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

[Xmca-l] Re: Parts and wholes

A further reflection on what is the meaning of  “mental” going back to Kym MacLaren.
She argues that expression (behaviour, conduct, action) & perception involve NOT the constitution of meaning by a subject, but rather the institution of a *form* in the in-between of embodied being and environment – that expression and perception and emotion are institutions of forms which simultaneously “ transforms”, rather than simply being constituted by that embodied being.
What comes more to the for ground is the way repetition (back and forth) are occurring “within” the “mental” but the “mental” is not “within” the constituting subject. & developing new sense organs involves *events* occurring *beyond* the purview of the reflective subject. It is only after the transformation occurs, only (retrospectively) after the new organs of sense have developed that we see clearly the movement of expression, perception, emotion instituting who we have now become.
All this is referring to the personal side of the logic of institution. On the other side of the single coin is what M-P and Kym MacLaren refer to as “public history”.

Now what Kym and M-P are saying has been said in other ways, gesturing to the same focus on movement and perceiving “aspects” of “things” in their specific/ITY (nodding or inclining in gesture to Reim) but this language and logic of institution is another way to come into the clearing opening onto perezhivanie. Lewin is also central in this conversation

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
Sent: September 3, 2016 6:21 AM
To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Parts and wholes

Alfredo, I notice you referred to the “mental” in scare quotes. This reminds me of an earlier post where we explored the notion of the “mental” as an aspect of our “folk” psychology.
In the background I also hear David Kellogg moving from material problems of existential problems with flooding bridges, abstracting and going deeper, and then re/turning to the concrete.
Does the language of *parts and wholes* express this bi-directional movement adequately?

I also hear in the background Merleau-Panty's notion of developing “new organs of sense”.
The word “repetition* in relation to same/difference seems critical.  To repeat the (identical) may be technology, mechanical, scientism, but something is lacking?
Reading the movement of *repetition* not as (identical) or the (same) but as bidirectional *back and forth* through questions and answers, and through regression to the known and  anticipation of *something* new seems to be a  particular notion of movement, moving towards developing *new organs of sense*? 

In anticipation of discussing the meaning of perezhivanie it seems we may be *setting the table* for a lovely chat by opening a clearing
Possibly, could be.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
Sent: September 2, 2016 10:49 PM
To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Parts and wholes

Rein, when you say that the arch is of the type of ideas, that's exactly what I meant when making reference to Bateson's notion of relations as pertaining to the "mental". 
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 September 2016 06:10
To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Parts and wholes

In this bi-directional back and forth I hear Rein exploring and expressing that it is preferable to imagine all existents as composites being  the basic ontology and a response exploring and expressing *repeatable* functions that *re-ascend* to the concrete as a particular kind of bi-directional movement.

The notion of *repeatable* functions as a particular logic of abstractions that next re-ascend to the  concrete which is the basic material.

And where is *meaning* is this back and forth which seems to be central for human *nature*?

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: David Kellogg