Someone sent me an off-list response to my Freire post, offering that "I
think that "ser " used by Paulo Freire refers to the essence of each
individual. " In my response, I say that I agree with ser as the essnece,
but I'm thinking Freire is trying to say our essence is our doing, not
something that we are [as with the verbal copula]. This is consistent with
Sartre, of course, but I think Freire is trying to express this in a more
radical sense, by using "ser" (at least sometimes) in a way that it should
not be translated as the noun "L'etre."
I think "ser" is not always "O ser" (= L 'etre) in Freire, as when he
in the footnote "Em torno do que e de como estão sendo." (p. 1, chapter 1,
Pedagogia do Oprimido)
The English, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is: < preoccupation with what
and how they are "being." >
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.**ucsd.edu<email@example.com>]
Behalf Of Larry Purss
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:56 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being
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.
you ask if it is what we "make" of an experience that is determinative if
is "vital". I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather
"make" is central to exploring "vital experience". Making is one
approach to engaging vital experience. This is a vital experience that
transforms the individual person's orientation within the world. This is
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
as an ethical way of life.
From this perspective "vital experience" can be personally "undergone"
through struggle and courageously exploring of personal inscapes the
can change direction and "make" something different of their lives
However, alternatively, the person could possibly be "met" [alterity] and
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
aspect of transformation [as making] but rather points to "being met"
the "vital experience".
I've contrasted and made distinct two possible openings of development
[transformation or in*formation] One emphasing a journey through
the other through intersubjective "holding environments". In actuality
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
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
ethical stance towards alterity [including one's own alterity]. However
a particular form of participation it may have as much validity and
legitimacy as the moe courageous form of turning towards inscapes for
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list