Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred Holodynsk's article is choice

[Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>]

Hi Martin , Andy !
Welcome again !
One thing is certain . I do need to learn from you . The reverse is not correct .
Again , because of my limits , I have to go to the text in parts . I cannot conclude in few lines . Apologies !

two parags left unintentionally . I'd like others to continue but if dear Martin draws me back near , I'll be at his service . 


________________________________
 From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 21:17:49
Subject: Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred Holodynsk's article is choice
 

Hi Manfred,


Thank you for taking the time to write to XMCA. These discussions of articles are always more interesting and informative when the author can participate. I appreciate your clarification, but I would like to ask a question. You write:


On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:40 AM, "Holodynski, Manfred" <manfred.holodynski@uni-muenster.de> wrote:


> a) Take the example of the opening of the window. That's the behavior. What's the goal?

> 

> b) Imagine the person is a leader and opens the window in order to greet his followers and to hold a speech. That's the goal. What is the activity?

> 

> c) If one look at the circumstances one can derive that the speech is a part of a political activity in order to celebrate the election victory. 


By Manfred's Permission , I exemplify the event thus :

a) On the ladder of the hiararchy of the 'motives' , I climb few steps higher . I've reached the PERSONAL SENSE of cognizing the GLOBALIZED AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION . I see this SENSE in conflict with the GENERAL SOCIAL MEANING of the public to the effect that Mubarak is personally the cause for all the disasters . Then , on the part of the revolutionary classes  , strata , layers , groups , parties , they have reached their object of the activity of toppling Mubarak . This they name REVOLUTION . On my PERSONAL part (I've got the SENSE also from the social relations) , I've achieved for the object of the activity of toppling the socio-economic formation of CAPITALISM which I assert to be the cause of all world evils (fun for many) . According to L , if through a long process , I'm able to spread and generalize this achieved PERSONAL SENSE , then the beginning of rounds of cardinal social transformations is within reach . Otherwise , degrees of
 frustration caused by defeats and failures will be my lot . L says true artistic creative works have their origins here . At times of real crises which necessitates attempt to ACTION , objects have already been promoted to the ranks of MOTIVES . What is the activity ? Toppling a social system (sweet dreams) !! What is the motive ? removal of social evils through transition of power from one class to another ; this has not been realized in Egypt so far ; Globalized America deceives revolutionaries by decadent maneuvers so that true revolutionaries might ignore her stronghold of the Colonels and the Generals ; with the Ikhwan she also plays chess and it's decades this plaything is on : such as social injustice , oppression , exploitation , dictatorship , private ownership , expansionism , genocide , slaughter , poverty , etc.

b) action or actions : getting armed , combination of political / military endeavours , negociations , gurilla  warfare , etc.

c) conditions : No peaceful democratic ways of solving problems have been left open : choice of jungles , forests ; mountanous parts of a country ; urban srruggle , ambush , rural propeganda , etc.

I know not of Egypt's concrete analysis of concrete conditions . Brecht should know .

***  

Given your previous paragraphs I assume that you mean to say that opening the window is the operation, greeting the followers is the action, and giving a speech is the activity? Then, the motive of the activity (giving the speech) is to celebrate an election victory. The goal of the action (greeting the followers) is to greet the followers (?). And the conditions of the operation (opening the window) are that the window is closed. Do I have that correct? I still find the terminology a bit confusing.


--Ok

Then you draw a distinction between the "publically assigned meaning" and the "personally felt sense of the situation." You contrast the possibility that the personally felt sense is pride and enthusiasm with the possibility that it is feeling burdened and overloaded. 


--With the first part Ok.' adding that when we read L , we see the pivotal point is achieving the PERSONAL SENSE , emanating from the personality already formed through one's life activities and the removal of the conflict which occurs at one period of time of the life of the person , not the individual . 
With the second part , there's an 'if' as above-mentioned . A political leader could not be a swerving creature . If you insist he might be : his lot is frustration . Ideals as the engine of the movements gone . dead politically , a product , extinguished . But if he is firm , he goes to excite the followers ; the goal is to celebrate a VICTORY . Then overburdening and overloading are ruled out .

So, you offer us a description of the situation that rests of various theoretical concepts. I'd say that without doubt there's a metaphysics here, but there's no need to dwell on that point!


--Yes , yes , there IS . You are quite familiar with the THESES . The whole thing is this : If the rock and the steel are there left to themselves : virgin soil #upturned , Nature intact ? And if you are just an EYE-witness to the scene left to yourself ? What then happens ?? You know L has his table of reactibility , irritatibility , sensibility , intellectuality , etc. up to the psyche , con. and self.con and psychical activity . You sense what I mean . Even with sort of stimuli in between , that is , in the absence of an conscious action , what happens ?? You are well aware of the end of reflexology and reactology . True ideals , theoreticals , essentials and universals , conceptuals are not corporeal , THEY ARE concrete , objective . You can count on them for COGNITION . 

The point I would like to dwell on, however, is that I think questions can be raised about such a description, in particular about the way it seems to presuppose some kind of omniscient observer, who has access not only to publicly available facts (the identity of the party leader; the results of the voting), but also to what the election means to "the public" (won't there be a range of interpretations?) and to the "personal sense" of the agent.


--First 'public' are not always the 'mob' ; second , in social upheavals there's no 'public' ; there're classes , strata , layers , parties , groups , etc . and there're stages to a upheaval or revolution . Second , when we talk about the hiararchy of motives , lowest level profiteering , highest level sacrificial endeavours , certainly these choices of degrees are based upon interpretations . But what I don't understand is what is meta-physical (rootless,non,foundational,ethereal,phantasmic) in the processes . Besides , in social upheaval / revolutions , what are the roles of sightseers , omniscients , outsiders , beholders , oligo-cognizants , etc. ? suppose they know everything , then what ?  Those who should act are within THEIR FORTIFICATIONS .

In practice, as a researcher for example, one is never in this enviable position. Imagine I am standing in the room with the party leader. He fumbles to open the window and exclaims "Gott!" Now, I can understand that exclamation in a variety of ways. I can see it as frustration that the operation of opening the window has been frustrated by the local conditions. Or I can interpret it as irritation that the goal of greeting the followers has met with an obstacle. Or I can read it as anxiety that the motive of celebrating the victory is already not running smoothly.


--First , you are an omni-scient . How can you allow yourself to be so dubious at such a time with such a person as a leader ? This is not a suitable time for 'hermeneutics' , We have had our exegeses of texts and now we are in the CON-text of ACTION . If , Martin , you are so kind to listen to this your sincere pupil/novice , try to extract what could be essential , universal at the particular time within your company and have him directed to the right path in ACTION . 

Without access to the subjective feelings of the agent (and perhaps even then), it seems to me that each of these ways of framing the emotional exclamation is equally valid. Obviously they differ in the depth, or width, of the context, the macrostructure, that they take into account, but I it is not clear to me that this can be used as a criterion for choosing among them. The agent himself has, I would suggest, the same range of interpretive options available to him - that is, he will need to make sense of his own emotional exclamation, and he has available to him a variety of ways to do so. Surely that is one thing that we know about emotionality; that emotions are not transparent to us. We don't know immediately what the cause and objects of our own emotions are. 


In addition, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the "macrostructure" of the activity is not even the most inclusive way of framing an action (or in this case an emotional exclamation). One could equally well frame it in the context of a person's whole life, understood as an existential commitment. Or in terms of the system and structure of a political-economic formation - interpreting "Gott!", for example, as an expression of the contradictions of politics within contemporary neo-liberal democracy. 


In short, then, why is "the macrostructure of an activity" the embedding that should be preferred?


Martin

__________________________________________

_____

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca