diane,
I think I know what you mean. As I understand the phenomena - we
each (eventually) fall into our own stange attractor of
experience, ideation, cognition, and chance... The world from
these compelling basins becomes knowable only through that basin.
People that resist the attraction of the attractor (it is futile
to resist!) become slightly idiotic (from idiota - to be apart)
and tend to rail against the certainties of those cupped
inhabitants (the bigger the cup and the more it's like other cups
the more we flirt with power, oppression, intolerance). Theory is
always trying to explain the nature of these cups - these
vortices. Or something like that. It seems to me that AT gives a
good overall theory of cups but not when interpreted through only
a materialist lens - As we all know.. there is more to life than
meets the eye!
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Hodges [mailto:dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 7:00 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu; cr2@humboldt1.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Re(2): psychoanalysis and...CHAT
aaaah, a question, have i, for youse theoretician-like folks,
about
theory -
i have been soooooo intrigued with the positions taken in
theoretical
stance,
re Vygotsky, Luria, Freud, Marx,
and how the interpretive insistences embedded in the ways these
theories
are
applied, are, like, well, dogma? ...my own take with theory has
always
been somewhat
loose, that some have brilliant notions of how to understand
something/someone/some social phenom, but i have never taken the
entire
body of the theorist as
utterly complete, and so personally, i can see many complementary
connections with e.g., LSV, Freud, and Marx, Foucault, Butler,
because
each is basically a biography
of writing, not a canon of rigid rules, of course,
and theory is theory, after all, not fact, more like fiction, or
literature, really, rather
than Truth-guides,
but perhaps i have missed something about the rules of theory,
that if
an idea is useful from Marx, like materialism, one must avoid
Freud because
he was dealing with psychic processes, as though the two are
absolutely
antipolar and contradictory and too too different -
i'm not a great advocate of Freud, anymore than Marx, or anyone,
except,
perhaps,
Gayatri Spivak, but in general, i take these as all useful
writings that
work
in connective ways for understanding what is going on in any
particular
setting, activity, location, and so on -
but there is, or seems to be, certainty, here, that Freud and
Marx are
like oil and water...
what is the benefit of literalizing one theoretician, like LSV,
over an
alchemy
approach, or a cubist, or impressionist, or collage of ideas that
span and
probe
the complexity of human activity, and in Pedro's case, the
complexity of
intervention
and care?
i'm not trying to invite hostilities here, no offence to those
who are
committed
to whoever, but what is the strategy, or is there one?
anyone know what i mean here?
diane
*****************************************************************
*****
:point where everything
listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
*****************************************************************
******
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of
curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:24 PDT