[Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

Hi all, there is more in these thoughtful posts that I can react or add to, but I wanted to quickly respond to Annalisa's later remarks on metaphor, which highlight a possible connection between rationality and *not* thinking in metaphor. I agree with the observation that it would seem that, tacit or less tacit in most modern thinking about mind, cognition, etc, there is this idea that metaphors "eventually fail," as Annalisa puts it. As if thinking was some means only externally connected to needs and motives, a "tool" for ​achieving well-defined goals and solving problems. For only when life situations are put in such *formalistic* terms as "problem-solving" that we can say that metaphors "fail".


In the post there are already mentions to several exceptions, authors who have taken metaphors to be not just casual artifacts but rather constitutional aspects of the way mind organizes and is organized. Although I must say that when I read Lakoff & Johnson's account, "flesh" was the one thing that seemed to be most absent from it. Anyway, I just wanted to add one more author who also considered metaphor to be not just central but rather foundational to mind, Gregory Bateson. In particular, Bateson has this remarkable chapter in his unfinished book Angels Fear (edited, co-authored, and published by his daughter Mary Catherine), in which he discusses how the "language of metaphor" is more primary and far more present in nature than the language of formal logic that tends to be considered the signature of mind. But of course, for Bateson, Mind, and hence thinking, is something much larger than only "human" thinking (and in this, in my view, he resembles monist historical materialists).


I have limited time as I am travelling, but I have time to attach the chapter  which I think is revealing to the questions of these thread. Particularly revealing is the comparison he makes between "formal syllogisms" and "syllogisms of metaphor". He uses the following example:


Men die;

Socrates is a man;

Socrates will die.


That is plain logic, the one that seems "right" and that will not "fail".


The metaphor syllogism goes like this:


Grass dies;

Men die;

Men are grass.


The syllogism is of course "wrong" if assessed from the formal logic stance. But, from the stance of natural beings, of living creatures, Bateson argues, "these syllogisms are the very stuff of which natural history is made"


(need to board a plain, I attach chapter later or upon request)

Best,

Alfredo




________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
Sent: 26 August 2018 01:51
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day


Hi Douglas, Chuck, and venerable others,


After waiting some days for a reply to Douglas's post, I thought to add (perhaps a second time) that I too am curious about the unconscious vis-a-vis CHAT. Is this a taboo topic?


I think your segue to metaphor/metonymy is intriguing because I wonder if metaphor and metonymy are indeed a means of memory, a kind of distributed cognition or ROM-embodied-in-the-world, as the world.


For example, why is it that memory of our youth springs up when we hear a hit song of that period? Why do smells (a very sublime but material experience-in-the-world) also invoke memory? Certainly this must have an evolutionary explanation.


It has been the case that whenever one might invoke metaphor in speech, especially in an intellectual circle, that one was considered a lazy thinker, because metaphors eventually fail, and for that reason they do not have a fail-safe utility to effectively communicate. And so we are supposed to think and speak outside of metaphor to illustrate the power of our rational mind. (Am I wrong to say this?)


Of course, people can think differently about this. I'm not attempting to lay down any thinking laws here. Just attempting to make an argument that may have at its joints stronger or weaker connections.


Anyway, I used to feel "less-than" for my desire and penchant to use metaphor (and to some degree metonymy, which I also reference with I speak of metaphor herein). But then, then I read "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson, and my guilt and self-consciousness for metaphor usage was diminished and I felt liberated. There in that tome was a scientific explanation for why we use metaphor.


But then also after reading Hutchins's "Cognition in the Wild," I also wondered if metaphor is as important to our thinking process as tools are to performing tasks in the material world. And just as writing things down helps us to remember things, perhaps metaphors are affordances for our memory, not just language and thinking. Sort of like the way rhyming helps in mnemonics. Perhaps metaphor is a shorthand that can later be unpacked on an as needed basis.


(I am mindful about the many metaphors I have just employed to make various points above).


What is the point?


I wonder if the reason that metaphors fail is when we aren't able to "reverse engineer" them, that we lose the means to unpack them from their origins. To illustrate: we can make pigs into sausages, but not sausages into pigs. For the vegetarians out there: we can make soybeans into tofu but not tofu into soybeans.


Where I'm going with this is to consider that perhaps there is an inherent flaw in the metaphor by which the shorthand that works well descends into a broken stereotype or trope which then distills into simple-minded thinking and then develops into a discourse of malapropisms á la Archie Bunker (a 70s TV character, from the TV show "All In The Family," who speaks off-the-cuff, much like our fearless leader who also hails from Queens NYC). And OK, maybe that is the danger of the metaphor, however, it's not exactly something one can easily eradicate, the usage of metaphor, that is.


Just consider the many ways we use the word "in" and how it holds a different connotation for different contexts. Any proposition really, "off," "through," "by," "under," to name a few things. Then try not to say "in" for a day. I don't think anyone could last an hour. But "in" is a conceptual metaphor of containment that we could not use if we didn't have human bodies who experience inside and outside. That primitive (as in first of) evolves into very nuanced thinking that is superbly human.

I suppose the linguists on the list will run circles around this amateur observation of mine. That's OK. I don't mind.


Touching upon your observation on jokes, I had always thought jokes come from recognition of something true within an apparent incongruence, which I suppose is a very dry way to explain how jokes work.


So when you bring up that jokes are something economic, I presume you are using the word "economy" in terms of thrift-of-utility. Sorry if I am being thick for want of a little clarity.


I wonder if the pleasure of a joke is an aesthetic experience, no different from when we see genius (however you might define genius) perform an act of beauty, whether art, prose, dance, math, etc. That there is an elegance present, not just economy.


For some strange reason, I'm reminded of the documentary movie "The Aristocrats" in which comedians have a "secret circle" among themselves on how they tell a particular dirty joke that leads to the punchline, "The Aristocrats!" Of course I may not be representing this so well as I saw the movie many years ago (ten? ... IMDB tells me more than that! It came out in 2005. I'm starting to feel old). This cultural-historical lineage for comedians arises from Vaudeville as the film notes indicate.


(For anyone with weakness for obscenity, I recommend the movie, but for those who enjoy cleaner humor, well then, please check out a Disney movie for your viewing pleasure and you'll be safe).


Douglas, I agree with you that jokes can invoke the taboo usually buried in the unconscious, don't they? But what does it mean when someone jokes at the expense of another? Such as slapstick jokes. And I can bring this back to Mr. Fred Rogers because he felt that the children's television shows were violent and celebrated that violence, and he felt that we owed children a better television experience. I wonder what the jokes present in his television show might reveal, if jokes were to render the taboo in the Land of Make-Believe?


But then I'm considering the pornographic as well. I don't want this discussion to descend into that form of content, but more to speak about it historically when you bring up the vehicle of subversion. I'm thinking specifically about the place for libertine literature during the ancient regime of pre-revolutionary France. Someone had to go to a lot of effort to print and distribute etchings about Marie Antoinette and there was a lot of risk doing that. Talk about material taboo.


I did enjoy the connection (was it intentional) between The Birds and Twitter?


"Turn your minds to our words, our ethereal words, for the words of the birds last forever!"


Is Twitter the city in the sky?


Given your thoughtful paper on remarriage comedies, I'd be curious to know your take on the comedy series "Divorce" starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Thomas Haden Church. When I first learned about it, I was horrified that anyone would want to produce a comedy about divorce. Divorce is rarely humorous and more often a tragic revenge festival that casts a light upon the deepest of human hurt and betrayal. To me, there was something Jerry-Springer-esque about the idea of such a comedy. But as it happened that evening, I think I'd gone through to last episode of the season for Game of Thrones, and so I thought to sample Divorce's pilot. It ends up the writing is peculiarly feminist. Well, now I'm not sure as I write that. It certainly has swapped roles of the typical divorce story, whereby the wife who nabs alimony on the back of a professional husband to expand her recreational life and financial entitlement for purposes to seek the meaning of life after matrimonial betrayal, because in this case Sarah Jessica Parker is the professional spouse of the couple with the cash, and Tom Haden Church the nabber of alimony and keeper of child custody. It is truly an odd story. Jokes aside.


There you go with some shiny objects perhaps.


Kind regards,


Annalisa

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Douglas Williams <djwdoc@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 1:30:22 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

Hi, Chuck--

That brings up a point that I've wondered about. (Forgive me, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm probably asking questions that aren't so mysterious to others, but read on if you are feeling indulgent.) How precisely would one describe the unconscious in CHAT terms, particularly in the light of recent developments about memory: A web of complex thought, some common to a period, and some idiosyncratic, over which more internalized social narratives and some rationality are imposed? I suspect if I knew more, I would have an answer, but I don't. And what forms of organization and access would this unconscious take?

I'm particularly interested in the shared domains of metaphor and metonymy that underlay a good deal of social interaction, so that I can cite ruby slippers, and bring in the rest of the narrative as a reference domain, or say that the light dawned in my mind, and be understood. And in reference to Freud, while setting aside the idea that the id is forcing us to laugh at a joke because of its sudden release from imprisonment, there are aspects of Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious that strike me as at least very interesting observations. A Russian joke I read recently went something like "How far away is North Korea? Not so far at all. You can see it from your window." That implies an awareness of American politics (Sarah Palen's comment about seeing Russia from her window), North Korea as the paradigm authoritarian state, and an interpretation--subversive, and potentially dangerous to say openly--that is sufficiently within the pattern of Freud's theory of "joke-work," in which the joke "evades restrictions" of internalized patterns of thought and phrases, and perhaps at times relies on deeper shared metaphors to do its work.

I tend to think that there are few things more important than silly narratives and foolish jokes, which probably explains much in my life. But there's something economic going on here, and I think Freud described it well when he said that with jokes, "the yield of pleasure corresponds to the psychical expenditure that is saved." Setting aside the id as the driving force, there is certainly an ongoing conflict of social narratives (internalized, or in social groups conflicting with one another) that can account for psychic organizational tension and repression. I've noticed at large companies, just as with nations, there is a tendency for jokes to express themselves subversively; and even in support of a majority, as in Aristophanes' The Birds, or any number of things one can find on Twitter these days, one can find majorities or large minorities of social groups engaging in humor that is particular to their subsets, which is in the form of subverting a perceived oppression. For Freud's Victorian period, perhaps the quite extreme suppression of sexuality made the expression of the forbidden subject the most common basis. In our period, race and class are more forbidden themes (possibly why film romantic comedy has lost much of its sparkle, outside of comedies of remarriage--those in which couples escape the suppression of bad marriages in favor of good ones.

I wrote a paper about modern remarriage comedy once, and I'd have liked to bring in some fuller explanation of this kind of economy of humor, but as I'm more of a magpie that picks up bright and shiny objects and arranges them in neat patterns in my pile, rather than one of those people who heats the furnace, melts the sand, and labors to turn it into pretty objects, I have not gotten much further than musing at late hours to myself.

And having mused, the sands of time persuade me to muse on in my dreams, and see what shiny XMCA-work might turn up.

Regards,
Doug


On ‎Monday‎, ‎August‎ ‎13‎, ‎2018‎ ‎07‎:‎59‎:‎39‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PDT, Charles Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:


To be clear. Both Sullivan and Vygotsky believed in and acted on positive regard. Sullivan, however, examined anxiety as part of the self-system.
BTW, as most of you know, Vygotsky was interested in the depth psychology of Freud and Adler, though he did not agree with everything they saidl
Chuck
----
History will judge.


On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:10 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no<mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:

Hi Annalisa,


thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to this list.


But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to.


So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, another related example is research about teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this.


I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention for was white and male, while other female participants (including yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal.

​Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration.


Best wishes,

Alfredo

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu<mailto:annalisa@unm.edu>>
Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day


Alfredo,


Thank you for your post.


I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him.


If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender.


If I may quote his post:

"I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don’t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don’t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples."


I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED.


Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said.


Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo.


Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way.


There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me?


If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me.


A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it.


I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit.


Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said?


That is a real question.


It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews.


Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future.


I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious.


It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he?


If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office.


To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited.


I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here.


I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable.

Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it.

You say:
"It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. "

I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past.

You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that.

I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye."

Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title.

Kind regards unconditionally,

Annalisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180826/e9a2db21/attachment.html