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

[Xmca-l] Re: Groundings that make life worlds MORE real

This question, Where is the oikos realm today? This Is the question I was engaging.
I have  attached your article so others may explore the complexity of stance ownership.

The simplistic understanding that if the subject takes a stance, that that  stance move in itself implies the subject then owns the stance. In other words to intentionally act [act on purpose] in itself generates ownership of that stance taken.
This locates stance ownership as being generated from within the individual person's purposeful acts.

Your article indicating that this is a very simplistic understanding of stance ownership and your analysis proposing there are  actually three interrelated movements [stances] involved.
The intersubjective mode
The embodied iconic mode
The interobjective mode.

This is an expanded or enlarged triangulated depiction that develops a more complex figuration of stance ownership.

 What I am referring to as the vitality of the oikos realm may atrophy when market and  state and empire forces of dis-placement actually   dis-possess persons from the places which generate experiencing the vitality of the oikos realm.

I am suggesting this realm of vitality recedes from awareness when neo-liberal market and state and empire forces dominate public discourse and activity
I am not indicating the oikos realm as a utopia. I recognize the oikos realm can have a shadow side and  be oppressive, patriarchal and deadening. 
However, the 3 modes of stance ownership indicated in your article may play out differently within inhabited places which express the quality of mutuality – mutuality for itself as a way of flourishing.
This contrasts with the notion of nature as bare existence where survival needs are dominant, or nature as market forces determined by rational economic calculations.

I am proposing a notion of human desire for mutuality itself. The yearning and longing for intersubjective, embodied, interobjective movements of stance ownership generated within inhabited places of mutuality.
Greg, these  places may exist in our historical epoch more as expressions of yearning and desire but I am suggesting they may actually be vital for human flourishing. 

Your article invites us to go beyond notions of stance ownership as existing within purposeful individual stance moves.
To consider the complexity of 3 modes of stance that extend beyond individual stance acts.
I am suggesting that the various arenas [such as state, market, empire] may be dis-possessing us of the oikos realm leaving us with neo-liberal forms of stance ownership where our stances become instrumental and calculated.

If I can give one example to make my case. This example comes from Ian Angus at SFU.

In Scotland, the English empire invaded the Scottish highlands and cleared the land of the inhabitants and their way of life. This is known as the *clearances* The land was fenced and populated with sheep.
I am suggesting the *clearances* destroyed the indigenous  oikos realm where the stance taking of inter-subjectivity, embodied iconicity, and interobjectivity had existed and had  been evaluated through a shared sense of mutuality or shared being-in-the-world. Binswanger enlarged Heidegger’s notion of being-in-the world to include 3 realms. Umwelt [cultural historical and material environment]  Mitwelt [intersubjective realm of mutuality] Eigenwelt [private interior realm].

I am suggesting that with the expansion of market state and empire that there is a general clearing away of the oikos realm that leads to tragic consequences. This is the message of Greek tragedy. A sense of being-in-the-world as being home becomes unheimlich [uncanny] and we are left yearning and longing for that place of mutuality as a particular kind of stance ownership.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Greg Thompson
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 1:04 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Groundings that make life worlds MORE real

Thanks for the engagement here.
First off, I remain ambivalent about the idea of "more" real. On the one
hand, I think it gives some flexibility to a concept ("the real") that can
be overly simplistic - either it is real or it is imagined (as if
imagination isn't real!).

On the other hand, I think that it could easily slide into a way of seeing
social worlds as "less real" than material worlds. (I would prefer to avoid
that dualism but it seems that a building has a qualitatively different
nature than does a sewing circle. But I'd like to think about that some
more before being so bold).

Off the top of my head, I'm wondering if a better way of thinking this
might be "finished" or, perhaps, "finalized" (as in Bakhtin's notion of
"finalizability"). Thus, just as a building can be not yet "finalized", so
too can a social group or a social act. An unfinalized real. Perhaps.

Yes, I think the hearth as interobjective binding of oikos makes perfect
sense to me. But I wonder, where is the hearth today. Despite all the
laments about the television in the 50's and 60's (or the radio prior to
that), it at least had a hearth like quality to it. Family members would
gather round it and watch their favorite show (but yes, notice that as
compared to a campfire, tv's didn't put people face to face). Today, each
family member has their own screen and they might sit in the same room
while watching their screen, but the oikos-tic interobjectivity is rather

Just my thoughts here. Thanks again for allowing my inscriptional object to
pull us together...


On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg Thompson posted the article - temporality, stance ownership, and the
> constitution of subjectivity - to academia.edu
> Greg, this article carried me through your exploration of -stance
> ownership - that opened new ways of connecting particular ways to make life
> more real.
> The three groundings presented:
> - intersubjectivity through recognition
> - embodied indexical iconicity
> - interobjectivity as the stance of things.
> Your paper guided me to a deep appreciation of the complexity of making
> life worlds more real.
> I found the exploration of embodied indexical iconicity the most
> transformative learning.
> However, I wanted to explore the notion of interobjectivity as agentic in
> one particular case.
> Can we imagine the oikos realm as interobjective?
> For the oikos realm to be interobjective is to recognize this realm as an
> object of evaluation.
> This means an orientation towards this object that has particular
> characteristics.
> In other words the oikos realm having some specific quality or value.
> I am suggesting that the specific quality of the oikos realm is -mutuality
> - in itself.
> The notion of mutuality for its own sake.
> If the figure of Hestia embodies this oikos realm, then the gathering
> around the hearth in itself results in flourishing.
> The hearth as interobjective stancetaking leading to particular
> characters or figures of intersubjective stancetaking and particular
> characters or figures of embodied iconicity.
> The quality and values of the places within placings in particular as
> evaluative orientations toward the oikos realm as interobjective.
> I recommend Greg's paper as a contribution to understanding particular
> groundings making life worlds more real.
> I found the connections generated were transformative.
> Larry

Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

Attachment: JANUARY 4 2016 THOMPSON GREG Temporality_stance_ownership_and_the_constitution of identity.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document