[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie in the U.S.A! Or, when feelings contradictfacts
- To: Ed Wall <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie in the U.S.A! Or, when feelings contradictfacts
- From: Lplarry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:11:01 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance:in-reply-to :references; bh=nr5Mp/fNvkEV5zt8begMdlVyiJsRVT5ebC852XwPdpM=; b=MYfBM3H9IFv3x0clK1IiIvW6nYzrG1x+03do8gxWeXg0q3W1WqR9CAJAQwa9OnRcEe dR1xKlIypRIRMDxlwEkTUhv8Q5h2vNoXAbVEtyQ+z2ItUB9aL301W7NAhEJXEPm7irau HgkHy3Y2nSK5Ta8RSANIyE+0Wi0BPP4wawJy368XwUaoJ54Pgq9ttUSidxpx1QprenR2 uBP04g3qYgx868ShYmvUoSjTVPSKUUqwhtuH72d4mWd/f15OUaK9CToR1FBQLtdkWHyU ssczR8kMkwX3y2frU4Gf9oaglvAE/3/S5sxrqGzf4svHVBMTIjsHVrphIazbRkOxFWt8 AVLg==
- In-reply-to: <644B4969-1F60-412A-9B5E-0304F386139E@umich.edu>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAHH++Pkr3JTBzgbnzspaTR-F4j6zGf5jeb_2BGT8VekNmWe+Kw@mail.gmail.com> <644B4969-1F60-412A-9B5E-0304F386139E@umich.edu>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Relating to the *tone* or *resonance* of what I was watching and hearing at each convention, is it fair to say both conventions *assembled* different *modes* of discourse, different *modes* of thought?
I introduce this notion of *modes* as an entry into Greg’s question of what *moves* collectives of people who *identify* in the aggregate.
This does not requiring reaching systematic consensus but may be reaching a particular *mode of assemblage*.
One particular mode of (becoming) through *identity* may be expressed in the notion of the *authoritarian personality* as an assemblage of certain *qualities*.
The need for qualities that seem juxtaposed to the *assemblage* of qualities expressing an alternative *mode of becoming*.
Assemblage is NOT system or systematic but is a different level/layer.
My question is circling around this notion of *modes* of identity which catalyze particular qualities, characteristics, personality styles that *create* particular *moods, tones, resonance, in the aggregate but not in a systematic structure.
Of course the *mode* of yearning for a particular *model that is systematized* is one particular type of personality.
The authoritarian personality *type* was explored in response to the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Today Trump may be appealing to a particular *assemblage* (mode?) with particular identifiable qualities assembling under the umbrella notion *law and order*.
Bernie Saunders is assembling a *movement* under qualities of fairness and equity for all.
I will leave others to decide what qualities were *scripted* at the democratic convention.
I took away from Obama the appeal to assemble folks who are moved by the notion
*you carried me* and now I ask of you to *carry Hillary*.
The focus shifts to this other *mode* of assemblage appealing to a *creed* of (not yet) BUT (can be). This mode appeals to hope not despair and my hope is that *mode* has the greater resonance with voters
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
From: Ed Wall