These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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.
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. Andy, you ask if it is what we "make" of an experience that is determinative if it is "vital". I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather than "make" is central to exploring "vital experience". Making is one particular approach to engaging vital experience. This is a vital experience that transforms the individual person's orientation within the world. This is an 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 modernity as an ethical way of life. >From this perspective "vital experience" can be personally "undergone" and through struggle and courageously exploring of personal inscapes the person can change direction and "make" something different of their lives [develop] However, alternatively, the person could possibly be "met" [alterity] and in 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 courageous aspect of transformation [as making] but rather points to "being met" within the "vital experience". I've contrasted and made distinct two possible openings of development [transformation or in*formation] One emphasing a journey through inscapes, the other through intersubjective "holding environments". In actuality there 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 "vial experience". 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 an ethical stance towards alterity [including one's own alterity]. However as a particular form of participation it may have as much validity and legitimacy as the moe courageous form of turning towards inscapes for transormation. Larry __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca