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

Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred Holodynsk's article is choice

I will not engage with the body of your text. Haydi, it is a clear
articulation and answer to Martin's question. One brief comment on your
statement at the end:
"we have had our exegesis of texts and now we are in the CON-text of ACTION.

*philosophical* hermeneutics is NOT exegesis AS methodology. It can be
understood AS *question and answer* philosophy.
>From this way of orienting (form of life) you can see questions and answers
as intimately engaged with the ideal as CONCRETE and to be counted on for

I will pause and wait for *answers* to your question from Martin and others.
I also hope Rauno's paper will be posted for further *answers*

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Martin , Andy !
> Welcome again !
> One thing is certain . I do need to learn from you . The reverse is not
> correct .
> Again , because of my limits , I have to go to the text in parts . I
> cannot conclude in few lines . Apologies !
> two parags left unintentionally . I'd like others to continue but if dear
> Martin draws me back near , I'll be at his service .
> ________________________________
>  From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 21:17:49
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred Holodynsk's article is choice
> Hi Manfred,
> Thank you for taking the time to write to XMCA. These discussions of
> articles are always more interesting and informative when the author can
> participate. I appreciate your clarification, but I would like to ask a
> question. You write:
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:40 AM, "Holodynski, Manfred" <
> manfred.holodynski@uni-muenster.de> wrote:
> > a) Take the example of the opening of the window. That's the behavior.
> What's the goal?
> >
> > b) Imagine the person is a leader and opens the window in order to greet
> his followers and to hold a speech. That's the goal. What is the activity?
> >
> > c) If one look at the circumstances one can derive that the speech is a
> part of a political activity in order to celebrate the election victory.
> By Manfred's Permission , I exemplify the event thus :
> a) On the ladder of the hiararchy of the 'motives' , I climb few steps
> higher . I've reached the PERSONAL SENSE of cognizing the GLOBALIZED
> AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION . I see this SENSE in conflict with the GENERAL
> SOCIAL MEANING of the public to the effect that Mubarak is personally the
> cause for all the disasters . Then , on the part of the revolutionary
> classes  , strata , layers , groups , parties , they have reached their
> object of the activity of toppling Mubarak . This they name REVOLUTION . On
> my PERSONAL part (I've got the SENSE also from the social relations) , I've
> achieved for the object of the activity of toppling the socio-economic
> formation of CAPITALISM which I assert to be the cause of all world evils
> (fun for many) . According to L , if through a long process , I'm able to
> spread and generalize this achieved PERSONAL SENSE , then the beginning of
> rounds of cardinal social transformations is within reach . Otherwise ,
> degrees of
>  frustration caused by defeats and failures will be my lot . L says true
> artistic creative works have their origins here . At times of real crises
> which necessitates attempt to ACTION , objects have already been promoted
> to the ranks of MOTIVES . What is the activity ? Toppling a social system
> (sweet dreams) !! What is the motive ? removal of social evils through
> transition of power from one class to another ; this has not been realized
> in Egypt so far ; Globalized America deceives revolutionaries by decadent
> maneuvers so that true revolutionaries might ignore her stronghold of the
> Colonels and the Generals ; with the Ikhwan she also plays chess and it's
> decades this plaything is on : such as social injustice , oppression ,
> exploitation , dictatorship , private ownership , expansionism , genocide ,
> slaughter , poverty , etc.
> b) action or actions : getting armed , combination of political / military
> endeavours , negociations , gurilla  warfare , etc.
> c) conditions : No peaceful democratic ways of solving problems have been
> left open : choice of jungles , forests ; mountanous parts of a country ;
> urban srruggle , ambush , rural propeganda , etc.
> I know not of Egypt's concrete analysis of concrete conditions . Brecht
> should know .
> ***
> Given your previous paragraphs I assume that you mean to say that opening
> the window is the operation, greeting the followers is the action, and
> giving a speech is the activity? Then, the motive of the activity (giving
> the speech) is to celebrate an election victory. The goal of the action
> (greeting the followers) is to greet the followers (?). And the conditions
> of the operation (opening the window) are that the window is closed. Do I
> have that correct? I still find the terminology a bit confusing.
> --Ok
> Then you draw a distinction between the "publically assigned meaning" and
> the "personally felt sense of the situation." You contrast the possibility
> that the personally felt sense is pride and enthusiasm with the possibility
> that it is feeling burdened and overloaded.
> --With the first part Ok.' adding that when we read L , we see the pivotal
> point is achieving the PERSONAL SENSE , emanating from the personality
> already formed through one's life activities and the removal of the
> conflict which occurs at one period of time of the life of the person , not
> the individual .
> With the second part , there's an 'if' as above-mentioned . A political
> leader could not be a swerving creature . If you insist he might be : his
> lot is frustration . Ideals as the engine of the movements gone . dead
> politically , a product , extinguished . But if he is firm , he goes to
> excite the followers ; the goal is to celebrate a VICTORY . Then
> overburdening and overloading are ruled out .
> So, you offer us a description of the situation that rests of various
> theoretical concepts. I'd say that without doubt there's a metaphysics
> here, but there's no need to dwell on that point!
> --Yes , yes , there IS . You are quite familiar with the THESES . The
> whole thing is this : If the rock and the steel are there left to
> themselves : virgin soil #upturned , Nature intact ? And if you are just an
> EYE-witness to the scene left to yourself ? What then happens ?? You know L
> has his table of reactibility , irritatibility , sensibility ,
> intellectuality , etc. up to the psyche , con. and self.con and psychical
> activity . You sense what I mean . Even with sort of stimuli in between ,
> that is , in the absence of an conscious action , what happens ?? You are
> well aware of the end of reflexology and reactology . True ideals ,
> theoreticals , essentials and universals , conceptuals are not corporeal ,
> THEY ARE concrete , objective . You can count on them for COGNITION .
> The point I would like to dwell on, however, is that I think questions can
> be raised about such a description, in particular about the way it seems to
> presuppose some kind of omniscient observer, who has access not only to
> publicly available facts (the identity of the party leader; the results of
> the voting), but also to what the election means to "the public" (won't
> there be a range of interpretations?) and to the "personal sense" of the
> agent.
> --First 'public' are not always the 'mob' ; second , in social upheavals
> there's no 'public' ; there're classes , strata , layers , parties , groups
> , etc . and there're stages to a upheaval or revolution . Second , when we
> talk about the hiararchy of motives , lowest level profiteering , highest
> level sacrificial endeavours , certainly these choices of degrees are based
> upon interpretations . But what I don't understand is what is meta-physical
> (rootless,non,foundational,ethereal,phantasmic) in the processes . Besides
> , in social upheaval / revolutions , what are the roles of sightseers ,
> omniscients , outsiders , beholders , oligo-cognizants , etc. ? suppose
> they know everything , then what ?  Those who should act are within THEIR
> In practice, as a researcher for example, one is never in this enviable
> position. Imagine I am standing in the room with the party leader. He
> fumbles to open the window and exclaims "Gott!" Now, I can understand that
> exclamation in a variety of ways. I can see it as frustration that the
> operation of opening the window has been frustrated by the local
> conditions. Or I can interpret it as irritation that the goal of greeting
> the followers has met with an obstacle. Or I can read it as anxiety that
> the motive of celebrating the victory is already not running smoothly.
> --First , you are an omni-scient . How can you allow yourself to be so
> dubious at such a time with such a person as a leader ? This is not a
> suitable time for 'hermeneutics' , We have had our exegeses of texts and
> now we are in the CON-text of ACTION . If , Martin , you are so kind to
> listen to this your sincere pupil/novice , try to extract what could be
> essential , universal at the particular time within your company and have
> him directed to the right path in ACTION .
> Without access to the subjective feelings of the agent (and perhaps even
> then), it seems to me that each of these ways of framing the emotional
> exclamation is equally valid. Obviously they differ in the depth, or width,
> of the context, the macrostructure, that they take into account, but I it
> is not clear to me that this can be used as a criterion for choosing among
> them. The agent himself has, I would suggest, the same range of
> interpretive options available to him - that is, he will need to make sense
> of his own emotional exclamation, and he has available to him a variety of
> ways to do so. Surely that is one thing that we know about emotionality;
> that emotions are not transparent to us. We don't know immediately what the
> cause and objects of our own emotions are.
> In addition, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the "macrostructure" of
> the activity is not even the most inclusive way of framing an action (or in
> this case an emotional exclamation). One could equally well frame it in the
> context of a person's whole life, understood as an existential commitment.
> Or in terms of the system and structure of a political-economic formation -
> interpreting "Gott!", for example, as an expression of the contradictions
> of politics within contemporary neo-liberal democracy.
> In short, then, why is "the macrostructure of an activity" the embedding
> that should be preferred?
> Martin
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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