Re: [xmca] Rey's call for a generative overflowing overlapping intertwining of the notion of "sense"

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi Huw, Andy, Mike, and others who may be interested in this line of
interpretation.
I want to qualify what I have to say by pointing out that I have just been
introduced to the idea if "chiasmic intertwining" since Mike first discussed
Merleau-Ponty.  My background for being "curious" about phenomenology comes
out of my fascination with relational or intersubjective psychodynamics when
I read a book by Stephen Mitchell who is credited with the "relational" turn
in psychodynamics.
I also was interested in Vygotsky from my background as a teacher and his
approach to learning.  Therefore my responsivity to the "callings" within
XMCA conversations is with very little "expertise" and I respond as an
"apprentice.  With this qualification I will try to respond to the line of
inquiry that I believe Fernando Rey's article is opening up ABOUT the
intertwining links between the GENERATIVE aspects of the psyche and the
"systems of meaning" that value coherence. I will start with a few quotes to
open a "space" of reflection.

"Some commentators have asked if the word "chiasm" is a neologism. In fact
Merleau-Ponty draws the word from the field of anatomy where chiasm refers
to the juncture where the two separate optic nerves and interior nasal
fibers weve together. The term is thus appropriate enough to express his
carnal intertwining through difference." [Lawrence Hass]

Chiasm therefore  I take as a metaphor like the "clock metaphor" or the
"computer metaphor"  that points to a way of knowing.

"Deep down, deep down inside, the eye would be destined not to see but to
weep. For at the very moment they [tears] veil sight, tears would also
unveil what is proper to the eyes ... nothing less than aletheia, the truth
of the eyes, to have imploration rather than vision in sight, to address
prayer, love, joy or sadness rather than a look or a gaze. Even before it
illuminates, revelation is the moment of tears of joy" [Derrida]

In other words "revealing" is prior to insight or reflection. Imporation and
exploration are seen as chiasmic intertwining.

"If Vygotsky had lived a few more years, he would surely have concentrated
his effort on the analysis of this [the author is referring to the system of
sense]. And this would inevitably have led to that of which he already
dreamt in his "Historical Sense of the Psychological Crisis"  ... a complete
overhaul of the whole conceptual apparatus of modern psychology... No simple
continuing movement, but a complicated dynamic of SENSES. He never got a
chance to do it however. [Leontiev]

"The contradiction between a mechanical notion of the psyche - understood as
reflection - and his [Vygotsky] and his original idea of the GENERATIVE
character of the psyche is evident from the very beginning of his work, in
'Psychology of Art'.  Following the principle of reflection, he focused on a
fragmented and cognitive REPRESENTATION of higher psychological functions,
making these [and not sense] the key concept of his work in the second
period." [Fernando Rey]

I don't want to ask if Rey is correct on the detais of the above time
sequence, but rather point to his differentiating the notions of reflection
and sense.  It is this dfferentiation which is central to M-P's
differentiation of the "generative" and "representational" aspects of the
psyche."

I now want to remind people of the conversation between David Ke and Martin
about the the movement of word meaning and inner thought.  David responded
by saying the question of the affective-volitional tendency in motivation is
not interior [in relation to exterior] but rather the most deeply felt
moment of the intertwining of thought and language.  This felt experience
was sociogenetic AND psychological.  [David I hope my memory is accurate]

Now all these introductory comment are to lead up to pointing us on a path
of imploration/exploration as a chiasmic intertwining of the the generative
AND reflective [representational] aspects of the psyche
as separation-difference which is not opposition [ecart]. Reading Vygotsky's
unthreading of thought and language [chapter 7] and his emphasizing that
thought and language are distinct but not separate is a classic example or
case of M-P's notion of chiasmic intertwining.

 Lawrence Hass points out that "oppositional division" and "unifying
reduction" are two sides of the same coin. They both fail to honour the
differentiated interweaving between the eye [the visible]and the mind [the
invisible]  Reducing language to representation dissolves the generative
aspect of psyche.  Dissolving language to phenomenology [living experience]
is another reducive process [which M-P made in his earlier work.  In his
later work M-P moves to a notion of "expressive cognition" that rejects
either the representational or phenominological reduction.

Last quick comment Anna Sfard's example of math "objects" as "non-material"
SYSTEMS of meaning or Saussure's linquistic "system" or "structure" are
examples of seeing with the mind's eye. However as Anna and M-P emphasize
these OBJECTS [that are non-material and cannot exist outside history and
sociality] are only one side or aspect of the psyche and are
representational objects. [marksman hitting the bulls-eye].  For the
marksman to hit the living "bird in flight" requires "expertise" [Anna Sfard
articulates this need for expertise to move from process to structure] but
once this expertise is acquired a person can see these non-material objects
with the minds eye. But this can never be separated from the carnal eye.  It
is always a chiasmic intertwining.

Larry
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 July 2011 17:18, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure how other's will reflect on Rey's article but I certainly
> > felt
> > at home while reading his expansion of Vygotsky's forgotten legacy. The
> > entire article I read as an example of chiasm or ECART
> > [separation-differentiation which is NOT opposition] Also the historical
> > movement [motivation] BETWEEN the subjective and objective moments,
> > reflective and generative moments, of his creativity/reflections is an
> > EXAMPLE of chiasm.  The reversibility of these different [but
> intertwining]
> > moments in Vygotsky's project that Rey so clearly articulates points to a
> > much vaster and overflowing perspective on "psyche" as both subjective
> and
> > objective.  Rey suggests Vygotsky's second moment, has become a reductive
> > reification of his much larger project of locating the psyche and world
> in
> > the realm of "sense"
> >
>
> Hi Larry.  Do you have a succinct definition for your use of chiasm here
> please?  Are you referring, additionally, to the ability to compound
> various
> separate images/functions?  E.g. Halliday's (Lang of Early Childhood)
> reference to mathetic and pragmatic functions that, starting off static,
> become dynamic and may be applied to each other?
>
> In my reading of the article, I thought there was a few fundamental points,
> or interpretations, made, but that this was over-baked somewhat by notions
> of "abandoning ideas" and the treatment of subject and object seemed a bit
> heavy handed too (perhaps a 2nd language for the author?).
>
> Huw
>  __________________________________________
> _____
> 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