[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Laws of evolution and laws of history

Hi Larry,

Thank you for your thoughts and synthesis of complex ideas.

An exploration of the ethical relation to the other is what I've been
revisiting; it is in the work of Enrique Dussel and others that you
synthesized in a beautiful way in a previous post.  While Dussel provides
a philosophical exploration I like the way you enflesh those ideas.
Indeed, the ethical is embodied.  The rhythms of the body (as enacted
gesture) flow.

My sense is that the intersubjective 'moment' (in a dialectical sense) in
the work of Kris and others is in relation to the 'object' in a given
activity system.  Thus, we might say or as others have noted that there is
a struggle for intersubjectivity (with or without agreement, etc.).

But there is a particular kind of centering of the object-world here, a
privileging of sight (seeing, and reasoning), such that how we come to the
'other' is vis-a-vis this 'object'.  This strain is in the work of Paulo
Freire, too.  The subject-object relation, this analytic kernel so
important to CHAT, may be accompanied by a yet parallel, intersecting
relation, subject-subject that is not mediated by object.  Herein we enter
a distinct kind of way of seeing 'history' as multiple and situated
geographically in places.

I believe that is why in the Popol Vuh, Mayan sacred text, in the
beginning there is sound.  In other traditions light is seen as primary.
Yet, this marks a key distinction, between listening (as in sound) and
seeing (as in light).  The child re-teaches us to be, rehumanizes us and
grounds us in ways felt as we listen (I as a father have some distance to
this initial becoming, given I do not carry the child).  I speak from
person experience as a father in this reflection.  It is this spiritual
space of connection and a way of being that truly (materially and
symbolically and in any other way we want to carve being-in-the-world)
that transforms us into being-in-relation-to-others.


On 1/17/15 9:41 AM, "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thank you for this question and re-turning us to "ethical" concerns.  You
>have reflected on the larger spatial scales.  My reflections explore the
>other micro scale and notions of thirdness within pedagogy. This listserve
>has recently discussed notions of "rhythmicity" in our enactments with
>others.  I want to bring in the psychodynamic notion of rhythmicity within
>thirdness by sharing Jessica Benjamin's way of moving beyond the
>complimentary notion of "secondness" as the dynamic of "doer and done to"
>Jessica is reflecting on a level of thirdness that is prior to using
>language which she says is missing the aspect explored by "baby watchers".
>She says the focus on language misses the first or founding moment, when
>she writes:
>  "This [the first aspect of recognition] is the part that baby watchers
>have made an indelible part of our thinking. In my view of thirdness,
>recognition is not first constituted by verbal speech; rather it begins
>with the early nonverbal experience of sharing a pattern, a dance, with
>another person" [Beyond Doer and Done to: An Intersubjective View of
>This aspect of primal thirdness for Jessica is a nascent energetic third -
>as distinct from the symbolic third in the mother's mind - present in the
>earliest exchange of "gestures" between mother and child.  Gestures are
>early primary exchange which inform "baby watchers" notion of moral or
>ethical thirdness which implies the principle of "affective experience" or
>"felt experience" that IS PALPABLE.  This term "palpable" expresses a
>particular level of felt gestures which are  nonverbal but are mediated
>are beyond complimentary doer and done to and preconceived propagating.
>Jessica argues that for the imaginal symbolic verbal third to actually
>"work" [the ZPD] as a true third -rather than complimentary doer and done
>to demands - requires the capacity for accomadation to a mutually created
>set of expectations [projects]. For Jessica the primal or founding form
>this accomodation takes or assumes is the creation of alignment with [and
>repair of ruptures to] the palpable patterns, the participation
>in connections based on affect resonance.
>This palpable felt experience Sanders called "rhythmicity" which Sanders
>considers one of two fundamental principles of all human interaction.  The
>other principle being "specificity".
>Jessica argues that palpable rhythmic experience helps constitute the
>capacity for symbolic imaginal thirdness.  Rhythmicity may be seen [and
>heard and felt] as a model principle UNDERLYING the creation of shared
>patterns that move beyond complimentary dyads of doer and done to type
>struggles for recognition.
>Miguel, to explore our ethical understandings of pedagogy that are moving
>beyond epistemology, do the "baby watchers" and their notions of
>primal nonverbal thirdness have something to offer in our explorations of
>Kris' notion of third space as a hybrid intersubjective space that is not
>doer and done to complimentarity.
>Growth and development seem to oscillate between already known
>pre-conceptions of what should be taught [the doer and the done to] and
>more ethical or moral thirdness that emerges symbolically and imaginally
>from within a palpable felt experience of nonverbal thirdness that
>transcends doer and done to.
>This is an intersubjective understanding and is only an "aspect" of the
>cultural historical understanding, but it does focus our attention on the
>ethical or moral dimension of enactments [performative activities]  This
>model is an extension of Winnicott's notion of "potential or transitional
>space" and Daniel Stern's baby watching.
>On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Zavala, Miguel <
>mizavala@exchange.fullerton.edu> wrote:
>> The distinction between propaganda and education is an analytic one that
>> is useful for me as a teacher. But I also think that it's a distinction
>> resolved not so much at the level of philosophy (theories, such as those
>> being proposed here) but ethically.
>> Anyone who has taught and been reflexive of her/his pedagogy will sense
>> this distinction between the two, 'propaganda' and 'education'.  There
>> perhaps a particular instrumentalism (as an 'ethic', such as that
>> promulgated in 'revolutionary' struggles and in neoliberalism) that sees
>> people as objects not as Freire would term 'historical subjects' in
>> propaganda.
>> I fully recognize the solipsism in all distinctions, such that some may
>> argue that even in Freirean, participatory pedagogy the issue remains
>> unresolved.  That there is a dimension of propaganda in education (and
>> education in propaganda).  But what some have pointed out (as I read
>> posts) is that we also should look at these processes in larger
>> spatial-scales.  What are the collectives that give birth or make
>> education and propaganda projects?  Do these strive for rehumanization?
>> How does the struggle for rehumanization remain a struggle at
>> and practical and historical and spatial levels?
>> How do folks draw this distinction in their own pedagogical praxis? How
>> the ethical conceptualized, lived, and embodied in your pedagogy?  I
>> suggest looking at it less from a theory of communication and more from
>> ethical one (ethics as primary, epistemology as secondary) that we might
>> begin to re-conceptualize the very distinction between 'propaganda' and
>> 'education'.
>> Miguel Zavala
>> On 1/17/15 5:37 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> >And I found the Engels he was quoting, in the Russian translation:
>> >
>> >    /Вечные законы природы /также превращаются все более и более в
>> >    исторические законы.
>> >
>> >The English translation says:
>> >
>> >    The eternal laws of nature also become transformed more and more
>> >    into historical ones.
>> >
>> >but then it goes on to say:
>> >
>> >    That water is fluid from 0°-100° C. is an eternal law of nature,
>> >    for it to be valid, there must be (1) water, (2) the given
>> >    temperature, (3) normal pressure.
>> >
>> >So this does NOT mean what it appeared to mean. Engels simply means
>> >"nothing remains constant" It is not saying anything about "laws of
>> >history"!!
>> >
>> >Andy
>> >*Andy Blunden*
>> >http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> >
>> >
>> >mike cole wrote:
>> >> Thanks David -- That is certainly where I must have encountered the
>> >>phrase
>> >> often enough for it to stick in my mind. And thanks to Jessica and
>> >>we
>> >> see versions of the idea in many places.
>> >>
>> >> Double the pleasure.
>> >> mike
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:36 PM, David Kellogg
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Mike--
>> >>>
>> >>> See Vol. Four of the Collected Works in English: the quote you refer
>> >>>to is
>> >>> the epigraph to HDHMF. It's from Dialectics of Nature, and Vygotsky
>> >>>keeps
>> >>> coming back to it again and again, throughout the whole text of
>> >>> which is one reason why I am assuming (against what Anton Yasnitsky
>> >>> written) that HDHMF is a whole book, one of the very few that
>> >>> completedly completed (and also his longest work).
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >