Andy
I agree that the "inner world" is cultural historical. This "inner
world" as a "concept" did not exist in Aristotole's time [and not in
Homer's texts]
The term "construct" may suggest that this "inner world" is an
epiphenomenon OF the real cultural-historical world and could
therefore be collaped back into the cultural historical. In other
words the "inner world" could be deconstructed.
My reading of this possibility is that once arisen as an ACTUALITY the
"inner world" cannot be deconstructed except if the entire collective
activity of which it is a "part" also is deconstructed. In other
words "sovereign selfs" and "sovergeign states" and "sovereign rights"
exist together within a family resemblance with a shared notion of
"identity" as possessive constructions.
Andy, cultura-historical formational artifacts such as "selfs" and
"texts" are not conceptualepiphenomena that can be deconstructed [as
merely "epiphenomenal concepts"] unless the entire collective activity
from which the "inner world" and "texts" arises also is deconstructed
[annililated]
If the "inner world" ACTUALLY ARISES FROM the cultural historical as a
particular KIND or TYPE of "psychological world" then once arisen
[developmentally/evolutionary] it IS an actual "existence" that is
NOT MERELY IDEAL [as epiphenomenal] but rather exists as a particular
KIND of artifact every bit as real as cathedrals and states and rights.
The particular kind of subject that we are familiar with seems
intimately linked to "texs" and "states" and "rights" and from my
perspective is a particular possessive kind of inner world.
Andy, going back to Charles Taylor's notion of "theories" as necessary
to SIMPLIFY and REDUCE dynamic complexity, [life always exceeds our
theories] points to the need for collective activity but a central
kind of activity for the "inner world" to arise I believe is
hermeneutical and dialogical con-verse-ations.
Gadamer's notion that these conversations CONTINUE to occur across the
centuries [not as a backward glance but in real time]. "I" read an
author such as Aristotle today and this reading
[con-verse-ation] points to "texts" and "inner worlds" both arising as
artifacts which occupy the same phenomenological [not
epiphenomenal] actuality.
Therefore, we need to be cautious when saying we are constructing &
deconstructing "texts" and "inner worlds" AS IF they are
epiphenomenal. They ARE phenomenal and can annililated as actualities
if the cultural historical world is annililated but I don't think we
can deconstruct the texts and "inner worlds" and leave this
particular cultural historical world intact.
That is the reason I was attempting to make a distinction between the
terms "construct" and "understood" [as a dialogical intersubjective
notion as used by Gadamer]
Andy, I "hold" [possess] these perspectives tentatively, but it is
where my curiosity alights.
Larry
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
OK, Larry has selected Lektorsky's chapter in the 2009 book to read.
Larry, instead of running on to consider 15 different concepts of
the inner world, shouldn't we wait on a second and think about
Lekotrsky's claim? What do you think of the claim that the very
idea of an "inner world" or "self" is a cultural-historical
construct, i.e., that in say Aristotle's times, such a concept did
not exist and therefore that it would simply not be sensible to
talk of people having such a "self"?
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
I went on Google Scholar and typed in "Vladislav Lektorsky"
The book "Learning and Expanding with Activity" came up free
to download.
I'm sending an attachment if others are interested.
Chapter 5 "Mediation as a Means of Collective Activity" by V.
Lektorsky is
on pages 75 to 87.
Page 80 explores Lektorsky's perspective of the notion of the
subject. I'll
quote what he says.
"The idea of the "inner world" is very important in cultural
and social
contexts. The subject as the unity of consciousness, the unity
of an
individual biography, and the center of making decisions can
exist only as
the center of "the inner world". *But the appearance of the
"inner world" is
possible only when the IDEA of "the inner" arises in culture*,
in other
words, when it is realized in forms of collective activity.
This means that
there may exist cultures and forms of activity including forms of
communication where the subjects have no feelings of the ego
and "the inner
world".
The ego of an individual subject may be UNDERSTOOD to be a
complicated, changing, and somewhat problematic formation. It has
different layers, which sometimes are INTERPRETED as different
egos,
engaged in communication WITH EACH OTHER and formed in
different kinds of
activity and n different relations with other people. Ego
identity can be
confused and fragmented. Thus, an individual subject can be
UNDERSTOOD to
be a collective subject. A specific feature of such a
collective subject is
that it is embodied in a single physical body and has a unity of
consciousness and a central ego, REGULATING activities of
different
subegos. In cases of multiple personalities a central ego is
absent so
several egos coexist in the same body."
I am not endorsing this particular perspective, but offer
Lektorsky's
version of the "self" formed within activity theory as an
example that
"self" "agency" "subjectivity" "individuality" "ego" "person"
"agent"
"agency" "free will" "self-determination" "self-regulation"
"personality"
"personhood" and the RELATION between these various terms are
being
fully explored and expressed within activity theory as ARISING
phenomena.
I would like to propose that dialogical hermeneutical notions
of "situated
agency" have a place/space within this constellation of terms.
Larry
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca