Re: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Happy New Year everyone
 
Well Mike I'm glad we settled the ongoing debate on what is the meaning of "consciousness" and also came to a consensus on the role of "emotion" in the human sciences because the discussion between Eco and Valsiner opens up a line of inquiry that may generate a topic worthy of a new decade
The question 
 
"What is the ontological status of FICTION and what is REAL."  
 
I can't say that I have a firm position on how to answer this question but I do see that it is a theme that runs through a lot of the CHAT conversations. The ontological and social status of the REIFICATION of concepts such as "capitalism" as "fictional" constructs or "real" social "facts".
is part of this discussion.
 
The description of "individualistic" vs "collectivistic" tendencies in infant development and classroom practices speaks to the "fictional" abstract generalizing group processes.  
When we describe particular practices or events and look for larger patterns in the culture we are engaging in constructing fictional narratives to explain our conduct.  
As Jaan Valsiner states, "through all these meaning-making moves we are creating FICTIONS-IN-THE-REAL." (page 111)  As Valsiner summarizes in his article Umberrto Uco's article is a construction of "eloquent fictions- about others and about himself - are a testimony to the restless eagerness of the inquisitive human minds who create beautiful and horrifying fictional worlds - AND INHABIT THEM" (page 111)
As both Eco and Valsiner agree these fictions do not have ontological status but are "real" as social facts which are recognized as having a shared reality and real consequences in the world.
Uco points out that for an athiest every supernatural object is fictional because inaccessible to our senses whereas for a believer these supernatural objects are real.  (they rely on two different ontologies).
However how "real" is this dividing boundary between believers and athiests?
Valsiner points out the processes in the social sciences have parallels to true believers. Famous thinkers search for understandings as tentative FALLIBLE efforts usually phrased in vague terms.  Then social scientists who follow the famous thinkers read the fallible texts and search for "truths" AS IF these words are final and immutable.  The famous social scientists through this literary process of interpretation and RE-interpretation of their works are turned into FICTIONAL CHARACTERS by the fame attributed to them and the recognition of "the truths of the grand masters.  In this way their ideas get fixed in a way analogous to the fixation of Hamlet or Jesus in our collective memory.
Going to university and spending years learning a tradition (such as communication studies)is one of the central ways to create meaning and find a "calling" within university scholarship. Calling it a fictional process in no way negates the power of this way to inhabit a disciplinary structure.
This "perspectival realism" allows one to envision an open space that sees the parallels between the construction of ideals in religious and scientific and humanistic endeavors. In all these frames one can take a fundamentalist stance or a stance of fallibility and inquiry.
Gadamer seems to have a lot to add to this topic but I don't feel qualified to say much except that his insights seem very relevant to this topic.  However his metaphor of "horizon of understanding" does capture the recognition that one inhabits particular discourses (traditions or canons) which are passed on through education. 
 
A final thought on the role of "agency" in this topic.  Can one choose which fiction to inhabit as a personal choice or is one's fictional narrative determined by social circumstances.  My bias is to suggest that agency is a "capacity" and not innate. Agency is also a fictional construct which one can inhabit WHEN self is first recognized by (m)other. (This goes back to Mead and the social self).
 
This perspective on fiction challenges the term "mere fiction" as a term of  dismissal to negate another's perspective.  However we are still left with the ethical and moral response-ability to act and do we decide how to act in private reverie or in conversation with others?  The last caution I suggest is that many people view the construction of fiction as a private act and we must bring back the recognition that constructing fictional narratives are discourses that we share.
 
Larry
 
 


----- Original Message -----
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:51 am
Subject: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> The two attached papers are part of dialogue between Jaan 
> Valsiner and
> Umberto Eco that appear to be relevant to current
> xmca discussions.
> 
> F the Y of them what wants the I
> mike
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca