[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Polysemy of "Community"
- To: Mike Cole <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Polysemy of "Community"
- From: Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:04:51 -0700
- In-reply-to: <CAHCnM0CxE4-KPnU=qPqxAHNNT+sF1orR1W0kYR5gRs_3cDXemail@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <C19012EF8F8F7146898DA221E3E7F8E1013B0ED8774B@MAIL2.bgsu.edu> <393FDE85-EFCF-48E6-96E0-6ED970A4DD80@hawaii.edu> <CAGaCnpwV-LJiup9qyOOXP=TPX6NCQk+4R_GSNxJg8+CU14OrOQ@mail.gmail.com> <E478F7B8-EDCF-4519-B616-E17C2ED214B8@hawaii.edu> <C19012EF8F8F7146898DA221E3E7F8E1013B0ED877E0@MAIL2.bgsu.edu> <520AE206.firstname.lastname@example.org> <677393EE-FCF8-4A94-8F11-E2922F308E28@hawaii.edu> <520AFF6D.email@example.com> <94019118-330E-4A70-8FC5-AC7186A4331C@hawaii.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <520B1DB2.email@example.com> <CAHCnM0D_dAotUMAWvzjSCWACptCs4QprkmgwVUzMMYaJE64OBA@mail.gmail.com> <520C4499.firstname.lastname@example.org> <9C3E0B46-1122-49B6-86B8-3E1AE8B1C016@hawaii.edu> <520C5629.email@example.com> <CAHCnM0CxE4-KPnU=qPqxAHNNT+sF1orR1W0kYR5gRs_3cDXfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
"human -created, a particular historically sedimented, materialized
configuration of the human VOICE, that, dare we consider, it ART-I-facial.
I feel you have covered a lot of *ground* that tra-verses and foregrounds
key concepts. However, there is one other term that is very fluid but I
believe is basic and needs to be fore-grounded. That is *imaginal [not
Charles Taylors *social imaginary* implying that community *meaning* and
community *voice* are fundamentally *imaginal*.
This concept is polyphonic and within history has a development which can
be traced often crisscrossing with reason and rationality as concepts [a
chiasmus as crisscrossing]
The phrase "in the beginning was the deed" crisscrossing with the phrase
"in the beginning was the word".
In Merleau-Ponty's terms the *word made flesh* [flesh as gesturing to
material artifacts, words, AS LIVING WITHIN interhuman realms.
The *gap* as receptive and the imaginal coming into form.
This is linking in another *tradition* but in this other tradition the
imaginal is NOT understanding the imaginal as located inside a private
mind, or in a transcendental beyond. The imaginal as art-fully calling the
other into *voice* within historical con-scientia.
This process can be *perceived* moving THROUGH ^history^ and moving through
^self^. I used * ^ * as a symbol to suggest that the concepts *self* and
*history* are imaginal concepts which imaginally come into *voice through
words and deeds.
Yes, actions within activity settings but understood within the
interhuman imaginal realms [and how we understand and voice and art-fully
con-figure imaginal con-figurations.
If I have taken a step too far into the imaginal which has crisscrossed
rational reasoning just ignore this commentary.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, mike cole <email@example.com> wrote:
> Colleagues-- Is there perhaps some relationship between the notions of
> "shared artifacts" and "shared meanings?" If Mandelshtam forgot the word he
> wanted to say, and thought,
> unembodied, returned to the hall of shadows" what is the form of the
> embodiment if not in something human-created, a paricular, historically
> sedimented, materialized configuration of the human voice that, dare we
> consider it, ART-i-ficial?
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > That's an alternative way to go, Cliff, define "community" by "shared
> > meanings," but the upshot of that way is the counter-intuitive conclusion
> > that kids and their parents belong to different "cultural communities."
> > There is one point which I must clarify though from your last words
> > "The material form of an artifact may be universal in the sense that we
> > all agree on the label for it. However, the artifact may have very
> > different meanings for us." No. The artefacts have a universal material
> > form despite us having "different labels" for it. The foundation of
> > science is that matter exist independently of human activity, obedient to
> > natural laws which are knowable. And natural science has a right to
> > it is not a giant mistake. We *do* of course ascribe different meanings
> > one and the same material form or object, but that is thanks to human
> > activity. The matter exists independently of our interpretation of it.
> > is why I know I can rely on artefacts to provide a sound, universal
> > foundation for "community," and I leave it entirely open that a
> > multiplicity of meanings and actions are in conflict within the
> > Andy
> > Cliff O'Donnell wrote:
> >> So I can see a problem with making "community" the subject matter, or
> >>> "unit of analysis" for a study;
> >> We agree. That is why activity settings are the units of analysis we
> >> use.
> >> one would have to first select an artefact or combination of artefacts,
> >>> (such as language and land) which serves to define the basis of the
> >>> "community." The point then is that the "community" is *not* defined by
> >>> shared *meanings*;
> >> So why define community by artifacts? Why not by shared meanings?
> >> in fact, different components of the "community" may attach
> >>> diametrically opposite meanings to a given artefact (word, symbol,
> >>> ...) or even use it in ways which are quite incommensurable.
> >> If community is defined by shared meanings, those with
> >> opposite meanings" would by definition belong to different cultural
> >> communities (even if they did live in the same geographical unit).
> >> But! the material form of the artefact is *universal* in what ever way
> >>> it is used, meant or interpreted. The *materiality* of artefacts is the
> >>> foundation was what is *universal* in human life. Projects give us
> what is
> >>> *particular* in human life (ascribing different meanings to one and the
> >>> same artefact), and actions (not persons) give us what is *individual*
> >>> human life, for the purposes of theoretical analysis.
> >> The material form of an artifact may be universal in the sense that
> >> we may all agree on the label for it. However, the artifact may have
> >> different meanings for us and these meanings may lead to quite different
> >> actions and, as you point out, be the basis for conflict.
> >> Cliff
> > --