Re: [xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being

[Raquel Guzzo <rguzzo@mpc.com.br>]

You are right!  

Freire's idea of "ser" is not disconnect of being in a concrete world.

For transforming this world is necessary acting in it with a consequence - praxis

This is what Paulo Freire consider  – this is “ser” and “vir a ser” (by transforming the world the person transform her/him self)

 There is quite a difference in Freire’s publication before and after being exiled. His radically must be found between lines.

 


Raquel S. L. Guzzo
Pos-Graduação em Psicologia
Centro de Ciências da Vida
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas

rguzzo@puc-campinas.edu.br
rguzzo@pq.cnpq.br
rguzzo@mpc.com.br

On 6 Oct 2011, at 10:37, Tony Whitson wrote:

> Someone sent me an off-list response to my Freire post, offering that "I
> think that "ser " used by Paulo Freire refers to the essence of each
> individual. " In my response, I say that I agree with ser as the essnece,
> but I'm thinking Freire is trying to say our essence is our doing, not
> something that we are [as with the verbal copula]. This is consistent with
> Sartre, of course, but I think Freire is trying to express this in a more
> radical sense, by using "ser" (at least sometimes) in a way that it should
> not be translated as the noun "L'etre."
> 
> 
> 
> I think "ser" is not always "O ser" (= L 'etre) in Freire, as when he writes
> in the footnote "Em torno do que e de como estão sendo." (p. 1, chapter 1,
> Pedagogia do Oprimido)
> 
> The English, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is:  < preoccupation with what
> and how they are "being." >
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:56 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of vivencia has me pondering
> 
> 
> 
> The turn to discussing "vital experience" or being as qualified being [not
> qualia] seems to be an opening with potential and possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy,
> 
> you ask if it is what we "make" of an experience that is determinative if it
> is "vital".  I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather than
> "make" is central to exploring "vital experience".  Making is one particular
> approach to engaging vital experience.  This is a vital experience that
> transforms the individual person's orientation within the world.  This is an
> agentive response that has the quality of being a "personal" decision.  I
> would like to suggest this is one particular way to intergrate "vital
> experience in our proceeding along pathways. I would even suggest this may
> be the particular way forward that is biased as an approach within modernity
> as an ethical way of life.
> 
>> From this perspective "vital experience" can be personally "undergone" 
> 
>> and
> 
> through struggle and courageously exploring of personal inscapes the person
> can change direction and "make" something different of their lives [develop]
> 
> 
> 
> However, alternatively, the person could possibly be "met" [alterity] and in
> this "I-YOU" meeting "vital experience" is transformed and new pathways
> open.  I wonder if this alternative way of engaging "vital experience" is
> through "witnessing" [as I explored recently] This is another way of
> engaging "vital experience" that does not emphasize the personal courageous
> aspect of transformation [as making] but rather points to "being met" within
> the "vital experience".
> 
> 
> 
> I've contrasted and made distinct two possible openings of development
> [transformation or in*formation]  One emphasing a journey through inscapes,
> the other through intersubjective "holding environments". In actuality there
> may be multiple flow-forms and interweavings of these multiple strands of
> "vital experience"  What I'm pointing to is our socio-cultural biases in
> modernity  to validate the "inscapes" as legitimate [good] pathways of
> transformation while invalidating the inter-subjective witnessing pathways
> to transformation.  [as dependency and defended against] In other words we
> don't really "trust" the other will actually respond to the calling of "vial
> experience".
> 
> Andy, I grant that after being "met" [which I believe may be developmental
> in its own movement] there follow other phases or levels of transformation
> that bring us back to "spaces of reason" "propositional language games"
> 
> "agentive stances of *making* ones way in the world", etc.
> 
> This becomes a cultural-historical narrative of projects and objects and
> activity.  I also grant "meeting" as I'm discussing it is "normative" and an
> ethical stance towards alterity [including one's own alterity].  However as
> a particular form of participation it may have as much validity and
> legitimacy as the moe courageous form of turning towards inscapes for
> transormation.
> 
> 
> 
> Larry
> 
> __________________________________________
> 
> _____
> 
> xmca mailing list
> 
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> 
> <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> 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