Re: [xmca] the spirt and value(s) of CHAT research

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Ivan, Mike, and Martin

I hope this conversation on romantic science and romantic research becomes
an extended topic.
Martin, as I read the article you attached I was fascinated by the concepts
*dividual* and *devaru-in-the-world* As I read the article a question came
to mind:

"How do our current notions of *romantic love* as expressed in romance
novels, express the ideal of *devaru-in-the-world*?

Now the tough-minded [James]  may see  this yearning for *romantic love* as
expressing sentimental yearnings which are immature [child like] and hold
to an ideal that we must turn away from sentimentality as we mature and
loose our tender minded yearnings and become tough minded in-dividuals.

This question is my way of suggesting that within our modernist ideals to
*individuate* there is still [within modernity] a strong yearning to
*dividuate*

Martin, when you refer to Marx exploring ethnographic writings as "calling
him" to a deeper understanding of our human *nature* the question of
romantic yearnings seems to re-emerge in postmodernity [or Bauman's
term *liquid modernity*]. This speaks to the notion of *living ambiguity*
as a continual re-turn to what was turned away from in an earlier epoch but
with each turning we become more consciously AWARE of the going out and the
return home.

Larry








  Our starting point is socially formed, culturally-constituted,
> multi-historically dependent consciousness.  To me, there is no "prying"
> this open (that's scientistic talk).  Many of our forefathers (or perhaps
> this is just an effect of translation into English) unfortunately speak of
> "penetrating" this amalgam (where one might stand to carry out this
> tactical maneuver eludes me).  I think we have no choice but to "enter and
> dwell" into this view of human consciousness, slowly and with an animist
> spirit, but not from outside --rather moving from one inside to another
> inside in the very same process of working/walking with others.  To do
> what?  To create the value(s) of research --because these don't exist
> beforehand (that's a luxury of established scientism).
>
> So I'll end with a worry I've had for a while.  Along with romantic
> science, I think many of us harbor a, perhaps implicit, notion of
"romantic
> research".  Is the latter really viable in the bean-counting milieu of
what
> dominant academia understands as "scientific" research?
>
> Ivan
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca