[Xmca-l] Re: Groundings that make life worlds MORE real

[Greg Thompson]

Thanks Larry.

Yes, this paper is part of a larger project to understand the suturing
together of word and world, and to understand the consequences that these
suturings can have for interactional participants. How do words become
consequential in-the-world? (yes, Austin is key here but more so linguistic
anthropology since Austin).

Before saying any more, I should probably stop and defend the dualism
implied here (and which I mentioned parenthetically in my prior message). I
agree that this dualism is problematic. But I think we also must appreciate
that this dualism is a *cultural* problematic of the dominant culture in
the U.S. (whether or not a cultural universal, I don't have the data to
speak to that but it does seem very widespread). That is to say, in this
dominant culture in the U.S., one finds that people regularly split world
and word in two. This is captured in the child's aphorism "sticks and
stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" (and please make
sure to attend to the poetics of meter and rhyme!). This is a socializing
moment to this understanding of language in which language is seen as
fundamentally distinct and different from the world of things - a
difference that is immediate and felt as "broken bones" or "hurt" (things
can do this but words can't, b.c. they are just words). Now everyone in
this dominant culture certainly is aware of the potential for words to be
hurtful (whether in discourses about "hate speech" or social media
violence), but the point is that it is often thought that these are errors
in thinking, after all these are "just words" and people shouldn't really
be so bothered by it (and there is an entire field that emerged in the
early 20th century and became quite popular, General Semantics, at whose
core was this basic understanding - popularized as "the map is not the
territory" or less popularly "the word is not the thing").

That's all to say that the problem of dualism is a practical problem -
i.e., a problem in practice - with very practical consequences for
participants involved for it has everything to do with who they will become.

In the case I presented, the ability of a student to take a "confident"
stance toward a test will have real consequences for that student's
performance when she takes that test. These are the consequences of
stance-taking.

And yes, I agree that this question of where can we find forms of mutuality
of being is really one of the critical political questions of our time. I
do suspect that there will need to be some new form to replace oikos but I
have no idea what that will be (Hegel and Marx both had some interesting
suggestions, as have many others...).

Too much already.
Thanks Larry,
greg



On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> This question, Where is the oikos realm today? This Is the question I was
> engaging.
>
> I have  attached your article so others may explore the complexity of
> stance ownership.
>
>
>
> The simplistic understanding that if the subject takes a stance, that that
>  stance move in itself implies the subject then owns the stance. In other
> words to intentionally act [act on purpose] in itself generates ownership
> of that stance taken.
>
> This locates stance ownership as being generated from within the
> individual person's purposeful acts.
>
>
>
> Your article indicating that this is a very simplistic understanding of
> stance ownership and your analysis proposing there are  actually three
> interrelated movements [stances] involved.
>
> The intersubjective mode
>
> The embodied iconic mode
>
> The interobjective mode.
>
>
>
> This is an expanded or enlarged triangulated depiction that develops a
> more complex figuration of stance ownership.
>
>
>
> What I am referring to as the vitality of the oikos realm may atrophy when
> market and  state and empire forces of dis-placement actually   dis-possess
> persons from the places which generate experiencing the vitality of the
> oikos realm.
>
>
>
> I am suggesting this realm of vitality recedes from awareness when
> neo-liberal market and state and empire forces dominate public discourse
> and activity
>
> I am not indicating the oikos realm as a utopia. I recognize the oikos
> realm can have a shadow side and  be oppressive, patriarchal and deadening.
>
>
>
> However, the 3 modes of stance ownership indicated in your article may
> play out differently within inhabited places which express the quality of
> mutuality – mutuality for itself as a way of flourishing.
>
> This contrasts with the notion of nature as bare existence where survival
> needs are dominant, or nature as market forces determined by rational
> economic calculations.
>
>
>
> I am proposing a notion of human desire for mutuality itself. The yearning
> and longing for intersubjective, embodied, interobjective movements of
> stance ownership generated within inhabited places of mutuality.
>
> Greg, these  places may exist in our historical epoch more as expressions
> of yearning and desire but I am suggesting they may actually be vital for
> human flourishing.
>
>
>
> Your article invites us to go beyond notions of stance ownership as
> existing within purposeful individual stance moves.
>
> To consider the complexity of 3 modes of stance that extend beyond
> individual stance acts.
>
> I am suggesting that the various arenas [such as state, market, empire]
> may be dis-possessing us of the oikos realm leaving us with neo-liberal
> forms of stance ownership where our stances become instrumental and
> calculated.
>
>
>
> If I can give one example to make my case. This example comes from Ian
> Angus at SFU.
>
>
>
> In Scotland, the English empire invaded the Scottish highlands and cleared
> the land of the inhabitants and their way of life. This is known as the *
> *clearances** The land was fenced and populated with sheep.
>
> I am suggesting the **clearances** destroyed the indigenous  oikos realm
> where the stance taking of inter-subjectivity, embodied iconicity, and
> interobjectivity had existed and had  been evaluated through a shared sense
> of mutuality or shared being-in-the-world. Binswanger enlarged Heidegger’s
> notion of being-in-the world to include 3 realms. Umwelt [cultural
> historical and material environment]  Mitwelt [intersubjective realm of
> mutuality] Eigenwelt [private interior realm].
>
>
>
> I am suggesting that with the expansion of market state and empire that
> there is a general clearing away of the oikos realm that leads to tragic
> consequences. This is the message of Greek tragedy. A sense of
> being-in-the-world as being home becomes unheimlich [uncanny] and we are
> left yearning and longing for that place of mutuality as a particular kind
> of stance ownership.
>
> larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, January 9, 2016 1:04 PM
> *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Groundings that make life worlds MORE real
>
>
>
> Larry,
>
> Thanks for the engagement here.
>
> First off, I remain ambivalent about the idea of "more" real. On the one
>
> hand, I think it gives some flexibility to a concept ("the real") that can
>
> be overly simplistic - either it is real or it is imagined (as if
>
> imagination isn't real!).
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I think that it could easily slide into a way of seeing
>
> social worlds as "less real" than material worlds. (I would prefer to avoid
>
> that dualism but it seems that a building has a qualitatively different
>
> nature than does a sewing circle. But I'd like to think about that some
>
> more before being so bold).
>
>
>
> Off the top of my head, I'm wondering if a better way of thinking this
>
> might be "finished" or, perhaps, "finalized" (as in Bakhtin's notion of
>
> "finalizability"). Thus, just as a building can be not yet "finalized", so
>
> too can a social group or a social act. An unfinalized real. Perhaps.
>
>
>
> Yes, I think the hearth as interobjective binding of oikos makes perfect
>
> sense to me. But I wonder, where is the hearth today. Despite all the
>
> laments about the television in the 50's and 60's (or the radio prior to
>
> that), it at least had a hearth like quality to it. Family members would
>
> gather round it and watch their favorite show (but yes, notice that as
>
> compared to a campfire, tv's didn't put people face to face). Today, each
>
> family member has their own screen and they might sit in the same room
>
> while watching their screen, but the oikos-tic interobjectivity is rather
>
> limited.
>
>
>
> Just my thoughts here. Thanks again for allowing my inscriptional object to
>
> pull us together...
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Greg Thompson posted the article - temporality, stance ownership, and the
>
> > constitution of subjectivity - to academia.edu
>
> >
>
> > Greg, this article carried me through your exploration of -stance
>
> > ownership - that opened new ways of connecting particular ways to make
> life
>
> > more real.
>
> > The three groundings presented:
>
> > - intersubjectivity through recognition
>
> > - embodied indexical iconicity
>
> > - interobjectivity as the stance of things.
>
> >
>
> > Your paper guided me to a deep appreciation of the complexity of making
>
> > life worlds more real.
>
> > I found the exploration of embodied indexical iconicity the most
>
> > transformative learning.
>
> > However, I wanted to explore the notion of interobjectivity as agentic in
>
> > one particular case.
>
> > Can we imagine the oikos realm as interobjective?
>
> > For the oikos realm to be interobjective is to recognize this realm as an
>
> > object of evaluation.
>
> > This means an orientation towards this object that has particular
>
> > characteristics.
>
> > In other words the oikos realm having some specific quality or value.
>
> >
>
> > I am suggesting that the specific quality of the oikos realm is
> -mutuality
>
> > - in itself.
>
> >
>
> > The notion of mutuality for its own sake.
>
> > If the figure of Hestia embodies this oikos realm, then the gathering
>
> > around the hearth in itself results in flourishing.
>
> > The hearth as interobjective stancetaking leading to particular
>
> > characters or figures of intersubjective stancetaking and particular
>
> > characters or figures of embodied iconicity.
>
> > The quality and values of the places within placings in particular as
>
> > evaluative orientations toward the oikos realm as interobjective.
>
> >
>
> > I recommend Greg's paper as a contribution to understanding particular
>
> > groundings making life worlds more real.
>
> >
>
> > I found the connections generated were transformative.
>
> > Larry
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson