GIF Minutes for November 2, 2004
Prepared by Corey Shdaimah
Graduate Idea Forum, November 2, 2004
"Writing
Descartes: I Am, and I Can Think, Therefore ..."
Participants: Anne Dalke, Tom Young, Roland Stahl, Judie McCoyd, Corey Shdaimah
For today's discussion we read the following article:
Paul Grobstein, "Writing
Descartes: I Am, and I Can Think, Therefore ..."
Tom: I privilege critical thinking over evidence based practice;
if it works in 40% of the cases then it doesn’t work in 60%,
and social work serve heterogeneous populations. Climate prediction
is based on the past but can’t assume that conditions remain
the same. “Come join me in the present, it’s where
possibility exists.” Tom will send us suggestions for reading.
General discussion (didn’t attribute to individual speakers)
Thinking about the way we tell history: we think of audience, purpose,
who is telling the story. Often history will tell us more about
the source or teller of the history than about the events of
the past.
Thinking about history as a platform for future experiments, not
necessarily as accurate memory. But when we look at what is the
reality of the events. Does this matter? What matters is a force
that creates a pattern for the future. But does this matter or
does what is in the present force?
Is it a deformative or transformative force? The facts are less
important. We choose from a menu of stories, and the “I” is
the arbiter of usefulness.
General discussion not attributed to individuals:
Psychoanalytic literature: whether we take a memory to court. Most
analysts therapeutically make the mistake of actually believing
they have to discover the past. But doing history as an historian
is different than doing it as a therapist. As a historian, it
matters whether the Holocaust took place. As a therapist you
can circumvent this argument. Historian serves another function
and the function tells us something about the goal of each. One
difference almost always is concerned with the individual whereas
the historian is concerned with social practices.
In the faculty discussion group on cultural studies, some of the
literature professors will do courses on varieties of fiction and
assign histories. Historians refuse the distinction between fiction
and fact. Is there a difference between Rashomon-like descriptions
or saying that something did or did not happen? Is it different
if it is political? Issues of power- back to the thread for Serendip.
The group story is a synthesis of individual stories people may
strive to have their story told or represent the group. We then
don’t lose the struggle of individual to be part of the group
story. Shift focus, no longer regard the story as truth or not
but rather treat it as a vie for influence.
Conversation between Paul and Roland on Serendip: gets to the
teleological nature of the statement of I am and I can think therefore
I can change who I am. Focus is making of something in the future,
a future orientation but no telos, no point of destination.
1. I can construct a story in the present; I can construct a menu
of stories.
2. I can choose which story I want to proceed into the future on
this. So I am the arbiter of usefulness.
The thing which does the choosing of the story in the present
is part of the story and so the basis of the story is part of what
is in flux. So choice – no telos anywhere in the future,
there is only the part of oneself in the present and that element
is modified.
No telos; just a journey, experimentation. One can conclude that
the criteria should be the experimentalist’s (not the conservator’s-
less risk-averse) criteria. The experimentalist’s criteria
seem to generate the widest possible array of stories.
So you are trying to dictate my choice. Why do I have to choose
the experimentalist’s choice?
Distinguish between the story and Paul’s personal way of
responding to the notion that that’s all there is. If that
is the human condition, to opt for a generic strategy of acting
in ways to maximize future choices is not a mandate. Different
individuals can and should do different things.
So the possibility: I am I think and if I wish to I can chose
to remain the same.
But biologically this is not the same. I am and I can think and
I can act to try and resist change. Neither one can ever be completely
possible.
Middlesex, link to this.
If there is any normative element in the statement it implies
telos. Paul seems to prioritize change over stasis and that seems
normative.
Paul: Change is constantly happening, but the only role telos
plays is that brains have a particular structure and this creates
choices- but this then creates on a fluid telos- there is no single
telos.
Roland: so I am, I think and I can choose.
Paul: Can separate the story of the brain from my story/my telos
that says change is what we want to maximize.
Roland: So the choice is to maximize choice.
Paul: Confusion is the essay between a state (way of being) with
my particular telos of maximizing change
Corey: Can’t we say the same about this future telos as
we do to the past – i.e. if the way we interpret history
says more about us doesn’t how we look to the future tell
us more about who we are right now?
Anne: And this is not determinative.
Roland: We are and we can think so we can choose
Anne: We or I?
Paul: I will accept “I can choose” as an amendment
not we. Individual stories and group stories both exist and are
distinct- can’t valorize either. Both start influencing one
another.
Roland: So I am and we are; I think and we think but I can choose.
Paul: No such thing as group-think.
Judie: The irony of that statement on Election Day.
Corey: But both individuals and groups influence each other – so
somehow the I’s are creating a group-think.
Paul: But we have to keep distinct because they are distinct.
Corey: But that’s an ideal types; theoretical.
Tom: We’re seeming to enact the problem. We all acknowledge
that there are group stories. There is mutual influence.
Paul: No. Our problem’s with group-thinking.
Anne: Reminder of Corey’s Beloved post- tell it and you
must hear it. Friend Paul Burgermeier assesses the effectiveness
by whether you’re changed by what’s said.
Corey: But there are 3 parts: 1) I need to tell; 2) you need to
hear; 3) Then maybe changed
Tom: Story of 38/54 African countries with genital mutilation.
Paul’s story picture: Bio systems= series of elements interacting
with outside world as well as with each other. And outside observer
can see the boundary of the box but there is nothing inside the
box that represents the whole. The only one to which this doesn’t
apply is the human brain with new organization. The grain gets
input from all the elements, but also gets some influence. But
if it becomes a story-teller, telos-finder.
Now creates an internal see-er and not just outside observer. Exterior
box=body body interacts with the outside world and body influencing
and influenced by the nervous system; and this then includes the
brain; story-telling brain. By putting each of these together (people)
it becomes a system that determines an output that is the group
story (that outside observer).
Corey: Raises power issue, what about if some big boxes vs. small-feeling
boxes? (gay teen suicides – whether trying to change story
or story trying to change you).
Paul: observer is inferring what group story is, but the group
itself interacts with cultural artifacts (books) (group story)
and brings conflict to groups. Cultural artifacts says always a
group story.
Tom: disagrees, cannot call group story. HAS to be individual
story.
Paul: okay, an accretion of individual stories.
Anne: Gender, class talking about intersex individuals. Finding
each other- writing of a group story?
Paul: Lots of possible stories.
Corey: But it changes the story
Anne: But this speaks to social action. i.e. don’t genitally
mutilate intersex babies. Who gets to write the story?
Corey: So at what point does the individual get to be a story-teller?
Since baby has surgery done on it. So group story comes before
the individual story.
Tom: Do individuals need a group story?
Corey: So where does the group story come into being?
Paul: Let’s talk about facism- group comes into being that
forces group story to replace individual story.
Corey: what about how things like economics, depressions influence?
What is the source then?
Paul: Those entities don’t exist independent from story-makers.
Tom: I think individual stories need group stories.
Paul: Agree. Group stories serve useful function – to enhance
individual story-telling, “should” best group stories
create more individual stories?
Corey: What about genital mutilation?
Paul: Uncertain about usefulness of group story of genital mutilation-
since I’m not part of group, can’t know its function.
Tom: If someone creates a group story that’s functional
for majority, someone came along saying good to mutilate baby girls.
A series of individual stories that lead to a group story.
Roland: But they do it, forget the story, it’s done
Paul: And I’m just saying I can’t decide if it’s
a good story since I’m not in the group that created the
group story
Corey: So you’re saying one can find “good enough” story
even though it’s limiting options for baby girls.
Anne: But you can’t say for someone else.
Tom: Election – 2 competing group stories. Very different
telos.
Paul: Exactly. Why I’ve become mellow about this election
since I didn’t know which way it comes out but it should
be known to the rest of the world what our group story is, so to
be able to infer something about our behavior.
For a properly functioning political system, we’d like someone
who would help feedback to interact. We need a good storyteller.
We’re all writing our individual stories but a large number
of individuals will end up without a group story that validates
their individual story.
Is this is a “love it or leave it” situation for alternative
story tellers?
So Europe, for example, is our outside person.
Aren’t we writing that story ourselves?
Yes but it can be visible to outsiders. I am a contributor to
what other people see as the US story. But the US doesn’t
have a story.
The best group story is one that allows for the widest range of
individual stories which in turn allows for the creation of a maximum
number of possible future stories.
What is a group story? Can we look at it? Why don’t we replace
this with collective action, so if more people do one thing than
another. The story is the thinking, the account. The action is
what comes out of it.
This implies that thought is something more than action. Thought
is a particular kind of action. Collective action and then thinking
similar thoughts of a certain number of people. Thinking about
Catherine Mackinnon- who also views word as actions. This makes
a difference by going further. Paul has answered the question of
the difference between the individual and the social. That fact
that this is not readily apparent is maybe because the boundary
between action and thought is the boundary between being ad thinking
rather than between thought and action.
Presumption that the individual and social are distinct. The useful
distinction is between thinking and the collective product. This
exists at the individual and social/collective level. Without the
fuchsia dot the individual cannot take into account all of the
different stories and choose.
Furthermore, most of the social/cultural activity is being rather
than thinking. Every once in a while a storyteller will has a distinctive
influence on the process and when they do this is by virtue of
being a thinker.
Corey Shdaimah, 12/9/2004
Home
| Calendar | About
| Getting Involved
| Groups | Initiatives | Bryn Mawr Home | Serendip Home
Director: Liz McCormack -
emccorma@brynmawr.edu
| Faculty Steering Committee
| Secretary: Lisa Kolonay
© 1994-
, by Center for Science in Society, Bryn Mawr College and Serendip
Last Modified:
Wednesday, 02-May-2018 10:51:22 CDT
|