Re: [xmca] Al Andalus as a model for *{ }*

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Christine--

Borgerson mentions several empirical studies in her discussion and many of
the concepts she deploys resonate in interesting ways. But I get lost, in
part because
I do not know all the philosophers, in part because I do not know the
empirical
references used as grounding (ethnographies, for example). Is there some
place where philosophy and empirical phenomena we can more or less easily
comprehend come together so we could grab ahold more easily?

(I recognize that the answer could be no!).

Also, isn't Ingold critical of the rhyzhome metaphor?
mike

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:35 AM, christine schweighart <
schweighartgate@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Larry,
> I encountered Butler's discussion of 'consciouness creating it's relation
> to the world through transformative action' of Kojeve on p 70 of my CU Press
> paperback edition seems to examine what might be at stake in not taking an
> embodied position in 'place' - that we also 'continue 'in nature. Which is
> where Rayner's ontology rests  (although he isn't engaging with these ideas
> as framed here). Stetsenko seems to accept that these are simulatneous in
> the article you suggested some time ago.
>
> An aside here is that very different appropriations of 'rhizome' are made
> in CHAT and  Tamboukou - who were influenced by Deleuze & G 1988. the
> principles of organisation of rhizomes guides both - however Tamboukou is
> not doing developmental research. In her ethnography she then 'switches'
> from the principles of living as a rhizome - to using it as a mapping tool
> for her data - which is not a developmental engagement. Rayner's history
> includes his  presidency of the British Mycological Society, and he is
> drawing from principles of how relational rhizome/fungii organisation is in
> neighbourhood , circumspection and focus of energetic relation- some of
> which comes through from D&G 1988 work. Yet a rhizomatic network, even
> though it can be constituted of many individual spore growths joining , is
> forming unity. Whereas, as you emphasise, in 'golden age' is not cultural
> unity, and there is 'alterity' , but how can such a dynamic be understood? I
> think here the wayfaring , or 'nomadic thinking' is underexplored.
> I recall some reading of what travellers 'bring', and  how  enrichments
> arise  in places of reciprocal  hospitality. Perhaps Al -Andalus expressed
> this appreciation that enabled development  without the displacement of
> travelling?
>  I am not sure how 'radical' Levinas is, as I haven't reached an
> understanding. However alterity seems very important. I pass a fleeting
> meeting with Borgerson in the file attached. if I 'cherry pick' I wonder
> about the description of a transition from thinking in complexes to thinking
> in concepts p123-124 T&L Kozulin and 'concept-for-others' precedes
> 'concept-for-self- What  this might mean I  relate to Zuckerman's
> observations about cooperation where no member has 'expertise'  yet  each
> progesses through joint work. (e.g p194 V Educ Theory in Cultural
> context,2003). There is 'alterity' in social relations  but  what does
>  societal awareness and not only 'sociality' in our projects entail.
> Projects , and activities don't necessarily make 'unity' in practices
> perhaps - would this still be consistent with 'ideal' or is subjective
> 'transcendence' necessary to continue 'in nature' and in form ideal?
>  I look forward to Reading Zinchenko - as Mike suggested, and also I'm
> interested to ground a notion of situated agency in my study at present so
> thanks for your orientation to Donna Orange.
> I shall probably be engaged for a while in this,
>
> Too much for one message!
>  Christine
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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