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

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Huw, thanks for responding. I will add one quick comment.  When M-P is
exploring the intertwining of the carnal and the affective-volitional
tendencies as one aspect of the carnal he would agree it is representational
AND generative. Remember, his metaphor [shared with Bateson] of binocular
vision "sees" the representational and generative as chiasm. To get a "feel"
for the depth of the intertwining consider the way Vygotsky "sees" thought
and language intertwining.  Representatonal "seeing" and generative "seeing"
are a process of binocular seeing in "depth".  BOTH are fundamental in ways
similar to thought and language being fundamental but distinct.  However
what M-P explicity cautions us not to do is try to dissolve this
separation-difference into any form of "grounding" that collapses the
representational to living experience or collapses living experience to
representation.  M-P's master term "expressive cognition" explicitly
attempts to unwind the threads of representation and living experience in
his attempt to help us "see" the intertwining of the two distinct threads
[in a way that I see Vygotsky unwound the intertwining threads of thought
and language.]
In relation to Fernando Rey's article I think M-P's way of "seeing"
[intertwining the visible carnal and invisible minds eye] may be an approach
that can further unwind the threads of "sense" and "meaning" which Fernando
would suggest was the larger legacy of Vygotsky. Thought and language [as
aspects of the invisible "mind's eye"] can be incorporated into a larger
legacy.  Fernando pointing to the notion of "sense" is calling us to explore
the carnal generative thread of Vygotsky's intertwining.  Fernando suggests
this thread was more implicit and he suggests in the West we have lost sight
of Vygotsky's larger project.  As I read Fernando's invitation it is to
engage more explicitly with what has been relatively underdeveloped [at
least in the West].  I believe John Shotter is one author who is responding
to the direction Fernando is pointing.  If others do believe that the
intertwining of sense and meaning are more fully developed already, why are
they not responding.

I know soon the MCA journal will have a theme on "emotion" but the
conversation can begin now with Fernando's opening a space for discussion.

>From M-P's perspective, these questions are exploring an OVERFLOWING living
experience.


On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Larry.  I enjoyed reading your reply.  My responses to particular
> parts of your email are below.
>
> On 23 July 2011 18:09, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >  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.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Ok.  I agree with this.  I would take the relations further, i.e.  that
> prismic/generative aspects, image creation and catharsis/social "problems"
> are implicated in all aspects of LSV's work.
>
> The notion that one would read LSV's CHT without wondering about how these
> notions fit with respect to feeling, personality and culture seems a little
> odd to me.
>
>
> >  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.
>
>
> Ok.  Representation does not need to be a static thing however.  The
> dynamic
> creation of a feeling can legitimately be referred to as representing too
> (though I would expect clarification in such cases).
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> The use of "non-material" here is unfortunate, however.
>
> [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.
> >
>
> You might find Bateson's distinction between calibration and feedback
> interesting (Mind and Nature, p212):
>
> "It seems that, in these cases, "calibration" is related to "feedback" as a
> higher logical type is related to the lower.  This relation is indicated by
> the fact that self-correction in the use of the shotgun is necessarily
> possible only from information derived from practice (i.e. from a _class_
> of
> past, completed actions)."
>
> 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