[Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions

[Larry Purss]

Rod
I would say that Jessica would fully endorse this understanding of using
internalized thirdness. as a "reflective" space. This is the aspect of
thirdness that she refers to as the "symbolic third "[ a metaphorical space
of äs if""perceiving the world through a sociocultural filter.
Your focussing on the centrality of "marking"I would suggest has been
deeply explored by Fonagy and Gergley in there re-searching ""affect
regulation.
Whether others agree or question Jessica's notions of ïntersubjective third
space"[aspects of attunement, differentiation, and symbolic thirds] as a
mediating environment, the focus on "marking" contrasted with matching or
mirroring] is a profound insight and notions of "self-regulation" can be
expanded by the understanding of affect regulation through asymmetrical
"marking"



On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:

> I have had to read hastily, Larry and I am not at all sure that I have
> followed you and Jessica Benjamin through the psychoanalytical accounts of
> intersubjectivity but I wanted to pick up on her point about the 'marking'
> of the mother's response to a baby's distress (not simply mirroring this
> back in the same form as it came from the baby). The mother/parent is
> perhaps able to use an internalised thirdness to see the (future)
> autonomous self in the actions of the baby, perceiving these through a
> sociocultural filter and responding 'as if' the baby was already a (more
> competent) social agent - or perhaps it is more that the parent responds as
> if the interaction is already such as is had between enculturated agents -
> moving into a third space into which the baby is also drawn.
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: 20 January 2015 15:41
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
>
> Rod,
> Yes, and the surrender she is exploring is of the intersubjective type
> [subject subject complimentarity transformed.  This is in contrast to
> submission as a relation in which some "one" [person or "idea" is
> "dominant" and privileged such a patriarchal father,]  To sub-mit for
> Jessica enacts some "one" is "over"-seeing.
>
> In her example of the walk with the two year old, if this walk  becomes
> "duty" through an act of self- assertion or self-regulation this duty
> becomes some"thing"  which the parent submits to and there is no longer a
> sense of mutual intersubjective delight in surrendering to the "third" that
> mutual potential space.
> Jessica describes this tension between subjective complimentary twoness
> [i.e. patriarchal father as over lord] and the who submits to the "one"
> [person or ideal] AND intersubjective "thirdness" as a tension which will
> never be dialectically resolved.  Thirdness will always rupture and need
> repair. Jessica's is a "moral" third and is a developmental "achievement".
> It requires first having participated and been "held" or "witnessed"
> within palpable felt experience which creates a thirdness of
> intersubjective attunement. This is "accommodation".
>
> The mother's gestures must be "marked" to the rhythm of the babies moods
> and affect as attunement to a rhythmic "dance". This is the context or ZPD
> in which "differentiation" from fusion within "oneness" occurs.
>
> This intersubjective model recognizes that this type of developmental
> "learning" must be co-created and requires the "symbolic" third which
> explores as metaphorical enactments of (a)symmetry.  The parent must act
> from within "reflective" presence enacting the third by "morally"
> surrendering to the rhythm or musical patterning using cultural historical
> tools and understandings.
>
> I read Jessica as "seeing through" the historical constellation of two
> independent  subjectivie standpoints in relations of complimentarity and
> one is "over" and the other "under" in relations of domination.
> Submitting to a fundamental already known "one" is not intersubjective
> asymmetrical enactments which call forth surrender of the person through
> rhythmical attunements to the other as the "basis" for differentiation of
> the two subjectivities through the moral reflections of the care giver.
>
> This model understands maturity as the care giver having her own
> subjectivity and "twoness" and "thirdness" are never resolved or
> transcended . They co-exist and the care giver must develop the capacity or
> disposition for co-creating attuned, differentiated, and symbolic
> thirdness. What Jessica is suggesting is this process collapses into
> complimentary doer and done to without the recognition this is continually
> co-created "MORAL" thirdness that intentionally resists either/or
> enactments which demand patriarchical recognition and the other must in
> duty submit
>
> The tension is never overcome and it is inevitable that thirdness will
> collapse into twoness. This will be felt as a loss of thirdness and the
> moral struggle is through reflection for the more mature one to
> re-establish thirdness through recognition that the thirdness shifted
> towards self-assertive twoness. It takes the commitment for the person in
> the lead to recognize he/she returned to "twoness" and caused a rupture and
> to sincerely communicate this "truth" to the other participant(s) so the
> felt inevitable disregulation can be validated as a felt truth.
> This acknowledge is capable of reopening this space of thirdness, this
> metaphorical space of potentiality and possibility.
>
> This model is "intersubjective" not subjective Larry
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > But Benjamin would argue that this is surrender (jointly giving up a
> > focus on self in order to focus on a shared 'third' space of
> > relationship) rather than submission (losing self in/to the
> relationship).
> >
> > Bartels and Zeki (The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love,
> > Neuroimage, 2004, 21, 1155-66) suggest that love is associated with a
> > reduction of activity in parts of the brain associated with social
> > evaluation - so love is, in some respects, blind and lovers (of their
> > own babies or of romantic partners) may be more willing to surrender
> > despite what others might see as flaws in the objects of their love!
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Maria Judith Sucupira da
> > Costa Lins
> > Sent: 20 January 2015 13:09
> > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] RES: Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> >
> > Submission is presente also in true love.
> > maria
> >
> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > De: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] Em nome de HENRY SHONERD Enviada em:
> > segunda-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2015 22:39
> > Para: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Assunto: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> >
> > Larry,
> > Do you think it’s sad-masochistic of me to suggest that we give
> > submission a chance? Unanalyzed, “submission”, not even a suggestion
> > of  a hyphen, as a juicy chunk, I think of Islam, or what I know of it
> > through a hodge podge of media and friendships. But break it down,
> > without even going to the dictionary, “sub-mission” has the ring of
> > commitment to a project. As a legal term, my dictionary has
> > “submission” as “an agreement between parties involved in a dispute”.
> > Here’s more from the semantic cluster: A synonym for “submission” is
> > “yield”, from the Middle English. It’s worth mashing up latinate and
> > germanic etymology and morphology to set up mnemonics for the
> > discourse. So, when, if ever, is it good to “submit”, “give in”? I
> > submit to the good will of la gente of this chat. There’s gotta be
> > respect and trust. Among other things, that means it has to be
> > voluntary and de buena voluntad. And transparent? Let me suggest a
> > prototypical narr  ative of
> > submission: Motherhood. Giving birth and all of that jazz. Creativity
> > with a capital “C”. Here’s another: death. Everything in between is up
> > for grabs I guess. Probably lots of diversity as they say in the game.
> > Please, chatters, don’t feel the need to respond. I’ll take silence as
> good sign.
> > Like, you’re listening politely.
> > Submissively
> > Henry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rod,
> > > In the spirit of your caution and acknowledging its truth value, I
> > > want to say I was hesitant to use the term "surrender" for how it
> > > would be misunderstood.  In a similar way to the misunderstandings
> > > of the term "mind".
> > >
> > > I will mention that Jessica is consciously using the word "surrender"
> > > as NOT "submission" as she tries to articulate a nypothesis that
> > > sees through "domination" and the struggle to the death of
> > > complimentary
> > "recognition"
> > > I fully expect Jessica's work to instigate passionate responses.
> > > Her work does develop from Habermas, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm and
> > > the Frankfurt school.
> > > Jessica says we have conflated "surrender" with "submission" and
> > > Jessica's use of the term "surrender" must be seen as being engaged
> > > in exploring [and putting in play] notions of instrumental
> > > internalized "self-regulation" AND notions of the "third space" as
> > > coming into being through "surrender" to a place of potentiality and
> > > possibility
> > that is moving "beyond"
> > > self-assertion as a complimentary struggle to the death.
> > >
> > > Rod, the play of "active" and "receptive" thirds [in contrast to
> > > active and passive twoness] is the place which Jessica is inviting
> > > us to
> > occupy.
> > >
> > > Notions of "surrender" carry huge baggage and and will invite
> > > palpable rejection as concepts. This is a fact. It is challenging
> > > particular notions of "subjective" and "intersubjective"
> > > However, if we begin within a dialogical awareness and acknowledge
> > > that using a term such as "surrender"  will be read by most and
> > > rejected  as implying "submission" and "domination" and "passivity"
> > > and "loosing the self", then the process that you and I are engaged
> > > in at this moment is the hermeneutical enactment of differentiating
> > > and "marking" the distinctions the distinctions between "surrender"
> > > and "submission" Jessica is asking us to pause and be reflective and
> > consider this distinction.
> > >
> > > Rod, Jessica is working within a "tradition" [the Frankfurt School
> > > where she is in dialogue with Hegel, Habermas, Adorno, Horkheimer.
> > > Her project is to "see through" the patterns of complimentary "twoness"
> > > [doer and done to giver and given to]. The term "surrender" is being
> > > used within this tradition.
> > >
> > > This term "surrender" [as exemplified in Stephen Mitchell's story of
> > > letting go of his "idea" of "a walk" to enter his daughter's
> > > enactment of "a walk" is central to Jessica's notion of
> > > living-in-truth. Yes, it invites further dialogue and will be
> > > misunderstood. It requires further dialogue.
> > >
> > > I could have tried to write an essay fully outlining the term
> "surrender"
> > > This word has sparked considerable response within the tradition of
> > > feminism. I could also she it being challenged as Eurocentric or too
> > > psychological [emphasizing both accommodation and differentiation].
> > >
> > > Posting to the listserve and inviting commentary and further
> > > questions on the term "surrender" is another approach.
> > >
> > > I also hoped to find a "bridge" to Kris' understanding of "third
> > > space" and her exploration of intersubjective testimonio as hybrid
> > > co-creative mutual rhythmic patterns forming within third spaces. I
> > > see a quality of "surrender" [as Jessica uses the term] in Kris'
> > > exploration of third spaces.
> > >
> > > Vygotsky explores internalized "self-regulation" as a developmental
> task.
> > > Jessica suggests the development of self regulation moves through
> > > asymmetrical accommodation AND differentiation. For Jessica this
> > > psychological development [if it is to form third spaces] requires
> > > asymmetrical agentic active "surrender" as a way beyond a struggle
> > > to the death of complimentary twoness.
> > > In summary, I understand Jessica's work as an aspect of cultural
> > > historical understanding, that includes social theory of emotions
> > > and cognition and culture that is historical.
> > > The term "surrender" is a discursive and dialogical form of enactment.
> > > It was offered in the spirit of open ended dialogue but I was aware
> > > and took a chance in using the word "surrender"  Another word would
> > > have been less controversial but I do question if being
> > > misunderstood and then requiring  further clarification is an approach
> with some value.
> > >
> > > I do not intend the use of "surrender" as an alternative approach to
> > > cultural historical theory.
> > > The use of this term is meant in a spirit of dialogue and the "piety"
> > > of questions inviting answers.
> > > Rod, in the way I presented the term "surrender", I may have
> > > elaborated further, and clarified more, but I was not sure if there
> > > were others who shared an interest in this topic of complimentary
> > > twoness and co-creative thirdness. I was interested in going deeper
> > > into understanding "third spaces" and by posting was feeling my way
> > > in by probing the level of interest.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Larry,
> > >> As I said, I like Benjamin's distinction between surrender and
> > >> submission but I also think that it is not so simple to introduce
> > >> new shadings of meaning to a word/concept which is already part of
> > >> people's vocabulary. For most people, outside the group of those
> > >> who know about Benjamin's work, surrender WILL still carry felt
> > >> associations with unwillingly giving up ownership or control of
> > >> something prized/valued. This is bound to result in
> > >> miscommunication unless those who use surrender in its new sense
> > >> signal and explain this use. I think an awareness of how we can
> > >> expect others to react (body, mind and soul) is a core aspect of
> > >> communication and ethical behaviour. We can't just occupy that
> > >> third space and expect others to
> > surrender to the meanings we want to introduce!
> > >>
> > >> Rod
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Larry Purss
> > >> Sent: 19/01/2015 01:29
> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >>
> > >> Miguel,
> > >> The article I have been referencing is from Jessica Benjamin's
> > >> article "Beyond Doer and Done To: An Intersubjective View of
> > >> Thirdness"  There is an extensive bibliography .  Interestingly
> > >> Jessica's dissertation was written in 1978 with the title,
> > "Internalization and Instrumental Culture:
> > >> A Reinterpretation of Psychoanalysis and Social Theory"
> > >> Rod,
> > >> Jessica references Colwyn Trevarthen as a source of her notion of
> > >> "surrender". Yes, this word will make some uncomfortable, but this
> > >> term must be seen as clearly differentiated from the notion of
> > "submission"
> > >> which Jessica believes are often conflated. I view "surrender" as
> > >> Jessica uses the term as an "agentic" act that is ethical. It is an
> > >> act [or enactment] which is felt as expansive, not as restrictive
> > >> of
> > "self"
> > >> I am going to share a quote from Jessica's paper that she offered
> > >> to differentiate the palpable difference between "surrender" and
> > "submission".
> > >> She is quoting Stephen Mitchell who is a key person in developing
> > >> relational and hermeneutical psychoanalysis.
> > >> Mitchell wrote:
> > >>
> > >> When my older daughter was about two or so, I remember my
> > >> excitement at the prospect [LP-imaginal] of taking walks with her,
> > >> given her new ambulatory skills and her intense interest in being
> outdoors.
> > >> However, I soon found these walks agonizingly slow.  My idea of a
> > >> walk entailed brisk movement along a road or path.  Her idea was
> > >> quite different.  The implication of this difference hit me one day
> > >> when we encountered a fallen tree on the side of the road....
> > >> The rest of the "walk" was spent exploring the fungal and insect
> > >> life on, under, and around the tree.  I remember my sudden
> > >> realization that these walks would be no fun for me, merely a
> > >> parental duty, if I held onto my idea of walks.  As I was able to
> > >> give that up and SURRENDER to my daughter's rhythm and focus, a
> > >> different type of experience opened up to me.....  If I had simply
> > >> RESTRAINED myself out of duty, I would have experienced the walk as
> > >> a compliance.  But I was able to become my daughter's version of a
> > >> good companion and to find in THAT another way for me to be that
> > >> took on great personal meaning"  [Benjamin, page 26]
> > >>
> > >> For Benjamin and Mitchell this quote expresses the principle of
> > >> necessary asymmetry, by accommodating to the other as a way of
> > "generating"
> > >> thirdness. and within the "surrendering" the person is transformed,
> > >> through opening up to mutual pleasure.
> > >>
> > >> Jessica is asking how we distinguish between the compliance of
> "twoness"
> > >> from the transformational learning of thirdness. For Jessica the
> > >> answer is ethical, in the form of reflections on what will create
> > >> intersubjective connection in our relationship, and through this
> > >> reflection, opening up to surrender and transformation.  This
> > >> creative enactment expresses agency and is not coerced. It is an
> > >> ethical response. This "intention" to connect and the resulting
> > >> self-observation create what Jessical calls "moral thirdness", the
> > >> connection to a larger expansive connection beyond giver and given
> > >> to
> > that is felt as palpably "right".
> > >> In all Jessica's work she is distinguishing "surrender" from
> > "submission"
> > >> [including submitting to an "ideal" of "pure" empathy. which is a
> > >> denial of self and leads to complimentary doer and done to.
> > >>
> > >> For Jessica this moral third space is the space where
> > >> "self-regulation" and "co-regulation" meet. But that would require
> > further elaboration.
> > >> Larry
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Larry,
> > >>>
> > >>> Many thanks for your very clear account of Jessica Benjamin's
> > >>> distinction between 'submitting' and 'surrendering' (though I
> > >>> suspect that both terms might trigger associations for many which
> > >>> might make them uncomfortable about using them in these ways).
> > >>> Your observations about possibility
> > >>> (doableness) make me wonder about how a shared history and common
> > >>> experience might contribute to the building of richer and more
> > >>> extensive possibilities among a community or a group of people who
> > >>> spend time together (especially 'down' time, when they are more
> > >>> relaxed and their social guards are down). It is easier and more
> > agreeable to 'surrender'
> > >>> into this sort of group, to 'go with the flow' of social
> > >>> conversation
> > >> with
> > >>> no real concern about where it might lead and, in so doing, to
> > >>> contribute to the co-construction of a third space which is shaped
> > >>> not so much by
> > >> the
> > >>> thingness or iddity of participants as by the movement of
> > >>> interactions between them. This sort of surrendering into a group
> > >>> feels very different from submitting to the ordered, planned
> > >>> procedures of a 'getting things done' sort of meeting (though
> > >>> there is
> > room for overlap).
> > >>>
> > >>>> From a baby watcher's perspective, this surrender sounds very
> > >>>> much like
> > >>> what Colwyn Trevarthen called primary intersubjectivity - when
> > >>> baby and caregiver 'lose themselves' in interaction purely for the
> > >>> sake of
> > >> engaging
> > >>> with each other (or rather, perhaps, of engaging with the 'great
> we').
> > >>>
> > >>> I think there is a lot to be said about the way our sense of our
> > >>> own and other selves moves in and out of this sort of third space.
> > >>> Vera captured some lovely aspects of this in her book 'Creative
> > >>> Collaboration' - how
> > >> the
> > >>> 'dailiness' of being with other members of a group lubricates the
> > >>> possibilities, allowing idea sharing to blossom.
> > >>>
> > >>> All the best,
> > >>>
> > >>> Rod
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > >>> Sent: 18 January 2015 16:26
> > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >>>
> > >>> Rod, I concur with your interpretations.
> > >>> I would add to your comment:
> > >>>
> > >>> In terms of signification, the choice of a staff is likely to
> > >>> prompt others into a slight lurch of expectations which might help
> > >>> to remind
> > >> them
> > >>> that things are not simple, categorised and predictable - what
> > >>> looks at first like a frail old woman may turn out to be a person!
> > >>>
> > >>> The "choice" emerged from within a symbolic imagining of others
> > >>> expectations.  This interpretation is within the subject's
> > >>> internalized "scripts".
> > >>> This is exploring "my" act and your return act.
> > >>>
> > >>> Third space notions ask or question if there are "intersubjective"
> > >>> ways
> > >> to
> > >>> enact "shared imaginal places which are first symbolic imaginal
> > >> "potential"
> > >>> places.  Shared mutual metaphorical spaces/places that do not yet
> > >>> exist but are "possible"  The focus on the morpho-genesis of "posse"
> > >>> [meaning can] with the suffix ibilas "causing" a "transformation"
> > >>> through
> > >> activities
> > >>> [enactments, performances from WITHIN this "middle shared realm".
> > >>>
> > >>> This way of understanding is playing with notions of metaphorical
> > >>> and imaginal and symbolic "places" as "existing" WITHIN shared
> > >>> potential spaces.  This posits shared mutually imagined third
> > >>> spaces of
> > >> "possibility"
> > >>> within "as if" realms of becoming that open up spaces in which
> > >>> things are not yet "things" and "facts" that are simple,
> > >>> categorized, predictable,
> > >> and
> > >>> with a yearning to be known as "real" and "actual".
> > >>>
> > >>> What both Kris and Jessica share is an exploration of
> "intersubjective"
> > >>> mediated metaphorical third spaces "as if" real and actual.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jessica Benjamin also makes a distinction between "surrendering"
> > >>> to
> > >> "exist"
> > >>> in third spaces in contrast to "submitting" to the other. [other
> > >>> as
> > >> things
> > >>> or persons]. Sumitting to objects or persons is experienced being
> > >>> reduced by the other. It abstracts us from "third spaces" and
> > >>> collapses into complimentary "twoness" of "giver and given" or
> > >>> "doer
> > and done to"
> > >>> Third spaces are palpably "liberating" through "surrendering" and
> > >>> "becoming  within the "potential" or the "possible" symbolic "third"
> > >>> that which does not yet exist in actuality or "facts"
> > >>> The third space must be enacted performed or take action but
> > >>> moving out from within this imaginal shared space.
> > >>>
> > >>> This notion is playing with the not yet but shared "existence"
> > >>> becoming actual simple categorized concept-y. There is no absolute
> > >>> freedom fundamentally nor is there absolute constraint fundamentally.
> > >>> However for transformative liberation there must be imaginal
> > >>> symbolic shared and mutual ways within which we "surrender" This
> > >>> in no way means "submit"
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > >>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I am feeling my way into the talk around thirdness - dimly
> > >>>> conscious of a variety of contexts in which thirdspace has been
> > explored.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In your example, Mike, your friends choice of a staff has a
> > >>>> significance because it plays off the cultural expectation that
> > >>>> it should be a cane. In this sense it is a particularly striking
> > >>>> example of what we all do every day when we make choices about
> > >>>> how we will represent ourselves to the world. Our choice of
> > >>>> clothes, how we do our hair, what we smell like, how we stand and
> > >>>> walk, how we greet people etc. all play off our knowledge of what
> > >>>> different choices are likely to be taken to mean (by different
> > >>>> groups of people). I think this links to what Larry (I think) was
> > >>>> saying about the concept-y-ness of the context-y environment in
> > >>>> which babies
> > play their way into meanings.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In terms of signification, the choice of a staff is likely to
> > >>>> prompt others into a slight lurch of expectations which might
> > >>>> help to remind them that things are not simple, categorised and
> > >>>> predictable - what looks at first like a frail old woman may turn
> > >>>> out
> > to be a person!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I wonder how much we need to be aware of the internalised
> > >>>> cultural knowledge which informs our choices about how we will
> > >>>> present ourselves? I suspect this contributes to the (palpable)
> > >>>> feeling of ease or unease which comes from knowing or not knowing
> > >>>> how we are 'meant' to behave in a familiar or unfamiliar context.
> > >>>> When the rhythms are part of our embodied experience it is easy
> > >>>> to join in but when we encounter different, exotic rhythms we
> > >>>> need to watch from the periphery for a while before we presume to
> > >>>> know what we are
> > doing.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> All the best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rod
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From:
> > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.
> > >>>> edu
> > >>>> ]
> > >>>> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > >>>> Sent: 18 January 2015 07:56
> > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Mike,
> > >>>> You mentioned multi-modality and I agree. Yes cognition and
> > >>>> social emotions are intimately involved along with other "musical"
> > >>>> rhythmic modalities.
> > >>>> Thought and language and the figural  within enactments
> > >>>> [performances]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You asked if the staff is a sign? or a tool? I would have to say
> > >>>> it is a "sign" but the word "prop" also comes to mind.  I want to
> > >>>> explore what I see as the "imaginal" at play in the "symbolic"
> > >>>> and cognitive enactment of using the staff rather than a cane in
> > >>>> setting
> > the "scene"
> > >>>> The notion of a "middle way" within "third spaces" is exploring
> > >>>> enacting [or performing] within imaginal symbolic play.  Is the
> > >>>> "image" of a cane being replaced by a staff a "fact" or is it a
> > >>>> more
> > >>> metaphorical enactment.
> > >>>> Do the staff or cane exist as "facts" having objective truth? Or
> > >>>> is the cane and staff imaginal symbolic ways of imagining being
> > >>>> in the world as "possibility".
> > >>>> In Winnicott's language is this middle way or third space a
> > >>>> "potential space" or a "transitional" space which when enacted
> > >>>> brings
> > >>> into "actuality"
> > >>>> the rhythmic pattern or dance of relating to an old lady [as a
> > >>>> possible "scene"] or a pattern of relating to an eccentric person
> > >>>> and enacting this alternative possible "scene".
> > >>>> The "scene" when enacted or performed always expresses palpable
> > >>>> felt experience. In the enactment the possible becomes "actual"
> > >>>> and becomes "factual"  Mike your friend in choosing a staff over
> > >>>> a cane was acting from within an imaginal symbolic "place" Is this
> "place"
> > >>>> internal or
> > >>> external?
> > >>>> or is it a "potential place" of possibility which does not yet
> exist?
> > >>>> Within this imaginal symbolic presenting [not representing]
> > >>>> presence [both internal imagining and external performances]
> > >>>> there are always palpable felt experiences and every
> > >>>> "interpretation" is guided by these multi-modal ways of
> understanding.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Third spaces as ways of understanding explore "self-regulation"
> > >>>> and "dis-regulation" within intersubjective enactments and
> > >>>> palpable felt experience. I am also emphasizing their imaginal
> > >>>> symbolic dimension as "potential" or "transitional" spaces
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The aspect that is being highlighted by the notion of  third
> > >>>> spaces is there embodied presence  and there witnessing quality
> > >>>> which is often marginalized or disowned when we privilege a
> > >>>> particular "type" of rationality and thinking.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What seems to be shared in common across multiple notions of
> > >>>> "third
> > >>> spaces"
> > >>>> is privileging ethical or moral aspects of enactments. Who is
> > >>>> included and who is excluded.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I am working backwards here, but I have been thinking a lot
> > >>>>> about what I was conceiving in my own way as a form of thirdness
> > >>>>> that I think links to what is being said here. Straighten me out
> > >>>>> if I am wrong. (I promised to get out of here shortly, but its
> interesting!).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We have a friend, now in her 60's, who is a college classmate of
> > >>>>> my wife and a life long friend of our family. She has been in
> > >>>>> ill health for sometime and looks a good deal older than her years.
> > >>>>> Balance is an issue for her.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> When I first saw her the other day after many years I noticed
> > >>>>> that she was carrying a large staff.
> > >>>>> I laughted, and my first words  were "You look just like Gandalf!
> > >>>>> and gave her a big hug."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Over tea she discussed that by carrying the staff instead of a
> > >>>>> cane, she lost the invisibility created by old age and she
> > >>>>> became a perons to others. People constantly started up
> > >>>>> conversations with her and, being a skilled conversationalist
> > >>>>> interested in people, it made her feel like a whole person.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Seems interesting to me. Is it a kind of thirdness? A sign or
> > >>>>> (?) a
> > >>> tool?
> > >>>>> Seems like cognition and social emotions are somehow involved as
> > >> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> mike
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> mike
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Larry Purss
> > >>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Miguel, Rod,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am moving our conversation to a new thread to honour the
> > >>>>>> other thread exploring "laws" of history and writing systems. I
> > >>>>>> see these topics as overlapping but notions of "thirdness" that
> > >>>>>> contrast with
> > >>>> "twoness"
> > >>>>>> [Jessica's doer and done to, or giver and given two, or knower
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>> learner,
> > >>>>>> etc.]
> > >>>>>> Rod I must acknowledge when I read Jessica using the term "baby
> > >>>>> watcher's I
> > >>>>>> was thinking of your work and posts. Jessica's work is one
> > >>>>>> stream in intersubjective notions of thirdness. Lacan
> > >>>>>> privileges language in his notion of thirdness. There is also
> > >>>>>> the work of Stolorow Atwood, and Donna Orange, [intersubjective
> > >>>>>> psychodynamics] who do not imagine "intersubjectivity" as a
> > >>>>>> developmental achievement as bothDaniel Stern
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>> Jessica Benjamine understand thirdness.
> > >>>>>> In Jessica's words:
> > >>>>>> "I see such engagement in reciprocal recognition of the other
> > >>>>>> as growing naturally out of the experience of being recognized
> > >>>>>> by the other, as a crucial component of attachment responses
> > >>>>>> that require mutual regulation and attunement, and therefore,
> > >>>>>> as ultimately a
> > >>>> pleasure and not a chore"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Miguel you mentioned our Western bias to privilege "seeing" and
> > >>>>>> other cultures may privilege hearing and sound and rhythmicity.
> > >>>>>> My bias is to suggest when these various modes [seeing and
> > >>>>>> rhythmicity] are felt to be
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>> sync then they mutually constitute thirdness. However, when
> > >>>>>> there are inevitable (mis)understandings and ruptures on the
> > >>>>>> way to understanding
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>> may have a tendency to fall back on seeing and reasoning as our
> > >>>>>> primary mode and to discount the rhymicity of the ear and felt
> > >>>> experience.
> > >>>>>> Jessica's work engages with Hegel and the notion of the
> > >>>>>> "struggle for recognition" as an aspect of creating "twoness" and
> "thirdness"
> > >>>>>> Her
> > >>>>> project
> > >>>>>> is to critique notions of complimentarity "twoness" as a model
> > >>>>>> for expressing this struggle for recognition.
> > >>>>>> She would suggest the way through this complimentary struggle
> > >>>>>> for recognition is through a developmental trajectory of
> > >>>>>> intersubjective development of thirdness.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Miguel, I would like to follow your lead that through
> > >>>>>> privileging sight [seeing and reasoning] that we are biased to
> come to "know"
> > >>>>>> the other as "object" As you say "the subject-object relation
> > >>>>>> as this analytic kernel
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>> one "type" of knowing the other. You are asking if there are
> > >>>>>> alternative subject-subject relations that are not mediated by
> > >>>>>> objects? This may be another "mode" and a distinct kind of
> "seeing"
> > >>>> [with the mind's eye?].
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Miguel when you say you speak from personal experience as a
> > >>>>>> father, and this is a spiritual space of connection, it
> > >>>>>> gestures to another
> > >>>>> dimension,
> > >>>>>> another quality of thirdness as embodied enactments/performances.
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>> would
> > >>>>>> like to offer that Enrique Dussel's "ethical hermeneutics" can
> > >>>>>> offer validation for Jessica and Daniel Stern's embodied
> > >>>>>> hearing the other [rhythmically] into voice.  I would emphasize
> > >>>>>> your notion of
> > >>>>> "intersecting"
> > >>>>>> multiple truths. I would also offer the term "transversal"
> > >>>>>> [across
> > >>>>> verses]
> > >>>>>> truths as multiple and plural and "palpable"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Rod, I concur with your reflections that there are other forms
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>> learning
> > >>>>>> [especially social learning] which do not emphasize concept-y
> > >>>>>> ways of thinking. I want to also acknowledge the centrality of
> > >>>>>> concept-y ways of seeing and reasoning but as you emphasize the
> > >>>>>> children were able to join
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>> WELL before they were able to understand conceptually or be
> > >>>>>> able to
> > >>>>> explain
> > >>>>>> what was being enacted. This does not refute that the "world"
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>> "context"
> > >>>>>> in which the children are joining in is symbolically formed and
> > >>>>>> historically situated.
> > >>>>>> What Daniel Stern, Jessica Benjamin, V. Reddy, Winnicott,
> > >>>>>> Trevarten, Fonagy, Gergely and other "baby watchers" are
> > >>>>>> indicating is the
> > >>>>> centrality
> > >>>>>> of "gestures" [meaningful performances or enactments as also
> > >>>>>> profoundly implicated in the formation of our contexts and worlds.
> > >>>>>> Worlds of experience are "palpable lived experiences" and this
> > >>>>>> does have a phenomenological quality, a hermeneutical quality,
> > >>>>>> and a cultural historical quality.  Worlds are also deeply
> > >>>>>> concept-y and
> > >>>>> institutionalized
> > >>>>>> and places of doer and done to. The question is how do we
> > >>>>>> ethically and morally respond to these palpable conditions?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "Thirdness" in its multiple versions may offer possible new
> > >>>>>> understandings to guide us symbolically AND  rhythmically
> > >>>>>> co-creatively inventing AND discovering [both/and]  "third spaces"
> > >>>>>> AS potentially liberating contexts.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sanders understands palpable rhythmic resonance as one of two
> > >>>>>> basic "principles" of all human interaction. Jessica's project
> > >>>>>> is to underline this aspect of rhythmic resonance as primal in
> > >>>>>> understanding the notion
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> "recognition".
> > >>>>>> As the way through and beyond complimentary "twoness" of doer
> > >>>>>> and done
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> or giver and given toperson must experience a palpable
> "witnessing"
> > >>>>> within
> > >>>>>> thirdness.
> > >>>>>> THIS is an intersubjective way of understanding thirdness
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science
> > >>>>> as an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> > >>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If
> > >>>> you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or
> > >>>> other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and
> > >>>> you should not rely on
> > >>> it.
> > >>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender
> > >>>> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet
> > >>>> emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care,
> > >>>> Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it
> > >>>> is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments.
> > >>>> Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any
> > >>>> changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> > >>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> > >>>> accompanied by an
> > official order form.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > >>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > >>>
> > >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> > >>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If
> > >>> you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or
> > >>> other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and
> > >>> you should not rely on
> > >> it.
> > >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender
> > >>> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet
> > >>> emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care,
> > >>> Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it
> > >>> is your responsibility to scan
> > >> emails
> > >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> > >>> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in
> > >>> this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or
> > >>> services unless accompanied by an official order form.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > >>
> > >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> > >> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you
> > >> are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other
> > >> use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you
> > >> should not rely on
> > it.
> > >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> > >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are
> > >> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth
> > >> University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your
> > >> responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth
> > >> University does not accept responsibility for any changes made
> > >> after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments
> > >> constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an
> official order form.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
> > http://www.avast.com
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> >
> > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> > for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not
> > the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
> it.
> > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> > accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to
> > scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> > responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this
> > email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services
> > unless accompanied by an official order form.
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts
> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails
> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
> by an official order form.
>
>