[Xmca-l] Re: Laws of evolution and laws of history

[Zavala, Miguel]

Hi Larry,

Thank you for your thoughts and synthesis of complex ideas.

An exploration of the ethical relation to the other is what I've been
revisiting; it is in the work of Enrique Dussel and others that you
synthesized in a beautiful way in a previous post.  While Dussel provides
a philosophical exploration I like the way you enflesh those ideas.
Indeed, the ethical is embodied.  The rhythms of the body (as enacted
gesture) flow.

My sense is that the intersubjective 'moment' (in a dialectical sense) in
the work of Kris and others is in relation to the 'object' in a given
activity system.  Thus, we might say or as others have noted that there is
a struggle for intersubjectivity (with or without agreement, etc.).

But there is a particular kind of centering of the object-world here, a
privileging of sight (seeing, and reasoning), such that how we come to the
'other' is vis-a-vis this 'object'.  This strain is in the work of Paulo
Freire, too.  The subject-object relation, this analytic kernel so
important to CHAT, may be accompanied by a yet parallel, intersecting
relation, subject-subject that is not mediated by object.  Herein we enter
a distinct kind of way of seeing 'history' as multiple and situated
geographically in places.

I believe that is why in the Popol Vuh, Mayan sacred text, in the
beginning there is sound.  In other traditions light is seen as primary.
Yet, this marks a key distinction, between listening (as in sound) and
seeing (as in light).  The child re-teaches us to be, rehumanizes us and
grounds us in ways felt as we listen (I as a father have some distance to
this initial becoming, given I do not carry the child).  I speak from
person experience as a father in this reflection.  It is this spiritual
space of connection and a way of being that truly (materially and
symbolically and in any other way we want to carve being-in-the-world)
that transforms us into being-in-relation-to-others.

Miguel

On 1/17/15 9:41 AM, "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

>Miguel,
>Thank you for this question and re-turning us to "ethical" concerns.  You
>have reflected on the larger spatial scales.  My reflections explore the
>other micro scale and notions of thirdness within pedagogy. This listserve
>has recently discussed notions of "rhythmicity" in our enactments with
>others.  I want to bring in the psychodynamic notion of rhythmicity within
>thirdness by sharing Jessica Benjamin's way of moving beyond the
>complimentary notion of "secondness" as the dynamic of "doer and done to"
>
>Jessica is reflecting on a level of thirdness that is prior to using
>language which she says is missing the aspect explored by "baby watchers".
>She says the focus on language misses the first or founding moment, when
>she writes:
>
>  "This [the first aspect of recognition] is the part that baby watchers
>have made an indelible part of our thinking. In my view of thirdness,
>recognition is not first constituted by verbal speech; rather it begins
>with the early nonverbal experience of sharing a pattern, a dance, with
>another person" [Beyond Doer and Done to: An Intersubjective View of
>Thirdness]
>
>This aspect of primal thirdness for Jessica is a nascent energetic third -
>as distinct from the symbolic third in the mother's mind - present in the
>earliest exchange of "gestures" between mother and child.  Gestures are
>the
>early primary exchange which inform "baby watchers" notion of moral or
>ethical thirdness which implies the principle of "affective experience" or
>"felt experience" that IS PALPABLE.  This term "palpable" expresses a
>particular level of felt gestures which are  nonverbal but are mediated
>and
>are beyond complimentary doer and done to and preconceived propagating.
>Jessica argues that for the imaginal symbolic verbal third to actually
>"work" [the ZPD] as a true third -rather than complimentary doer and done
>to demands - requires the capacity for accomadation to a mutually created
>set of expectations [projects]. For Jessica the primal or founding form
>this accomodation takes or assumes is the creation of alignment with [and
>repair of ruptures to] the palpable patterns, the participation
>in connections based on affect resonance.
>
>This palpable felt experience Sanders called "rhythmicity" which Sanders
>considers one of two fundamental principles of all human interaction.  The
>other principle being "specificity".
>
>Jessica argues that palpable rhythmic experience helps constitute the
>capacity for symbolic imaginal thirdness.  Rhythmicity may be seen [and
>heard and felt] as a model principle UNDERLYING the creation of shared
>patterns that move beyond complimentary dyads of doer and done to type
>struggles for recognition.
>
>Miguel, to explore our ethical understandings of pedagogy that are moving
>beyond epistemology, do the "baby watchers" and their notions of
>primal nonverbal thirdness have something to offer in our explorations of
>Kris' notion of third space as a hybrid intersubjective space that is not
>doer and done to complimentarity.
>Growth and development seem to oscillate between already known
>pre-conceptions of what should be taught [the doer and the done to] and
>the
>more ethical or moral thirdness that emerges symbolically and imaginally
>from within a palpable felt experience of nonverbal thirdness that
>transcends doer and done to.
>This is an intersubjective understanding and is only an "aspect" of the
>cultural historical understanding, but it does focus our attention on the
>ethical or moral dimension of enactments [performative activities]  This
>model is an extension of Winnicott's notion of "potential or transitional
>space" and Daniel Stern's baby watching.
>
>Larry
>
>On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Zavala, Miguel <
>mizavala@exchange.fullerton.edu> wrote:
>
>> The distinction between propaganda and education is an analytic one that
>> is useful for me as a teacher. But I also think that it's a distinction
>> resolved not so much at the level of philosophy (theories, such as those
>> being proposed here) but ethically.
>>
>> Anyone who has taught and been reflexive of her/his pedagogy will sense
>> this distinction between the two, 'propaganda' and 'education'.  There
>>is
>> perhaps a particular instrumentalism (as an 'ethic', such as that
>> promulgated in 'revolutionary' struggles and in neoliberalism) that sees
>> people as objects not as Freire would term 'historical subjects' in
>> propaganda.
>>
>> I fully recognize the solipsism in all distinctions, such that some may
>> argue that even in Freirean, participatory pedagogy the issue remains
>> unresolved.  That there is a dimension of propaganda in education (and
>> education in propaganda).  But what some have pointed out (as I read
>>their
>> posts) is that we also should look at these processes in larger
>> spatial-scales.  What are the collectives that give birth or make
>>possible
>> education and propaganda projects?  Do these strive for rehumanization?
>> How does the struggle for rehumanization remain a struggle at
>>theoretical
>> and practical and historical and spatial levels?
>>
>> How do folks draw this distinction in their own pedagogical praxis? How
>>is
>> the ethical conceptualized, lived, and embodied in your pedagogy?  I
>> suggest looking at it less from a theory of communication and more from
>>an
>> ethical one (ethics as primary, epistemology as secondary) that we might
>> begin to re-conceptualize the very distinction between 'propaganda' and
>> 'education'.
>>
>> Miguel Zavala
>>
>>
>> On 1/17/15 5:37 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And I found the Engels he was quoting, in the Russian translation:
>> >
>> >    /Вечные законы природы /также превращаются все более и более в
>> >    исторические законы.
>> >
>> >The English translation says:
>> >
>> >    The eternal laws of nature also become transformed more and more
>> >    into historical ones.
>> >
>> >but then it goes on to say:
>> >
>> >    That water is fluid from 0°-100° C. is an eternal law of nature,
>>but
>> >    for it to be valid, there must be (1) water, (2) the given
>> >    temperature, (3) normal pressure.
>> >
>> >So this does NOT mean what it appeared to mean. Engels simply means
>> >"nothing remains constant" It is not saying anything about "laws of
>> >history"!!
>> >
>> >Andy
>> 
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >*Andy Blunden*
>> >http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> >
>> >
>> >mike cole wrote:
>> >> Thanks David -- That is certainly where I must have encountered the
>> >>phrase
>> >> often enough for it to stick in my mind. And thanks to Jessica and
>>Andy
>> >>we
>> >> see versions of the idea in many places.
>> >>
>> >> Double the pleasure.
>> >> mike
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:36 PM, David Kellogg
>><dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Mike--
>> >>>
>> >>> See Vol. Four of the Collected Works in English: the quote you refer
>> >>>to is
>> >>> the epigraph to HDHMF. It's from Dialectics of Nature, and Vygotsky
>> >>>keeps
>> >>> coming back to it again and again, throughout the whole text of
>>HDHMF,
>> >>> which is one reason why I am assuming (against what Anton Yasnitsky
>>has
>> >>> written) that HDHMF is a whole book, one of the very few that
>>Vygotsky
>> >>> completedly completed (and also his longest work).
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>