[xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

The discussion of vivencia has me pondering

The turn to discussing "vital experience" or being as qualified being [not
qualia] seems to be an opening with potential and possibility.

Andy,
you ask if it is what we "make" of an experience that is determinative if it
is "vital".  I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather than
"make" is central to exploring "vital experience".  Making is one particular
approach to engaging vital experience.  This is a vital experience that
transforms the individual person's orientation within the world.  This is an
agentive response that has the quality of being a "personal" decision.  I
would like to suggest this is one particular way to intergrate "vital
experience in our proceeding along pathways. I would even suggest this may
be the particular way forward that is biased as an approach within modernity
as an ethical way of life.
>From this perspective "vital experience" can be personally "undergone" and
through struggle and courageously exploring of personal inscapes the person
can change direction and "make" something different of their lives
[develop]

 However, alternatively, the person could possibly be "met" [alterity] and
in this "I-YOU" meeting "vital experience" is transformed and new pathways
open.  I wonder if this alternative way of engaging "vital experience" is
through "witnessing" [as I explored recently] This is another way of
engaging "vital experience" that does not emphasize the personal courageous
aspect of transformation [as making] but rather points to "being met" within
the "vital experience".

I've contrasted and made distinct two possible openings of development
[transformation or in*formation]  One emphasing a journey through inscapes,
the other through intersubjective "holding environments". In actuality there
may be multiple flow-forms and interweavings of these multiple strands of
"vital experience"  What I'm pointing to is our socio-cultural biases in
modernity  to validate the "inscapes" as legitimate [good] pathways of
transformation while invalidating the inter-subjective witnessing pathways
to transformation.  [as dependency and defended against] In other words we
don't really "trust" the other will actually respond to the calling of "vial
experience".
Andy, I grant that after being "met" [which I believe may be developmental
in its own movement] there follow other phases or levels of transformation
that bring us back to "spaces of reason" "propositional language games"
"agentive stances of *making* ones way in the world", etc.
 This becomes a cultural-historical narrative of projects and objects and
activity.  I also grant "meeting" as I'm discussing it is "normative" and an
ethical stance towards alterity [including one's own alterity].  However as
a particular form of participation it may have as much validity and
legitimacy as the moe courageous form of turning towards inscapes for
transormation.

Larry
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca