These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Hi Larry, One thought, I now wonder if you'd have gone here - http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/Current.Mail/msg00079.html to pick up the incompatibility question and your distinguishing '3rd form' , but I realise now in presenting a raw historic stage ( one long before being an 'attentive reader' in an everyperson kind of way - the kind of way that is a 'beginning' before project) it was so 'raw' it included hearing/vision and autoaffection- which you have responded to. > CS yes it was a 'holding period' too. I'm intriqued as in circles >> around Edward Said lectures etc this is assumed to be 'gone' and >> questioning begins with 'wouldn't that be what we need?' - yet to me I >> have 'lived' present day values which *are* such a 'recurrence' , >> 'it's all around' in Andalucia of the 1980's/90s - isn't it still ?- >> were n't those ( victims of nostalgia?) able to look and find what >> they so want? >> > [LP] That is a BIG question. It brings to mind McLuhan's *acoustic space of > the ear* which is more intimate in contrast to *vision* which is more > differentiated. I'm playing with the notion that THIS format may be *seen* > or *heard* as a particular dis-position or *way* of understanding. I am now > expressing hunches, and speculations, and *imaginary possibilities* but > transforming recurrences into possibly novel rhythmic ways of reading, > listening and recognition as new forms of *reading RESPONSE* as > answerability. > I speculate too - and wonder as this line of enquiry along a line of phenomenology in relation to 'intervention' research, in the action-research project I encountered, gets a mention but hasn't a lot of further development since Uchiyama's thesis - until it's appearance in education oriented action-research... hmm he was interested in Bin Kimura's critique of Henry who critiqued Heideggers -- so the comments earlier in June on xmca are interesting ( this work came out of care to understand conditions and schizophrenia - - (other work in psychology has too Deleuze and Guattari's work etc)). I haven't found writing on the historical development of thinking from that point in history - and I'm not equipped for such a project. so for me the stance is that of your 3rd form - which is meaning full as 'bracketing' to me, it's an impossibility -overcoming recourse ( value -experiencing) - there is no panacea to a bridge for such a gap ( Just as is 'working to produce' might not have 'bridges' across disciplines and traditions. 'hearing' in dialogue is in moments alongside 'objectification and subjectification' where action-research is accepting both becoming a social formation and encountering auto-affection... In this tradition from which Uchiyama's work found a holding, there is also a parellel line of working - using a 'boundary concept' in systemic intervention - from Midgley's work in a 'critical' tradition. These are 'going along together'. It struck me that this was what Greg was aasking Huw about - also back in June - I missed all that at the time. BFN. Christine. I have so much I want to read... __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca