|
|
self/other
E. Taborsky (ETABORSK@ARUS.UBISHOPS.CA)
Wed, 1 Nov 1995 10:07:32 EST
First, also thanks and honours to Dwight Read for his excellent
models on continuity/binary.
And some comments to John McCreery, re his categories. As I see them,
John has four categories of self-other relationships. There is the
(1) No interaction. Apart from the fact that one needs the Other to
be aware of the Self (Lacan's Mirror). (2) Power-Over interaction.
Discussed by such as Foucault, Said. (3) Hegelian transformation of
the Self-Other, where interactions are based within a goal-directed
agenda. (4) A more conscious type of Type 1; I have no name for it at
present.
How about an interaction, wherein both the Self and the Other are
transformed (but not totally erased) within a dialogic interaction?
This would be a Bakhtinian model (Mikhail Bakhtin). What this means
is that neither the Self nor the Other can exist as 'entities-in-
themselves', but only within interaction. (Niels Bohr quantum
physics). This interaction is not power-over; is not goal-directed.
It is dialogic, which means that in the interaction between them
(which can merely be the awareness of each), energy is shared. This
shared energy transforms each, in a minor or even major way. I
suggest that no entity can exist, without this dialogic interaction.
It has nothing to do with power, has nothing to do with a goal, but
has everything to do with maintenance of both stability and diversity
within the organism.
This may be John's Type 4, but I get a sense that his type 4 is an
almost accidental awareness, whereas the dialogic interaction is
focused and intentional. (But no intent of power, no goal).This type
is more fraught with danger than his Type 4 (too much energy from an
interaction can destabilize the organizational capacities of an
entity).Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University Phone: (819)822.9600
Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
Canada JIM 1Z7
|