[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[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


Attachment: winmail.dat
Description: Binary data

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