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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Peirce's Approach to Pluralism and System



Mike, Alfredo,

I also am dipping my toe into this topic or theme so will explore with you what this means and where this meaning leads us as we walk along the path that Kym Maclaren opens before us.

Vygotsky said, the word is the direct manifestation of the historical nature of consciousness.
What if Vygotsky had said,
Human consciousness is the direct manifestation of the historical nature of the word.
There seems to be 3 parts or elements here in the way or arrangement or combination that are determining the actual existing order.
1) The word
2) Human consciousness'
3) The in-between
We can post that human consciousness is the direct manifestation of the nature of the word
OR
We can post that the word is the direct manifestation of the nature of human consciousness
OR
We can post that both the word and human consciousness manifest (arise) simultaneously within the *in-between* 

Each of these frameworks shifts what is primary and where we focus attention.


The next question: thinking life defines *itself* through consciousness.
Is *thinking life* itself -life itself?

OR is thinking life itself emerging from somewhere that is subterranean. Life itself may *exceed* thinking life itself.
The thinking life *defines* itself, gives definition to itself through frameworks that are instituted ( a word used I think to go beyond thinking life defining *itself*). Events must also be considered and events occur in happenings not of our own choosing.

The actual existing order and the way in which anything is *made up* determine the things nature and character. Merleau Ponty and Kym Maclaren are inviting us to use the model of institution to become clearer on the distinctions with other Models of *made up*.  Now the tension between *made up* and *making up* (the coming to be and the overcoming of the limits of the currently available *made up* are also central to Merleau Ponty’s model.

The actual existing order (of meaning) is in tension with meaning *potential* that is over the horizon but coming to be. It is only retrospectively that we come to see the newly instituted order and we arrive at this new order *through* the old order. 
This is a language of frame/works and trans/form/ation of meanings in which we dwell.

The emotional institutions that are being realized (coming to consciousness) are becoming realized/instituted  within a subterranean process which come to fruition within events beyond the purview of the  *I think*. To have this transformation come to consciousness occurs after the happening of the event.
However, the arising of the new institution arises *through* the older crystallized institution that is overcome.

The dialectic that these emotional institutions *undergo* is driven not by self-reflection (which is retrospective) but by events (contingency, back and forth repetion, the living indeterminate ambiguous relations of being in the world with actual others within the older frame/work of habituated meaning AND this *movement* occurs in a subterranean way (beyond) I think -itself. This movement beyond the I think -itself is a back and forth movement of regression to older frameworks and anticipation of newer frameworks which arise/arrive when events happen that crystallize a new emotional institution on it's way to becoming overcome.

Mike, Alfredo,  
Within M-P’s model meaning *cores* and meaning *potential* shift within *events*.
Meaning is also central to perezhivanie and therefore  the paths of institution and perezhivanie may possibly interweave as occurring in the realm of the *in-between* where both objectiv/ity and subjectiv/ity arise simultaneously.

Through dialogue both the meaning of  institution and perezhivanie  ( meanings which we come to inhabit) may become clearer 
Possibly?

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: mike cole