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

[Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions



>From my current readings (Zinchenko et al, 2011): "After all, culture, in
inviting everyone, can also push away an unworthy one."

Which, of course, can also be a gift to said "unworthy" one.

Huw

On 21 January 2015 at 17:59, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Larry-- Maybe we can enact that zone, as in the case my elderly friend, by
> incorporating a strategically useful object into our actions. Instead of a
> staff (which was both a need tool for walking and a symbol that
> "re-triangulated" her with with the social world.
>
> Phillip noted that in choosing the staff, my friend was also choosing to
> resist/reject her positioning by others. Yes indeed. The mediators we
> choose to use when we have a choice, seems to me, always imply rejection of
> the things not chosen... although, were the goals of action different, they
> might be, as they say, very handy.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rod,
> > I am in full agreement with what you have written.  The "watching" stance
> > [observational stance]  [spectator stance] ia the exact opposite of what
> I
> > wanted to portray.  I will drop the term "baby watching"
> >
> > The term "third space" also can be questioned and the term "zone of
> > mediation" or mediated zone could be used. The question becoming when is
> > this "zone" have a felt sense of "doer and done to as a complimentary
> zone
> > of learning, and when can we reflectively enact a mediated zone.  The
> > question who "perceives" in this way are persons who are searching [and
> > creating] alternative approaches beyond being spectators.
> >
> > Play also can be considered turn taking [my turn your turn, each person
> > playing] and alternatively as "surrendering" to the play or being carried
> > along "within" the play.
> >
> > There is a difference in how participation is "felt" or affected.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Larry,
> > >
> > > I have to apologise again for dipping back in to this conversation
> when I
> > > don't really have time to engage fully with what you have written but I
> > > just wanted to throw in my unease about the term 'baby watching'. After
> > > reading Vasu Reddy and others on second person perspective I am much
> more
> > > aware of the importance of the difference between 'watching' from
> outside
> > > an interaction (a third-person, spectator perspective) and engaging IN
> an
> > > interaction - as Reddy puts this, the difference between how it feels
> > when
> > > you see someone smiling at someone else and when you see someone
> smiling
> > at
> > > YOU. While we can learn a lot about interaction from very close,
> careful
> > > watching of how babies and partners move in response to each other it
> is
> > > also important to recognise how much more is available when we are IN
> > > interaction with another person. I think the palpable, embodied FEEL of
> > > interaction is primary - babies can FEEL the difference between
> > > sympathetically contingent, attentive and attuned response and less
> > > co-regulated forms of interaction before they are able to have any sort
> > of
> > > conception of another person as another person with whom they are
> > > interacting. Seeing the feeling is not quite the same as feeling the
> > > feeling!
> > >
> > > Also, quickly, the adult's marking of an accentuated response is also,
> > > surely, a form of pedagogy, demonstrating an active interest in the
> > > interests of the baby.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Rod
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > Sent: 21 January 2015 05:03
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >
> > > Rod,
> > > Another aspect of the notion of asymmetrical "marking" as understood
> > within
> > > reflective  internalized thirdness is the way it can be understood by
> > > clarifying how Jessica understands the notion of "equality".
> > > Jessica writes:
> > >
> > > "Symmetry is a crucial part of what unites the pair in complimentarity,
> > the
> > > takes-one-to-know-one recognition feature of the doer/done to relation
> > ....
> > > In effect, it builds on the deep structure of mirroring and affective
> > > matching that operates [largely procedurally and out of awareness] in
> any
> > > dyad, when both partners glare at each other or interrupt in unison.
> In
> > > such interactions, we can see the underlying symmetry that
> characterizes
> > > the apparent opposition of power relations: each feels unable to gain
> the
> > > other's recognition, and each feels in the other's power.
> > >
> > > In other words, the asymmetrical notion of "marking" which facilitates
> > > "third space" requires in Jessica's understanding reflective
> "surrender"
> > > as facilitated by an internal symbolic cultural historical "third
> > > space". This space is an imaginal metaphorical "as if" space of
> possible
> > > and potential "enactments" and "witnessing".  However underlying this
> > > symbolic space is the necessity of rhythmic attunement  [accommodation]
> > AND
> > > asymmetrical marking [differentiation].
> > >
> > > Jessica's understanding of the development of creative "freedom"
> > expresses
> > > a distinctive sociality of freedom that involves one subject
> facilitating
> > > the freedom of another through witnessing and hearing the other into
> > > voice. However I am suggesting by acting this way [surrendering to the
> > > third space] that this is an agentic act, not passive but active.
> > Surrender
> > > as Jessica understands the term is a possible answer to relations of
> > > domination.  A generative as well as generous way of facilitating the
> > > development of  intersubjective sociality.
> > >
> > > I was intrigued when I read Peg's response discussing appropriation and
> > > misappropriation: Peg wrote"
> > >
> > >  "Here, the old lady uses her "mis-appropriation" within an act of
> > > transformation.  With children, teachers or parents or other elders,
> may
> > > mis-appropriate children's play -- having children trot or canter or
> > > gallup  into the classroom as a way to engage them in a transition
> > between
> > > space or activity.   What's different?  Well I'm teasing myself with
> the
> > > notion of "second order" -- for the old lady there's extra
> consciousness
> > > and that "extra" bit is acted by the adult in the case of the
> children."
> > >
> > > Peg's reflection on second order "extra" consciousness. THAT "extra
> bit"
> > > that is acted by the adult may overlap with Jessica's notion of the
> > > "symbolic metaphorical space of thirdness from within which one acts.
> > > What's different"  I return to Miguel's comment  questioning if there
> are
> > > subject-object performances which are distinct from intersubjective
> > > subject-subject enactments.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rod
> > > > I would say that Jessica would fully endorse this understanding of
> > using
> > > > internalized thirdness. as a "reflective" space. This is the aspect
> of
> > > > thirdness that she refers to as the "symbolic third "[ a metaphorical
> > > space
> > > > of äs if""perceiving the world through a sociocultural filter.
> > > > Your focussing on the centrality of "marking"I would suggest has been
> > > > deeply explored by Fonagy and Gergley in there re-searching ""affect
> > > > regulation.
> > > > Whether others agree or question Jessica's notions of ïntersubjective
> > > > third space"[aspects of attunement, differentiation, and symbolic
> > thirds]
> > > > as a mediating environment, the focus on "marking" contrasted with
> > > matching
> > > > or mirroring] is a profound insight and notions of "self-regulation"
> > can
> > > be
> > > > expanded by the understanding of affect regulation through
> asymmetrical
> > > > "marking"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I have had to read hastily, Larry and I am not at all sure that I
> have
> > > >> followed you and Jessica Benjamin through the psychoanalytical
> > accounts
> > > of
> > > >> intersubjectivity but I wanted to pick up on her point about the
> > > 'marking'
> > > >> of the mother's response to a baby's distress (not simply mirroring
> > this
> > > >> back in the same form as it came from the baby). The mother/parent
> is
> > > >> perhaps able to use an internalised thirdness to see the (future)
> > > >> autonomous self in the actions of the baby, perceiving these
> through a
> > > >> sociocultural filter and responding 'as if' the baby was already a
> > (more
> > > >> competent) social agent - or perhaps it is more that the parent
> > > responds as
> > > >> if the interaction is already such as is had between enculturated
> > > agents -
> > > >> moving into a third space into which the baby is also drawn.
> > > >>
> > > >> Rod
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > >> Sent: 20 January 2015 15:41
> > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > > >>
> > > >> Rod,
> > > >> Yes, and the surrender she is exploring is of the intersubjective
> type
> > > >> [subject subject complimentarity transformed.  This is in contrast
> to
> > > >> submission as a relation in which some "one" [person or "idea" is
> > > >> "dominant" and privileged such a patriarchal father,]  To sub-mit
> for
> > > >> Jessica enacts some "one" is "over"-seeing.
> > > >>
> > > >> In her example of the walk with the two year old, if this walk
> > becomes
> > > >> "duty" through an act of self- assertion or self-regulation this
> duty
> > > >> becomes some"thing"  which the parent submits to and there is no
> > longer
> > > a
> > > >> sense of mutual intersubjective delight in surrendering to the
> "third"
> > > that
> > > >> mutual potential space.
> > > >> Jessica describes this tension between subjective complimentary
> > twoness
> > > >> [i.e. patriarchal father as over lord] and the who submits to the
> > "one"
> > > >> [person or ideal] AND intersubjective "thirdness" as a tension which
> > > will
> > > >> never be dialectically resolved.  Thirdness will always rupture and
> > need
> > > >> repair. Jessica's is a "moral" third and is a developmental
> > > "achievement".
> > > >> It requires first having participated and been "held" or "witnessed"
> > > >> within palpable felt experience which creates a thirdness of
> > > >> intersubjective attunement. This is "accommodation".
> > > >>
> > > >> The mother's gestures must be "marked" to the rhythm of the babies
> > moods
> > > >> and affect as attunement to a rhythmic "dance". This is the context
> or
> > > ZPD
> > > >> in which "differentiation" from fusion within "oneness" occurs.
> > > >>
> > > >> This intersubjective model recognizes that this type of
> developmental
> > > >> "learning" must be co-created and requires the "symbolic" third
> which
> > > >> explores as metaphorical enactments of (a)symmetry.  The parent must
> > act
> > > >> from within "reflective" presence enacting the third by "morally"
> > > >> surrendering to the rhythm or musical patterning using cultural
> > > >> historical tools and understandings.
> > > >>
> > > >> I read Jessica as "seeing through" the historical constellation of
> two
> > > >> independent  subjectivie standpoints in relations of complimentarity
> > and
> > > >> one is "over" and the other "under" in relations of domination.
> > > >> Submitting to a fundamental already known "one" is not
> intersubjective
> > > >> asymmetrical enactments which call forth surrender of the person
> > through
> > > >> rhythmical attunements to the other as the "basis" for
> differentiation
> > > of
> > > >> the two subjectivities through the moral reflections of the care
> > giver.
> > > >>
> > > >> This model understands maturity as the care giver having her own
> > > >> subjectivity and "twoness" and "thirdness" are never resolved or
> > > >> transcended . They co-exist and the care giver must develop the
> > > capacity or
> > > >> disposition for co-creating attuned, differentiated, and symbolic
> > > >> thirdness. What Jessica is suggesting is this process collapses into
> > > >> complimentary doer and done to without the recognition this is
> > > continually
> > > >> co-created "MORAL" thirdness that intentionally resists either/or
> > > >> enactments which demand patriarchical recognition and the other must
> > in
> > > >> duty submit
> > > >>
> > > >> The tension is never overcome and it is inevitable that thirdness
> will
> > > >> collapse into twoness. This will be felt as a loss of thirdness and
> > the
> > > >> moral struggle is through reflection for the more mature one to
> > > >> re-establish thirdness through recognition that the thirdness
> shifted
> > > >> towards self-assertive twoness. It takes the commitment for the
> person
> > > in
> > > >> the lead to recognize he/she returned to "twoness" and caused a
> > rupture
> > > and
> > > >> to sincerely communicate this "truth" to the other participant(s) so
> > the
> > > >> felt inevitable disregulation can be validated as a felt truth.
> > > >> This acknowledge is capable of reopening this space of thirdness,
> this
> > > >> metaphorical space of potentiality and possibility.
> > > >>
> > > >> This model is "intersubjective" not subjective Larry
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > But Benjamin would argue that this is surrender (jointly giving
> up a
> > > >> > focus on self in order to focus on a shared 'third' space of
> > > >> > relationship) rather than submission (losing self in/to the
> > > >> relationship).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Bartels and Zeki (The neural correlates of maternal and romantic
> > love,
> > > >> > Neuroimage, 2004, 21, 1155-66) suggest that love is associated
> with
> > a
> > > >> > reduction of activity in parts of the brain associated with social
> > > >> > evaluation - so love is, in some respects, blind and lovers (of
> > their
> > > >> > own babies or of romantic partners) may be more willing to
> surrender
> > > >> > despite what others might see as flaws in the objects of their
> love!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > All the best,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rod
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Maria Judith
> Sucupira
> > > da
> > > >> > Costa Lins
> > > >> > Sent: 20 January 2015 13:09
> > > >> > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Submission is presente also in true love.
> > > >> > maria
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > > >> > De: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] Em nome de HENRY SHONERD Enviada
> > em:
> > > >> > segunda-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2015 22:39
> > > >> > Para: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >> > Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Larry,
> > > >> > Do you think it’s sad-masochistic of me to suggest that we give
> > > >> > submission a chance? Unanalyzed, “submission”, not even a
> suggestion
> > > >> > of  a hyphen, as a juicy chunk, I think of Islam, or what I know
> of
> > it
> > > >> > through a hodge podge of media and friendships. But break it down,
> > > >> > without even going to the dictionary, “sub-mission” has the ring
> of
> > > >> > commitment to a project. As a legal term, my dictionary has
> > > >> > “submission” as “an agreement between parties involved in a
> > dispute”.
> > > >> > Here’s more from the semantic cluster: A synonym for “submission”
> is
> > > >> > “yield”, from the Middle English. It’s worth mashing up latinate
> and
> > > >> > germanic etymology and morphology to set up mnemonics for the
> > > >> > discourse. So, when, if ever, is it good to “submit”, “give in”? I
> > > >> > submit to the good will of la gente of this chat. There’s gotta be
> > > >> > respect and trust. Among other things, that means it has to be
> > > >> > voluntary and de buena voluntad. And transparent? Let me suggest a
> > > >> > prototypical narr  ative of
> > > >> > submission: Motherhood. Giving birth and all of that jazz.
> > Creativity
> > > >> > with a capital “C”. Here’s another: death. Everything in between
> is
> > up
> > > >> > for grabs I guess. Probably lots of diversity as they say in the
> > game.
> > > >> > Please, chatters, don’t feel the need to respond. I’ll take
> silence
> > as
> > > >> good sign.
> > > >> > Like, you’re listening politely.
> > > >> > Submissively
> > > >> > Henry
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Rod,
> > > >> > > In the spirit of your caution and acknowledging its truth
> value, I
> > > >> > > want to say I was hesitant to use the term "surrender" for how
> it
> > > >> > > would be misunderstood.  In a similar way to the
> misunderstandings
> > > >> > > of the term "mind".
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I will mention that Jessica is consciously using the word
> > > "surrender"
> > > >> > > as NOT "submission" as she tries to articulate a nypothesis that
> > > >> > > sees through "domination" and the struggle to the death of
> > > >> > > complimentary
> > > >> > "recognition"
> > > >> > > I fully expect Jessica's work to instigate passionate responses.
> > > >> > > Her work does develop from Habermas, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm
> and
> > > >> > > the Frankfurt school.
> > > >> > > Jessica says we have conflated "surrender" with "submission" and
> > > >> > > Jessica's use of the term "surrender" must be seen as being
> > engaged
> > > >> > > in exploring [and putting in play] notions of instrumental
> > > >> > > internalized "self-regulation" AND notions of the "third space"
> as
> > > >> > > coming into being through "surrender" to a place of potentiality
> > and
> > > >> > > possibility
> > > >> > that is moving "beyond"
> > > >> > > self-assertion as a complimentary struggle to the death.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Rod, the play of "active" and "receptive" thirds [in contrast to
> > > >> > > active and passive twoness] is the place which Jessica is
> inviting
> > > >> > > us to
> > > >> > occupy.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Notions of "surrender" carry huge baggage and and will invite
> > > >> > > palpable rejection as concepts. This is a fact. It is
> challenging
> > > >> > > particular notions of "subjective" and "intersubjective"
> > > >> > > However, if we begin within a dialogical awareness and
> acknowledge
> > > >> > > that using a term such as "surrender"  will be read by most and
> > > >> > > rejected  as implying "submission" and "domination" and
> > "passivity"
> > > >> > > and "loosing the self", then the process that you and I are
> > engaged
> > > >> > > in at this moment is the hermeneutical enactment of
> > differentiating
> > > >> > > and "marking" the distinctions the distinctions between
> > "surrender"
> > > >> > > and "submission" Jessica is asking us to pause and be reflective
> > and
> > > >> > consider this distinction.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Rod, Jessica is working within a "tradition" [the Frankfurt
> School
> > > >> > > where she is in dialogue with Hegel, Habermas, Adorno,
> Horkheimer.
> > > >> > > Her project is to "see through" the patterns of complimentary
> > > >> "twoness"
> > > >> > > [doer and done to giver and given to]. The term "surrender" is
> > being
> > > >> > > used within this tradition.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This term "surrender" [as exemplified in Stephen Mitchell's
> story
> > of
> > > >> > > letting go of his "idea" of "a walk" to enter his daughter's
> > > >> > > enactment of "a walk" is central to Jessica's notion of
> > > >> > > living-in-truth. Yes, it invites further dialogue and will be
> > > >> > > misunderstood. It requires further dialogue.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I could have tried to write an essay fully outlining the term
> > > >> "surrender"
> > > >> > > This word has sparked considerable response within the tradition
> > of
> > > >> > > feminism. I could also she it being challenged as Eurocentric or
> > too
> > > >> > > psychological [emphasizing both accommodation and
> > differentiation].
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Posting to the listserve and inviting commentary and further
> > > >> > > questions on the term "surrender" is another approach.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I also hoped to find a "bridge" to Kris' understanding of "third
> > > >> > > space" and her exploration of intersubjective testimonio as
> hybrid
> > > >> > > co-creative mutual rhythmic patterns forming within third
> spaces.
> > I
> > > >> > > see a quality of "surrender" [as Jessica uses the term] in Kris'
> > > >> > > exploration of third spaces.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Vygotsky explores internalized "self-regulation" as a
> > developmental
> > > >> task.
> > > >> > > Jessica suggests the development of self regulation moves
> through
> > > >> > > asymmetrical accommodation AND differentiation. For Jessica this
> > > >> > > psychological development [if it is to form third spaces]
> requires
> > > >> > > asymmetrical agentic active "surrender" as a way beyond a
> struggle
> > > >> > > to the death of complimentary twoness.
> > > >> > > In summary, I understand Jessica's work as an aspect of cultural
> > > >> > > historical understanding, that includes social theory of
> emotions
> > > >> > > and cognition and culture that is historical.
> > > >> > > The term "surrender" is a discursive and dialogical form of
> > > enactment.
> > > >> > > It was offered in the spirit of open ended dialogue but I was
> > aware
> > > >> > > and took a chance in using the word "surrender"  Another word
> > would
> > > >> > > have been less controversial but I do question if being
> > > >> > > misunderstood and then requiring  further clarification is an
> > > >> approach with some value.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I do not intend the use of "surrender" as an alternative
> approach
> > to
> > > >> > > cultural historical theory.
> > > >> > > The use of this term is meant in a spirit of dialogue and the
> > > "piety"
> > > >> > > of questions inviting answers.
> > > >> > > Rod, in the way I presented the term "surrender", I may have
> > > >> > > elaborated further, and clarified more, but I was not sure if
> > there
> > > >> > > were others who shared an interest in this topic of
> complimentary
> > > >> > > twoness and co-creative thirdness. I was interested in going
> > deeper
> > > >> > > into understanding "third spaces" and by posting was feeling my
> > way
> > > >> > > in by probing the level of interest.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Larry
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > >> > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Larry,
> > > >> > >> As I said, I like Benjamin's distinction between surrender and
> > > >> > >> submission but I also think that it is not so simple to
> introduce
> > > >> > >> new shadings of meaning to a word/concept which is already part
> > of
> > > >> > >> people's vocabulary. For most people, outside the group of
> those
> > > >> > >> who know about Benjamin's work, surrender WILL still carry felt
> > > >> > >> associations with unwillingly giving up ownership or control of
> > > >> > >> something prized/valued. This is bound to result in
> > > >> > >> miscommunication unless those who use surrender in its new
> sense
> > > >> > >> signal and explain this use. I think an awareness of how we can
> > > >> > >> expect others to react (body, mind and soul) is a core aspect
> of
> > > >> > >> communication and ethical behaviour. We can't just occupy that
> > > >> > >> third space and expect others to
> > > >> > surrender to the meanings we want to introduce!
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Rod
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > >> > >> ________________________________
> > > >> > >> From: Larry Purss
> > > >> > >> Sent: 19/01/2015 01:29
> > > >> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Miguel,
> > > >> > >> The article I have been referencing is from Jessica Benjamin's
> > > >> > >> article "Beyond Doer and Done To: An Intersubjective View of
> > > >> > >> Thirdness"  There is an extensive bibliography .  Interestingly
> > > >> > >> Jessica's dissertation was written in 1978 with the title,
> > > >> > "Internalization and Instrumental Culture:
> > > >> > >> A Reinterpretation of Psychoanalysis and Social Theory"
> > > >> > >> Rod,
> > > >> > >> Jessica references Colwyn Trevarthen as a source of her notion
> of
> > > >> > >> "surrender". Yes, this word will make some uncomfortable, but
> > this
> > > >> > >> term must be seen as clearly differentiated from the notion of
> > > >> > "submission"
> > > >> > >> which Jessica believes are often conflated. I view "surrender"
> as
> > > >> > >> Jessica uses the term as an "agentic" act that is ethical. It
> is
> > an
> > > >> > >> act [or enactment] which is felt as expansive, not as
> restrictive
> > > >> > >> of
> > > >> > "self"
> > > >> > >> I am going to share a quote from Jessica's paper that she
> offered
> > > >> > >> to differentiate the palpable difference between "surrender"
> and
> > > >> > "submission".
> > > >> > >> She is quoting Stephen Mitchell who is a key person in
> developing
> > > >> > >> relational and hermeneutical psychoanalysis.
> > > >> > >> Mitchell wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> When my older daughter was about two or so, I remember my
> > > >> > >> excitement at the prospect [LP-imaginal] of taking walks with
> > her,
> > > >> > >> given her new ambulatory skills and her intense interest in
> being
> > > >> outdoors.
> > > >> > >> However, I soon found these walks agonizingly slow.  My idea
> of a
> > > >> > >> walk entailed brisk movement along a road or path.  Her idea
> was
> > > >> > >> quite different.  The implication of this difference hit me one
> > day
> > > >> > >> when we encountered a fallen tree on the side of the road....
> > > >> > >> The rest of the "walk" was spent exploring the fungal and
> insect
> > > >> > >> life on, under, and around the tree.  I remember my sudden
> > > >> > >> realization that these walks would be no fun for me, merely a
> > > >> > >> parental duty, if I held onto my idea of walks.  As I was able
> to
> > > >> > >> give that up and SURRENDER to my daughter's rhythm and focus, a
> > > >> > >> different type of experience opened up to me.....  If I had
> > simply
> > > >> > >> RESTRAINED myself out of duty, I would have experienced the
> walk
> > as
> > > >> > >> a compliance.  But I was able to become my daughter's version
> of
> > a
> > > >> > >> good companion and to find in THAT another way for me to be
> that
> > > >> > >> took on great personal meaning"  [Benjamin, page 26]
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> For Benjamin and Mitchell this quote expresses the principle of
> > > >> > >> necessary asymmetry, by accommodating to the other as a way of
> > > >> > "generating"
> > > >> > >> thirdness. and within the "surrendering" the person is
> > transformed,
> > > >> > >> through opening up to mutual pleasure.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Jessica is asking how we distinguish between the compliance of
> > > >> "twoness"
> > > >> > >> from the transformational learning of thirdness. For Jessica
> the
> > > >> > >> answer is ethical, in the form of reflections on what will
> create
> > > >> > >> intersubjective connection in our relationship, and through
> this
> > > >> > >> reflection, opening up to surrender and transformation.  This
> > > >> > >> creative enactment expresses agency and is not coerced. It is
> an
> > > >> > >> ethical response. This "intention" to connect and the resulting
> > > >> > >> self-observation create what Jessical calls "moral thirdness",
> > the
> > > >> > >> connection to a larger expansive connection beyond giver and
> > given
> > > >> > >> to
> > > >> > that is felt as palpably "right".
> > > >> > >> In all Jessica's work she is distinguishing "surrender" from
> > > >> > "submission"
> > > >> > >> [including submitting to an "ideal" of "pure" empathy. which
> is a
> > > >> > >> denial of self and leads to complimentary doer and done to.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> For Jessica this moral third space is the space where
> > > >> > >> "self-regulation" and "co-regulation" meet. But that would
> > require
> > > >> > further elaboration.
> > > >> > >> Larry
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > >> > >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>> Larry,
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Many thanks for your very clear account of Jessica Benjamin's
> > > >> > >>> distinction between 'submitting' and 'surrendering' (though I
> > > >> > >>> suspect that both terms might trigger associations for many
> > which
> > > >> > >>> might make them uncomfortable about using them in these ways).
> > > >> > >>> Your observations about possibility
> > > >> > >>> (doableness) make me wonder about how a shared history and
> > common
> > > >> > >>> experience might contribute to the building of richer and more
> > > >> > >>> extensive possibilities among a community or a group of people
> > who
> > > >> > >>> spend time together (especially 'down' time, when they are
> more
> > > >> > >>> relaxed and their social guards are down). It is easier and
> more
> > > >> > agreeable to 'surrender'
> > > >> > >>> into this sort of group, to 'go with the flow' of social
> > > >> > >>> conversation
> > > >> > >> with
> > > >> > >>> no real concern about where it might lead and, in so doing, to
> > > >> > >>> contribute to the co-construction of a third space which is
> > shaped
> > > >> > >>> not so much by
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >>> thingness or iddity of participants as by the movement of
> > > >> > >>> interactions between them. This sort of surrendering into a
> > group
> > > >> > >>> feels very different from submitting to the ordered, planned
> > > >> > >>> procedures of a 'getting things done' sort of meeting (though
> > > >> > >>> there is
> > > >> > room for overlap).
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>> From a baby watcher's perspective, this surrender sounds very
> > > >> > >>>> much like
> > > >> > >>> what Colwyn Trevarthen called primary intersubjectivity - when
> > > >> > >>> baby and caregiver 'lose themselves' in interaction purely for
> > the
> > > >> > >>> sake of
> > > >> > >> engaging
> > > >> > >>> with each other (or rather, perhaps, of engaging with the
> 'great
> > > >> we').
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> I think there is a lot to be said about the way our sense of
> our
> > > >> > >>> own and other selves moves in and out of this sort of third
> > space.
> > > >> > >>> Vera captured some lovely aspects of this in her book
> 'Creative
> > > >> > >>> Collaboration' - how
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >>> 'dailiness' of being with other members of a group lubricates
> > the
> > > >> > >>> possibilities, allowing idea sharing to blossom.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> All the best,
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Rod
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > >> > >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > >> > >>> Sent: 18 January 2015 16:26
> > > >> > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >> > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Rod, I concur with your interpretations.
> > > >> > >>> I would add to your comment:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> In terms of signification, the choice of a staff is likely to
> > > >> > >>> prompt others into a slight lurch of expectations which might
> > help
> > > >> > >>> to remind
> > > >> > >> them
> > > >> > >>> that things are not simple, categorised and predictable - what
> > > >> > >>> looks at first like a frail old woman may turn out to be a
> > person!
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> The "choice" emerged from within a symbolic imagining of
> others
> > > >> > >>> expectations.  This interpretation is within the subject's
> > > >> > >>> internalized "scripts".
> > > >> > >>> This is exploring "my" act and your return act.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Third space notions ask or question if there are
> > "intersubjective"
> > > >> > >>> ways
> > > >> > >> to
> > > >> > >>> enact "shared imaginal places which are first symbolic
> imaginal
> > > >> > >> "potential"
> > > >> > >>> places.  Shared mutual metaphorical spaces/places that do not
> > yet
> > > >> > >>> exist but are "possible"  The focus on the morpho-genesis of
> > > "posse"
> > > >> > >>> [meaning can] with the suffix ibilas "causing" a
> > "transformation"
> > > >> > >>> through
> > > >> > >> activities
> > > >> > >>> [enactments, performances from WITHIN this "middle shared
> > realm".
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> This way of understanding is playing with notions of
> > metaphorical
> > > >> > >>> and imaginal and symbolic "places" as "existing" WITHIN shared
> > > >> > >>> potential spaces.  This posits shared mutually imagined third
> > > >> > >>> spaces of
> > > >> > >> "possibility"
> > > >> > >>> within "as if" realms of becoming that open up spaces in which
> > > >> > >>> things are not yet "things" and "facts" that are simple,
> > > >> > >>> categorized, predictable,
> > > >> > >> and
> > > >> > >>> with a yearning to be known as "real" and "actual".
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> What both Kris and Jessica share is an exploration of
> > > >> "intersubjective"
> > > >> > >>> mediated metaphorical third spaces "as if" real and actual.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Jessica Benjamin also makes a distinction between
> "surrendering"
> > > >> > >>> to
> > > >> > >> "exist"
> > > >> > >>> in third spaces in contrast to "submitting" to the other.
> [other
> > > >> > >>> as
> > > >> > >> things
> > > >> > >>> or persons]. Sumitting to objects or persons is experienced
> > being
> > > >> > >>> reduced by the other. It abstracts us from "third spaces" and
> > > >> > >>> collapses into complimentary "twoness" of "giver and given" or
> > > >> > >>> "doer
> > > >> > and done to"
> > > >> > >>> Third spaces are palpably "liberating" through "surrendering"
> > and
> > > >> > >>> "becoming  within the "potential" or the "possible" symbolic
> > > "third"
> > > >> > >>> that which does not yet exist in actuality or "facts"
> > > >> > >>> The third space must be enacted performed or take action but
> > > >> > >>> moving out from within this imaginal shared space.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> This notion is playing with the not yet but shared "existence"
> > > >> > >>> becoming actual simple categorized concept-y. There is no
> > absolute
> > > >> > >>> freedom fundamentally nor is there absolute constraint
> > > >> fundamentally.
> > > >> > >>> However for transformative liberation there must be imaginal
> > > >> > >>> symbolic shared and mutual ways within which we "surrender"
> This
> > > >> > >>> in no way means "submit"
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > >> > >>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>> I am feeling my way into the talk around thirdness - dimly
> > > >> > >>>> conscious of a variety of contexts in which thirdspace has
> been
> > > >> > explored.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> In your example, Mike, your friends choice of a staff has a
> > > >> > >>>> significance because it plays off the cultural expectation
> that
> > > >> > >>>> it should be a cane. In this sense it is a particularly
> > striking
> > > >> > >>>> example of what we all do every day when we make choices
> about
> > > >> > >>>> how we will represent ourselves to the world. Our choice of
> > > >> > >>>> clothes, how we do our hair, what we smell like, how we stand
> > and
> > > >> > >>>> walk, how we greet people etc. all play off our knowledge of
> > what
> > > >> > >>>> different choices are likely to be taken to mean (by
> different
> > > >> > >>>> groups of people). I think this links to what Larry (I think)
> > was
> > > >> > >>>> saying about the concept-y-ness of the context-y environment
> in
> > > >> > >>>> which babies
> > > >> > play their way into meanings.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> In terms of signification, the choice of a staff is likely to
> > > >> > >>>> prompt others into a slight lurch of expectations which might
> > > >> > >>>> help to remind them that things are not simple, categorised
> and
> > > >> > >>>> predictable - what looks at first like a frail old woman may
> > turn
> > > >> > >>>> out
> > > >> > to be a person!
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> I wonder how much we need to be aware of the internalised
> > > >> > >>>> cultural knowledge which informs our choices about how we
> will
> > > >> > >>>> present ourselves? I suspect this contributes to the
> (palpable)
> > > >> > >>>> feeling of ease or unease which comes from knowing or not
> > knowing
> > > >> > >>>> how we are 'meant' to behave in a familiar or unfamiliar
> > context.
> > > >> > >>>> When the rhythms are part of our embodied experience it is
> easy
> > > >> > >>>> to join in but when we encounter different, exotic rhythms we
> > > >> > >>>> need to watch from the periphery for a while before we
> presume
> > to
> > > >> > >>>> know what we are
> > > >> > doing.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> All the best,
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Rod
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > >>>> From:
> > > >> > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=
> plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > >> > >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees
> > > >> =plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.
> > > >> > >>>> edu
> > > >> > >>>> ]
> > > >> > >>>> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > >> > >>>> Sent: 18 January 2015 07:56
> > > >> > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >> > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Mike,
> > > >> > >>>> You mentioned multi-modality and I agree. Yes cognition and
> > > >> > >>>> social emotions are intimately involved along with other
> > > "musical"
> > > >> > >>>> rhythmic modalities.
> > > >> > >>>> Thought and language and the figural  within enactments
> > > >> > >>>> [performances]
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> You asked if the staff is a sign? or a tool? I would have to
> > say
> > > >> > >>>> it is a "sign" but the word "prop" also comes to mind.  I
> want
> > to
> > > >> > >>>> explore what I see as the "imaginal" at play in the
> "symbolic"
> > > >> > >>>> and cognitive enactment of using the staff rather than a cane
> > in
> > > >> > >>>> setting
> > > >> > the "scene"
> > > >> > >>>> The notion of a "middle way" within "third spaces" is
> exploring
> > > >> > >>>> enacting [or performing] within imaginal symbolic play.  Is
> the
> > > >> > >>>> "image" of a cane being replaced by a staff a "fact" or is
> it a
> > > >> > >>>> more
> > > >> > >>> metaphorical enactment.
> > > >> > >>>> Do the staff or cane exist as "facts" having objective truth?
> > Or
> > > >> > >>>> is the cane and staff imaginal symbolic ways of imagining
> being
> > > >> > >>>> in the world as "possibility".
> > > >> > >>>> In Winnicott's language is this middle way or third space a
> > > >> > >>>> "potential space" or a "transitional" space which when
> enacted
> > > >> > >>>> brings
> > > >> > >>> into "actuality"
> > > >> > >>>> the rhythmic pattern or dance of relating to an old lady [as
> a
> > > >> > >>>> possible "scene"] or a pattern of relating to an eccentric
> > person
> > > >> > >>>> and enacting this alternative possible "scene".
> > > >> > >>>> The "scene" when enacted or performed always expresses
> palpable
> > > >> > >>>> felt experience. In the enactment the possible becomes
> "actual"
> > > >> > >>>> and becomes "factual"  Mike your friend in choosing a staff
> > over
> > > >> > >>>> a cane was acting from within an imaginal symbolic "place" Is
> > > this
> > > >> "place"
> > > >> > >>>> internal or
> > > >> > >>> external?
> > > >> > >>>> or is it a "potential place" of possibility which does not
> yet
> > > >> exist?
> > > >> > >>>> Within this imaginal symbolic presenting [not representing]
> > > >> > >>>> presence [both internal imagining and external performances]
> > > >> > >>>> there are always palpable felt experiences and every
> > > >> > >>>> "interpretation" is guided by these multi-modal ways of
> > > >> understanding.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Third spaces as ways of understanding explore
> "self-regulation"
> > > >> > >>>> and "dis-regulation" within intersubjective enactments and
> > > >> > >>>> palpable felt experience. I am also emphasizing their
> imaginal
> > > >> > >>>> symbolic dimension as "potential" or "transitional" spaces
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> The aspect that is being highlighted by the notion of  third
> > > >> > >>>> spaces is there embodied presence  and there witnessing
> quality
> > > >> > >>>> which is often marginalized or disowned when we privilege a
> > > >> > >>>> particular "type" of rationality and thinking.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> What seems to be shared in common across multiple notions of
> > > >> > >>>> "third
> > > >> > >>> spaces"
> > > >> > >>>> is privileging ethical or moral aspects of enactments. Who is
> > > >> > >>>> included and who is excluded.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> I am working backwards here, but I have been thinking a lot
> > > >> > >>>>> about what I was conceiving in my own way as a form of
> > thirdness
> > > >> > >>>>> that I think links to what is being said here. Straighten me
> > out
> > > >> > >>>>> if I am wrong. (I promised to get out of here shortly, but
> its
> > > >> interesting!).
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> We have a friend, now in her 60's, who is a college
> classmate
> > of
> > > >> > >>>>> my wife and a life long friend of our family. She has been
> in
> > > >> > >>>>> ill health for sometime and looks a good deal older than her
> > > >> years.
> > > >> > >>>>> Balance is an issue for her.
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> When I first saw her the other day after many years I
> noticed
> > > >> > >>>>> that she was carrying a large staff.
> > > >> > >>>>> I laughted, and my first words  were "You look just like
> > > Gandalf!
> > > >> > >>>>> and gave her a big hug."
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> Over tea she discussed that by carrying the staff instead
> of a
> > > >> > >>>>> cane, she lost the invisibility created by old age and she
> > > >> > >>>>> became a perons to others. People constantly started up
> > > >> > >>>>> conversations with her and, being a skilled
> conversationalist
> > > >> > >>>>> interested in people, it made her feel like a whole person.
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> Seems interesting to me. Is it a kind of thirdness? A sign
> or
> > > >> > >>>>> (?) a
> > > >> > >>> tool?
> > > >> > >>>>> Seems like cognition and social emotions are somehow
> involved
> > as
> > > >> > >> well.
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> mike
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> mike
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Larry Purss
> > > >> > >>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > > >> > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Miguel, Rod,
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> I am moving our conversation to a new thread to honour the
> > > >> > >>>>>> other thread exploring "laws" of history and writing
> > systems. I
> > > >> > >>>>>> see these topics as overlapping but notions of "thirdness"
> > that
> > > >> > >>>>>> contrast with
> > > >> > >>>> "twoness"
> > > >> > >>>>>> [Jessica's doer and done to, or giver and given two, or
> > knower
> > > >> > >>>>>> and
> > > >> > >>>>> learner,
> > > >> > >>>>>> etc.]
> > > >> > >>>>>> Rod I must acknowledge when I read Jessica using the term
> > "baby
> > > >> > >>>>> watcher's I
> > > >> > >>>>>> was thinking of your work and posts. Jessica's work is one
> > > >> > >>>>>> stream in intersubjective notions of thirdness. Lacan
> > > >> > >>>>>> privileges language in his notion of thirdness. There is
> also
> > > >> > >>>>>> the work of Stolorow Atwood, and Donna Orange,
> > [intersubjective
> > > >> > >>>>>> psychodynamics] who do not imagine "intersubjectivity" as a
> > > >> > >>>>>> developmental achievement as bothDaniel Stern
> > > >> > >>>>> and
> > > >> > >>>>>> Jessica Benjamine understand thirdness.
> > > >> > >>>>>> In Jessica's words:
> > > >> > >>>>>> "I see such engagement in reciprocal recognition of the
> other
> > > >> > >>>>>> as growing naturally out of the experience of being
> > recognized
> > > >> > >>>>>> by the other, as a crucial component of attachment
> responses
> > > >> > >>>>>> that require mutual regulation and attunement, and
> therefore,
> > > >> > >>>>>> as ultimately a
> > > >> > >>>> pleasure and not a chore"
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Miguel you mentioned our Western bias to privilege "seeing"
> > and
> > > >> > >>>>>> other cultures may privilege hearing and sound and
> > rhythmicity.
> > > >> > >>>>>> My bias is to suggest when these various modes [seeing and
> > > >> > >>>>>> rhythmicity] are felt to be
> > > >> > >>>>> in
> > > >> > >>>>>> sync then they mutually constitute thirdness. However, when
> > > >> > >>>>>> there are inevitable (mis)understandings and ruptures on
> the
> > > >> > >>>>>> way to understanding
> > > >> > >>>>> we
> > > >> > >>>>>> may have a tendency to fall back on seeing and reasoning as
> > our
> > > >> > >>>>>> primary mode and to discount the rhymicity of the ear and
> > felt
> > > >> > >>>> experience.
> > > >> > >>>>>> Jessica's work engages with Hegel and the notion of the
> > > >> > >>>>>> "struggle for recognition" as an aspect of creating
> "twoness"
> > > >> and "thirdness"
> > > >> > >>>>>> Her
> > > >> > >>>>> project
> > > >> > >>>>>> is to critique notions of complimentarity "twoness" as a
> > model
> > > >> > >>>>>> for expressing this struggle for recognition.
> > > >> > >>>>>> She would suggest the way through this complimentary
> struggle
> > > >> > >>>>>> for recognition is through a developmental trajectory of
> > > >> > >>>>>> intersubjective development of thirdness.
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Miguel, I would like to follow your lead that through
> > > >> > >>>>>> privileging sight [seeing and reasoning] that we are biased
> > to
> > > >> come to "know"
> > > >> > >>>>>> the other as "object" As you say "the subject-object
> relation
> > > >> > >>>>>> as this analytic kernel
> > > >> > >>>>> is
> > > >> > >>>>>> one "type" of knowing the other. You are asking if there
> are
> > > >> > >>>>>> alternative subject-subject relations that are not mediated
> > by
> > > >> > >>>>>> objects? This may be another "mode" and a distinct kind of
> > > >> "seeing"
> > > >> > >>>> [with the mind's eye?].
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Miguel when you say you speak from personal experience as a
> > > >> > >>>>>> father, and this is a spiritual space of connection, it
> > > >> > >>>>>> gestures to another
> > > >> > >>>>> dimension,
> > > >> > >>>>>> another quality of thirdness as embodied
> > > enactments/performances.
> > > >> > >>>>>> I
> > > >> > >>>>> would
> > > >> > >>>>>> like to offer that Enrique Dussel's "ethical hermeneutics"
> > can
> > > >> > >>>>>> offer validation for Jessica and Daniel Stern's embodied
> > > >> > >>>>>> hearing the other [rhythmically] into voice.  I would
> > emphasize
> > > >> > >>>>>> your notion of
> > > >> > >>>>> "intersecting"
> > > >> > >>>>>> multiple truths. I would also offer the term "transversal"
> > > >> > >>>>>> [across
> > > >> > >>>>> verses]
> > > >> > >>>>>> truths as multiple and plural and "palpable"
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Rod, I concur with your reflections that there are other
> > forms
> > > >> > >>>>>> of
> > > >> > >>>>> learning
> > > >> > >>>>>> [especially social learning] which do not emphasize
> concept-y
> > > >> > >>>>>> ways of thinking. I want to also acknowledge the centrality
> > of
> > > >> > >>>>>> concept-y ways of seeing and reasoning but as you emphasize
> > the
> > > >> > >>>>>> children were able to join
> > > >> > >>>>> in
> > > >> > >>>>>> WELL before they were able to understand conceptually or be
> > > >> > >>>>>> able to
> > > >> > >>>>> explain
> > > >> > >>>>>> what was being enacted. This does not refute that the
> "world"
> > > >> > >>>>>> or
> > > >> > >>>>> "context"
> > > >> > >>>>>> in which the children are joining in is symbolically formed
> > and
> > > >> > >>>>>> historically situated.
> > > >> > >>>>>> What Daniel Stern, Jessica Benjamin, V. Reddy, Winnicott,
> > > >> > >>>>>> Trevarten, Fonagy, Gergely and other "baby watchers" are
> > > >> > >>>>>> indicating is the
> > > >> > >>>>> centrality
> > > >> > >>>>>> of "gestures" [meaningful performances or enactments as
> also
> > > >> > >>>>>> profoundly implicated in the formation of our contexts and
> > > >> worlds.
> > > >> > >>>>>> Worlds of experience are "palpable lived experiences" and
> > this
> > > >> > >>>>>> does have a phenomenological quality, a hermeneutical
> > quality,
> > > >> > >>>>>> and a cultural historical quality.  Worlds are also deeply
> > > >> > >>>>>> concept-y and
> > > >> > >>>>> institutionalized
> > > >> > >>>>>> and places of doer and done to. The question is how do we
> > > >> > >>>>>> ethically and morally respond to these palpable conditions?
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> "Thirdness" in its multiple versions may offer possible new
> > > >> > >>>>>> understandings to guide us symbolically AND  rhythmically
> > > >> > >>>>>> co-creatively inventing AND discovering [both/and]  "third
> > > >> spaces"
> > > >> > >>>>>> AS potentially liberating contexts.
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Sanders understands palpable rhythmic resonance as one of
> two
> > > >> > >>>>>> basic "principles" of all human interaction. Jessica's
> > project
> > > >> > >>>>>> is to underline this aspect of rhythmic resonance as primal
> > in
> > > >> > >>>>>> understanding the notion
> > > >> > >>>>> of
> > > >> > >>>>>> "recognition".
> > > >> > >>>>>> As the way through and beyond complimentary "twoness" of
> doer
> > > >> > >>>>>> and done
> > > >> > >>>>> to
> > > >> > >>>>>> or giver and given toperson must experience a palpable
> > > >> "witnessing"
> > > >> > >>>>> within
> > > >> > >>>>>> thirdness.
> > > >> > >>>>>> THIS is an intersubjective way of understanding thirdness
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> --
> > > >> > >>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural
> science
> > > >> > >>>>> as an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >> > >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > > >> > >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and
> intended
> > > >> > >>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed.
> If
> > > >> > >>>> you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution
> > or
> > > >> > >>>> other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited
> > and
> > > >> > >>>> you should not rely on
> > > >> > >>> it.
> > > >> > >>>> If you have received this email in error please let the
> sender
> > > >> > >>>> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet
> > > >> > >>>> emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care,
> > > >> > >>>> Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and
> > it
> > > >> > >>>> is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments.
> > > >> > >>>> Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any
> > > >> > >>>> changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> > > >> > >>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> > > >> > >>>> accompanied by an
> > > >> > official order form.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>> ________________________________
> > > >> > >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > > >> > >>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> > > >> > >>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed.
> If
> > > >> > >>> you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution
> or
> > > >> > >>> other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited
> > and
> > > >> > >>> you should not rely on
> > > >> > >> it.
> > > >> > >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender
> > > >> > >>> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet
> > > >> > >>> emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care,
> > > >> > >>> Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and
> it
> > > >> > >>> is your responsibility to scan
> > > >> > >> emails
> > > >> > >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> > > >> > >>> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing
> > in
> > > >> > >>> this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods
> or
> > > >> > >>> services unless accompanied by an official order form.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >> ________________________________
> > > >> > >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > > >> > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> > > >> > >> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If
> > you
> > > >> > >> are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or
> > other
> > > >> > >> use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you
> > > >> > >> should not rely on
> > > >> > it.
> > > >> > >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender
> > know
> > > >> > >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails
> > are
> > > >> > >> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth
> > > >> > >> University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your
> > > >> > >> responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth
> > > >> > >> University does not accept responsibility for any changes made
> > > >> > >> after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments
> > > >> > >> constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
> by
> > an
> > > >> official order form.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ---
> > > >> > Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
> > > >> > http://www.avast.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > > >> > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> > solely
> > > >> > for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are
> not
> > > >> > the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of
> > the
> > > >> > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not
> rely
> > > on
> > > >> it.
> > > >> > If you have received this email in error please let the sender
> know
> > > >> > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are
> > not
> > > >> > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> > > >> > accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your
> responsibility
> > to
> > > >> > scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not
> > accept
> > > >> > responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in
> > this
> > > >> > email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or
> services
> > > >> > unless accompanied by an official order form.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > > >>
> > > >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> solely
> > > for
> > > >> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> > > >> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> > > >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely
> > on
> > > it.
> > > >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> > > >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are
> not
> > > >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> > > accepts
> > > >> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> > > emails
> > > >> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> > > responsibility
> > > >> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> > > >> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> > > accompanied
> > > >> by an official order form.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > >
> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> for
> > > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> > > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
> > it.
> > > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> > > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> > > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> accepts
> > > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> > emails
> > > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> responsibility
> > > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> > > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> accompanied
> > > by an official order form.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>