Hi Haydi Thank you for engaging in this wonderful conversation . Yes, I love reading [which I more and more understand as "listening" and "hearing" [not as "seeing" and "perceiving".] In this more "musical" stance I am struggling to link notions of "perspective" and "activity. When I read, I'm trying to focus more on "listening" and being "moved" before considering "responding". This PARTICULAR TYPE of dialogical stance is what I'm trying to express with the notion of BETWEENESS [within both Japanese, and continental philosophy] I'm beginning to "hear" a family resemblance within these perspectives or traditions and I struggle to bring these processual perspectives into conversation with CHAT theory. I just read an article from Patrick Baert on NEO-pragmatism which I see also operating within this particular type of dialogical inquiry.[The article is from the journal Greg posted yesterday. I'm attaching it so others who are interested can read its conclusion and the section on Gadamer on pages 34 to 36. Baert puts at the center of his inquiries a PARTICULAR form of dialogical recognition he labels "self-understanding" [derived from dialogical understanding and Gadamer's notion of "effective history"] See my response to Greg's post for a deeper elaboration. Haydi, I'm at the very beginning of this endeavor to grasp a new type of sensibility that I'm also sensing is emerging and spiralling through the various social science traditions and disciplines. I'm attempting to become more familiar with the multiple ways of reflecting on the lived world that share this senseability. I'm going to respond further on this topic of a particular TYPE of genuine dialogical encounter in my reply to Greg, but my bringing in Kenichi Uchiyama's concepts of "reality" and "actuality" are in this same spirit of GENUINE dialogical inquiry into our human nature withIN "effective history" I agree that reality must be transformed. However, my understanding of the Japanese perspective [as far as I am able to understand] assumes "human reality" is not "merely" objects and things which EXIST and ARE experienced. For Kenichi [and Kimura] the concept of "actuality" IS the human VITALITY within the lived world of reality. A concept I appreciate and am attempting to USE to try to understand this notion of "actuality" is the concept "autobiography" from the Kyoto School. From within the Kyoto school tradition "autobiography" is conceived as 3 aspects or realms of personhood/personality and is written as [auto*bio*graphy]. * The "auto" is our personal UNIQUENESS as sensing beings. No other human person sees or hears or "perceives" [experences]the world the same way, but ALL humans share this uniqueness as "auto" and this aspect of our humanness is our universal nature, our unique humaness as auto. I believe this concept shares family resemblances with "persnhood" * Bio is life world or living world as organisms within environments. * Graphy is the cultural historical world of artifacts and history. auto*bio*graphy IS our human form and is NOT three separate essences or "things" AS reality but expresses theVITALITY within reality as three realms of personhood/personality. >From the Kyoto School perspective the life world is the ground from which ARISES auto*bio*graphy. Gadamer is emphasizing the "graphy" aspect of autobiography. This arising is temporal but is expressed moment to moment in sequence as arising within "suchness" Now, the question you are asking is HOW does this way of participating in genuine dialogue TRANSFORM the world. I elaborate more on my post to Greg, but I will also give a specific example from my work. Helping a student "learn to read" WE go on the web and connect to a site where audio stories are "read" to the student while I "participate" I can stop the reading at any time, turn off the audio, and either the student or I can read the text. I take the positon the position that this activity is a GENUINE dialogue and meaning is ARISING as we participate in this genuine dialogue. I can PAUSE and "think out loud" about the marks called "quotation marks" and inquire WHO is speaking? and who is the speaker addressing?? When the quotation marks indicate "thinking" by conventions such as "i wonder" before the quotation marks and I ask "who is talking" I'm drawing ATTENTION to and SHOWING the forms of dialogue expressed as "talking to myself" Over time the student begins to inhabit this dialogical space and we can flow back and forth between between the computer, the student, myself, the two characters in the story, and the setting in the classroom and the setting in the story. Every moment our SHARED dialogue is promoting "understanding" LEADING TO "self-understanding". Baert's article, [attached] written within a neo-pragmatic tradition is also discussing similar ways of proceeding [and pausing]. Enough for now, but thanks Haydi, for giving me an opportunity to continue the CHAT. Larry On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote: > Dear Larry > > Again thanks for your consistency ! > > Thanks also Peter for the introduction of the "Guided Mind" , a > sociogenetic approach to personality . > > You know , Larry , Sign CAN replace object but CANNOT remove or destroy it > and ontologically speaking , it CANNOT even take on the RANK of priority , > originality , precedence , firstness . This is the KNOT , I suppose , lies > beneath all discussion . Yes , true , this tiny thing amounts to a matter > of 'reform' or 'revolution' . History has not proved everything yet . Here > I'm so willing to thank Andy because a while ago , he declared : "I use > psychology for a social change" . In Vygotsky , such an idea has been > observed . > > > As to your example of MUSIC , see if I commit a mistake : The artist > cannot tolerate the bitter 'reality' . He wills to transform it . He has to > take shelter in 'imagination' (using > images,signs,symbols,metaphors,etc.)--towards actuality--goes higher and > higher still upperwards until an ethereal acme is reached . Are you to stop > here ? Is it enough for the terrestrial man ? > > > This could be considered as Vasilyuk's re-orientation in a spot in the > future after the 'activity' of 'experiencing' is done and over . The > 'impossible' gives way to 'possible' . Agony replaces joy and refreshment . > Life goes on . > > I say the acme reached is not enough and yet it is personal and not a code > for survival . You're no angel , no superstructure , no superman . There's > a MUST for a return . Towards a transformation of the known bitter reality > of the material world . As yet , you've been in the world of the 'ideal' > activity . No Kantian transcendence which leads to 'agnostics' . This is > where Christine warned me against my former site of flight not to be > regained futile . But a transformed SITE WITHIN THE WORLD OF REALITY . Our > poet says : I mortified the corporeal / I became a growing thing ; I > deadened that growing thing/from its ashes I arose animate ; once again I > will leave this firmament , flying/ I will become that which could not be > deluded . Some scholar calls him : The Hegel of the Orient . > > > As I know you're a fast reader , I send you three attachments . I suppose > , you can have a good comparison because they deliver a CONTRAST , as you > say . > > > Best > > > Haydi > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012, 22:23:24 > Subject: [xmca] Fyodor Vasilyuk "The Psychology of Experiencing" > > > Andy, Thanks for sending out Chapter ll of Vasilyuk's book. > > On page 87, I appreciated how he articulated the "ontology of the isolated > > individual." I quote: > > > For the latter [ontology of the isolated individual], the situation taken > > as primary for subsequent theoretical development is one where you have, on > > the one hand, a separate being isolated from the world, and, on the other > > hand, objects, or more precisely things, existing "in themselves". The > > SPACE BETWEEN, empty and contentless, only keeps them APART from one > > another. Subject and object are both thought of as existing from the > > BEGINNING and as INTRINSICALLY definite, PRIOR TO and independently of any > > practical connection between them; they are independent natural ENTITIES. > > Activity, which brings about a practical connection between subject and > > object is STILL IN THE FUTURE; in order [for activity] to commence, it must > > be sanctioned while the PRIMARY situation OF SEPARATION between subject and > > object still prevails." > > > This is the classical psychological understanding of the source of activity > > as DERIVED and IN THE FUTURE. In the ontolology of the isolated > > individual's most highly rationalized FORM can be REDUCED to a view that > > activity is BASED on a cognitive calculation thesis. Reflection PRECEDES > > the activity within the subject's mind and only after does the activity > > take place. > > > Andy, I wanted to highlight this passage as a way to document what may be a > > shared understanding of what we are moving away from. However, what we are > > moving towards in our conceptions of "character" "personality", & > > "disposition" as more or less "free" and more or less "assertive" can be > > multiple and express very different values of the KIND of persons which > > develop within the alternative "ontology of the LIVED world" > > For example the Kyoto School's notion of "self-emptying" is a notion which > > can find a place in the "ontology of the LIVED world". > > > I want to bring in Kenichi Uchiyama's notion of a "lived world" > > as analogous to playing music [Merleau-Ponty's singing the world] Kenichi > > says, > > In order to continue to play music, we have to listen to the music as a > > whole, which includes sounds we created in the past, sounds we are > > creating, and sounds we expect to create in the future. We HEAR [not see] > > the music as a whole. But where do we hear that music? It is not in the > > REAL space, the sounds we created THERE in the past have disappeared. Thus > > the PLACE where the music sounds as a whole is the ABSTRACT place beyond > > time and space. It resides, as it were, BETWEEN us and REAL space. In other > > words, we HEAR the music as an auto-affection of appearing to us without > > any medium. We do not HEAR the music through our ears in REALITY, but HEAR > > the music in ACTUALITY through Aristotelian "common sense" meaning the > > common sense BETWEEN the five senses. [Merleau-Ponty makes a similar point] > > The music players share not only the OBJECT [the sounds in reality] but the > > music as a whole within a "lived world" Kimura, who Kenichi references, > > calls this place of shared music as a whole the "between". Kimura argues if > > we focus on the reality of the sounds we loose the "actuality" and maintain > > the "reality" because we perceive the reality of the sounds AS AN OBJECT. > > To restore the "feeling" of reality one must experience actuality which > > Kimura [and Kenichi] believe is THE crucial characteristic of human > affairs. > > > Kenichi contrasts his work with Checkland and Giddens who both focused on > > "practice" and "action" within the ontology of the isolated individual. > > In contrast, within an ontology of "living world", Kenichi emphasizes > > action as "actuality", which builds on the derivation of "actual" from the > > Latin "actio" as a phenomenological term as the VITAL contact with reality. > > For Kimura and Kenichi "reality" [res=things] is something EXPERIENCED. > > (noematic) and "actuality" as something EXPERIENCING (noetic) > > > Andy, I am not arguing for Kenichi's approach as being more coherent or > > "true". I merely wanted to point out that we can all refute the ontology of > > the isolated individual and agree on the ontology of the "living world" BUT > > there is still room to explore notions such as Kimura's notion of > > "betweeness" which may contrast with Leontiev's Activity theory. The > > question I would propose is, What KIND of personality or disposition or > > character is formed within these contrasting perspectives when viewed as a > > sequence of activities forming personality and dispositions? > > > Larry > > > Larry > > __________________________________________ > > _____ > > 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:
JANUARY 14 2012 BAERT PATRICK Neo_Pragmatism and Phenomenology A Proposal in European Journal of Pragmatism on Web.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca