RE: [xmca] fiction as reality

[Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>]

I couldn't agree more - I was lucky enough to be given a copy on DVD for Christmas and to be able to negotiate a three hour space to watch it with family. Rich and subtle in its treatment of a host of interactions, between reality and fiction, between value systems and between people, this is a terrifically positive experience!

Rod

________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org [ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]
Sent: 06 January 2010 18:58
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] fiction as reality

I believe I have mentioned this before but Bergman's film  Fanny and
Alexander is probably the greatest study of humanity ever put to film.

here is a brief synopsis:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041205/REVIEWS08/412050302/1023

perhaps it my swedish heritage but I feel greatly moved everytime i view
the film

eric




"Michael Glassman" <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
01/01/2010 04:27 PM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"


        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        cc:
        Subject:        RE: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....


One thing we get with fiction that we don't get with actual (I am
struggling to come up with a term because it seems real is too close to
the philosophical position of realism) is that fiction is certain while
actual processes are by nature - or through nature - indefinite.  I took
this to be one of Eco's major points.  Well drawn fictional charcaters are
more attractive to us, more real to us (and this time I do accept the
realist perspective) because we are certain about what happens to them.  I
thought Eco's notion of who we understand more as committing suicide the
literary character or Hitler.  Hitler existed but we lack a certainty of
what actually happened to him, so this makes an Anna Karenina or a Madame
Bovary more of a presence in our lives - to the point where when Woody
Allen recreates Madame Bovary in a comic piece we continue to feel we know
her.  I thought it was really interesting when he compared the actual
Napoleon with Napoleon as a fictional character. It is an interesting
perspective that I hadn't thought of before.  There's some Freud somewhere
in there I think.

Michael

________________________________

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
Sent: Fri 1/1/2010 4:48 PM
To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: Happy 2010 to all of you....



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


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca