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

Re: [xmca] Living metaphor and conventionalized language

It is fsacinating that the root of the term refers to scissors or "cutting"
and in the modern world view the "cutting" PRECEDES the "con" or "context.
Karen Barad has coined the term "agential CUTS" and uses this term to point
to the INTRA-activity as PRECEDING the presumed cuts [which form
boundaries]. It is within the movement [development, history] that "agential
cuts EMERGE from the holistic dwelling in the world [as EXCESS and
overflowing our particular agential cuts.  If the agential cuts emerge FROM
the movement of development [and not precede the movement of discrete
entities that interact as PRE-existing objects in a predicative
INTER-activity] then how WE come to use the scissors within con-scientia
[INTRA-activity] will come to constitute the objects [as derivative].  If
there is some merit to this TYPE of movement then "agential cuts" or using
scissors to CREATE EMERGING boundaries is central to development.

These are new ideas I'm playing with but they seem to point in a promising
direction if we only pay ATTENTION to the SHOWINGS of people like Vygotsky,
Martin, John Shotter, Ingold, Karen Barad, and others who are exploring
becoming "for-itself THROUGH others.


On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Larry Purss wrote:
> Martin
>> What happens to con-scientia in the movement FROM "in itself" TO
>> "for-itself" THROUGH others. What happens to con-scientia when inner
>> speech
>> develops.  What happens to  con-scientia when speech becomes ABBREVIATED.
>> John Shotter's article in the "papers for discussion, 2011]" takes
>> Bakhtin's
>> insights of utterances as being used TO MOVE others as an answer to deepen
>> our understanding of knowledge and cognition  withIN intra-activity AS
>> FUNDAMENTALLY continuing to be con-scientia.  How particularly
>> con-scientia
>> is sublated is an open question?
>> Larry
> Thanks for these questions, Larry
> Your use of "con-scientia" is helpful. It interrupts, or at least refracts,
> the discourse of scientia.
> The theme for the 2012 AERA meeting is "Non Satis Scire: To Know is Not
> Enough," which reflects a sense of "Scire" or "scientia" as something that
> stops short of action/inter-action. This is how scire/scientia has come to
> be understood in the culture of positive science, with its disparagement of
> mere cognoscere / connaisance / conocimiento.
> The scire/cognoscere savoir/connaitre dichotomy presupposes scientia as not
> con-scientia. It's good to challenge that. Scire/scientia derives from the
> same proto-Indoeuropean root as "scissors," so it presumes (and in
> positivistic science, is predicated on) the methodological pre-scission of
> the "con" from the "scientia"
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
xmca mailing list