Re: [xmca] Re: How are "goals" related to "committments"?

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Mike, I will bring it to the concrete with my personal example from my
work.  I believe the "default" manner in which we confront predicaments [in
our particular cultural/historical moment is to look for "reasons"
[Brandom's assertoric commitment]  Now this approach, [orientation] to
resolving predicaments is so "taken for granted" or "common sense"
throughout school institutional organizations that other possible ways to
orient to predicaments withIN our speech acts are underdeveloped [within our
particular "way of life"]  Taylor's comment that we take a METHOD [such as
the scientific method of analysis from parts to wholes] OR the METHOD [of
giving and asking for reasons] as PARTICULAR cultural/historical METHODS are
"ontologized" as expressins of our "being" and other ways of orienting or
dwelling in the world get REDUCED to this particular method.
The question is how do we developmentally EMERGE from this reductive method
and learn to DIFFERENTIATE this dominant method [giving and asking for
reasons] as NOT foundational or ground but rather particular forms of speech
acts [Wittgenstein's language games, Bahktin's voice genres, Taylor's forms
of life]  If this way "of looking" [perspective] has any merit then we could
look at the alternative ways of participating in expressing speech acts.  It
is here that I find Taylor's distinction of assertoric/disclosive TYPES of
speech acts a helpful perspective to guide how I operate inthe world [as
increasing flexiblity]  I can "observe" or NOTICE when others are
participating in the language game of giving and asking for reasons [as one
alternative way in helping us decide how to proceed]  Alternatively, I can
influence shifting to a more "disclosive" form of speech acts. It is THIS
move to exploring the disclosive aspect of speech acts that I believe John
Shotter's analysis of "joint activity" "dialogicality" "chiasmic
intertwining", and "intra-activity" as forms of CON-scientia [knowing with]
can deepen our awareness [noticing] of this PARTICULAR form of cognitive
expression.

Now the next move to exploring the context [WEAVING] of these various
aspects of speech acts it to  also "analyze" their interweavings..  I am
trying to bring awareness or recognition that the "assertoric" way of
proceeding to "dwell in the world" as a particular "way of life" is
historically situated within our particular horizon of understanding and
FEELS AS IF this way of proceeding is "ontological" and not merely one
alternative way of approaching predicaments.

Larry
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:29 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I get the general drift of what you are saying, Larry. But in
> general I find
> it very difficult to know, other than in particular cases where the
> abstractions have
> risen to the concrete, what precisely is at issue. I have all sorts of
> committments, lots of
> them, if I were to step back and examine them, in contradiction with each
> other I suspect.
> Others post hoc rationalizations.
>
> How does one sort all of this out in a way that helps us make sense of the
> issues on the table here at XMCA?
>
> mike
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A few further thoughts from Mike's article. On the last 2 pages Mike
> > explores Bourdieu's notion of habitus and Schweder's notion of
> > understanding
> > practices as a series of MORALLY enforcable conceptual schemes as
> capturing
> > the notion of "structuration" [Giddens] These various notions of
> > practice-in-contexts integrate past experience and a matrix of
> > "perceptions"
> > "apperceptions" and "actions" which make possible multiple POTENTIAL
> > RESPONSES to the world.
> > This matrix is IMPLICIT and is "usually" the unexamined background
> > assumptions that orient us as wayfarers to move and operate within the
> > world as "structured ways of life"
> > Taylor's project is to take this basic insight, shared with Bourdieau and
> > Schweder, and amplify the notion of "committments" as particular ethical
> > "ways of life".  Taylor's book "Sources of the Self" makes clear there
> are
> > multiple "ways of life" [habitus?] that co-exist in a particular
> historical
> > moment and what is central [for Taylor] is the depth of committment to a
> > way
> > of life [an ethical stance] that orientes the person to dwelling in the
> > world.
> >
> > Larry
> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike and others
> > >
> > > Mike, reflecting on your comment that the relevant order of context [as
> > > weaving] for analysis depends crucially on the particular tools through
> > > which one interacts with the world AND this tool use depends crucially
> on
> > > the GOALS and other constraints on action withIN the permeable changing
> > > events of life.  Mike, if one substitutes the word "committments" for
> the
> > > term "goals" does this change the meaning you are pointing towards?
> > > The reason I'm asking this question is because of where Charles Taylor
> > > locates "committment" within his particular notion of "context" as
> "ways
> > of
> > > life".  As I read Taylor, he is pointing to ETHICS [how we "should"
> > proceed]
> > > as centrally ABOUT committments.  These committments emerge wiithin
> > > HISTORICALLY constituted ways of life and it is these "shared"
> > committments
> > > [which can be implicit, not explicit] as "horizons of understanding"
> > which
> > > give meaning to practices, events, conduct, etc.  I didn't add the term
> > > "situation" to that list because as I'm reading your article
> "situation"
> > can
> > > be read to include "committments" and "ways of life" withIN
> "situations".
> > >
> > > These committments [within horizons of understanding] can be read as
> > > contexts that "surround" in the way Taylor is suggesting Brandom does
> not
> > go
> > > far enough in locating the  PARTICULAR ethical committment of "giving
> and
> > > asking for reasons" as a particular historically embedded language game
> > > which structures our practices and events [and our institutions]
> > > However, is it also possible to locate historically constituted ETHICAL
> > > "committments" as  weaving [context] that explores the emergence of
> > > committments within the permeable changing events of life.  The
> emergence
> > of
> > > "committments" in the day to day intersubjective dialogical,
> > INTRA-weavings
> > > [not INTER-weavings which suggest the committments PRE-exist].
> > >
> > > I don't presume to know how context/surrounds" and context/weaves are
> > > related but the place of "goals"/"committments" seems to relevant
> aspects
> > of
> > > the "situation"/"way of life".
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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