about what happens to them.  I thought
> Eco's notion of who we understand more as committing suicide the literary
> character or Hitler.  Hitler existed but we lack a certainty of what
> actually happened to him, so this makes an Anna Karenina or a Madame Bovary
> more of a presence in our lives - to the point where when Woody Allen
> recreates Madame Bovary in a comic piece we continue to feel we know her.  I
> thought it was really interesting when he compared the actual Napoleon with
> Napoleon as a fictional character. It is an interesting perspective that I
> hadn't thought of before.  There's some Freud somewhere in there I think.
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
> Sent: Fri 1/1/2010 4:48 PM
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....
>
>
>
> Happy New Year everyone
>
> Well Mike I'm glad we settled the ongoing debate on what is the meaning of
> "consciousness" and also came to a consensus on the role of "emotion" in the
> human sciences because the discussion between Eco and Valsiner opens up a
> line of inquiry that may generate a topic worthy of a new decade
> The question
>
> "What is the ontological status of FICTION and what is REAL."
>
> I can't say that I have a firm position on how to answer this question but
> I do see that it is a theme that runs through a lot of the CHAT
> conversations. The ontological and social status of the REIFICATION of
> concepts such as "capitalism" as "fictional" constructs or "real" social
> "facts".
> is part of this discussion.
>
> The description of "individualistic" vs "collectivistic" tendencies in
> infant development and classroom practices speaks to the "fictional"
> abstract generalizing group processes.
> When we describe particular practices or events and look for larger
> patterns in the culture we are engaging in constructing fictional narratives
> to explain our conduct.
> As Jaan Valsiner states, "through all these meaning-making moves we are
> creating FICTIONS-IN-THE-REAL." (page 111)  As Valsiner summarizes in his
> article Umberrto Uco's article is a construction of "eloquent fictions-
> about others and about himself - are a testimony to the restless eagerness
> of the inquisitive human minds who create beautiful and horrifying fictional
> worlds - AND INHABIT THEM" (page 111)
> As both Eco and Valsiner agree these fictions do not have ontological
> status but are "real" as social facts which are recognized as having a
> shared reality and real consequences in the world.
> Uco points out that for an athiest every supernatural object is fictional
> because inaccessible to our senses whereas for a believer these supernatural
> objects are real.  (they rely on two different ontologies).
> However how "real" is this dividing boundary between believers and
> athiests?
> Valsiner points out the processes in the social sciences have parallels to
> true believers. Famous thinkers search for understandings as tentative
> FALLIBLE efforts usually phrased in vague terms.  Then social scientists who
> follow the famous thinkers read the fallible texts and search for "truths"
> AS IF these words are final and immutable.  The famous social scientists
> through this literary process of interpretation and RE-interpretation of
> their works are turned into FICTIONAL CHARACTERS by the fame attributed to
> them and the recognition of "the truths of the grand masters.  In this way
> their ideas get fixed in a way analogous to the fixation of Hamlet or Jesus
> in our collective memory.
> Going to university and spending years learning a tradition (such as
> communication studies)is one of the central ways to create meaning and find
> a "calling" within university scholarship. Calling it a fictional process in
> no way negates the power of this way to inhabit a disciplinary structure.
> This "perspectival realism" allows one to envision an open space that sees
> the parallels between the construction of ideals in religious and scientific
> and humanistic endeavors. In all these frames one can take a fundamentalist
> stance or a stance of fallibility and inquiry.
> Gadamer seems to have a lot to add to this topic but I don't feel qualified
> to say much except that his insights seem very relevant to this topic.
>  However his metaphor of "horizon of understanding" does capture the
> recognition that one inhabits particular discourses (traditions or canons)
> which are passed on through education.
>
> A final thought on the role of "agency" in this topic.  Can one choose
> which fiction to inhabit as a personal choice or is one's fictional
> narrative determined by social circumstances.  My bias is to suggest that
> agency is a "capacity" and not innate. Agency is also a fictional construct
> which one can inhabit WHEN self is first recognized by (m)other. (This goes
> back to Mead and the social self).
>
> This perspective on fiction challenges the term "mere fiction" as a term of
>  dismissal to negate another's perspective.  However we are still left with
> the ethical and moral response-ability to act and do we decide how to act in
> private reverie or in conversation with others?  The last caution I suggest
> is that many people view the construction of fiction as a private act and we
> must bring back the recognition that constructing fictional narratives are
> discourses that we share.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:51 am
> Subject: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > The two attached papers are part of dialogue between Jaan
> > Valsiner and
> > Umberto Eco that appear to be relevant to current
> > xmca discussions.
> >
> > F the Y of them what wants the I
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca