From: "Richard"
Date: July 25, 2005 6:48:07 PM PDT
To: rjon@vzavenue.net
Subject: Re: Intersubjectivity, individual and collective yoga (from Guy)

just to add a bit to Debashish's excellent assessment of affective intersubjectivity, I'd like to forward a message (edited) sent to me by Guy Burneko, which seems to compliment this notion of shifting from an ideological to an affective intersubjectivity. (or a co-worlding)

rc

Guy said:

“... this intersubjectivity strikes me as being always socially embedded and constructed; that is to say, there are no entirely (social)context independent individuals/ideas/interests to begin with; thus any subjectivity associated with persons (inter- or otherwise) is the voicing of a (always-already) shared worlding (however uniquely, fragmentarily or argumentatively expressed this everpresent coworlding is) by co-constituting subjects which (or who) furthermore, to the degree they are inter-subjectivizing (so to speak) and not just co-locating their atomic subjectivities in some discourse, is a worlding that compasses subjects as well as their putative objects. in other words, 'subjects' and 'objects' are after-the-fact reductions or hypostatizations of an irreducible field of intercourse that only by "special interests" is divided into subjects, objects, theory, practice, techincal, practical or emancipatory thises and thats etc. (these special interests are not necessarily bad boys in noetic evolution, or put another way, their badboyness may result more from absolutization of and clutching to them than from any 'essence' or content of them in their nascent forms.)

“stated another way, we all have an axe to grind, and egoing (in its many beneficial and maleficent colors and flavors) is one version of this. so here we are, everything that is said is said by some seeming someone who summarizes and contextualizes a (social cultural) history and in turn contributes to and effects it. or at least affects it. some affecting is more effective than others.

(snip)

“now i probably got this wrong somehow. but the living theme for me is less a system to be remembered and gotten right than a way of talking and demonstrating effective way- ing in the world, of giving it a meaningful and fruitful or liberating heading. of course one mode of doing this is read the stuff, do your practice and shut up. from time to time we all do this. in another sense, there is a way of doing this while also doing the other things the world does—debating, watering the lawn, philosophizing, politicing. and this way, i suspect, is the non-coercive ego-abated way of attuning to the multiplicity of diverse events at any time, circumstantially, nonnideologically and unegoistically and nonformulaically 'integrating' them or integrating 'with them' and in so doing, allowing them mutually to hybridiize/defer to one another while mutually thereby increasing the best contrubution of each in the overall holism of the present moment. the premise of a transcendent aim, attractor, sponsor is less crucial here than is the authenticity and spontaneity of inter-engagement at any time of the contributory person/s. stated another way, circumstantial in-the-moment integrality is the expression of the transcendent modality. like the poet paul eluard says, there is another world, but it is in this one.

(snip)

“my love to everybody

guy  ”