The Essence of Peopling - 4 views
-
“People”
-
Terry Elliott on 19 Apr 15To talk about "people" is to objectify and alienate. Making nouns of anything is a way to separate them from the world.
-
-
“peopling”
-
"Peopling" on the other hand is about human folk connecting to the world--subjectifying and unshackling the word.
-
-
-
The first part of this essay is an account of innermost peopling – the social, self-conscious nature of human cognition. The second part of this essay moves outward, connecting cognition to the rituals and social information flows that make up the most important parts of our environment.
- ...19 more annotations...
-
In Others in Mind: The Social Origins of Self-Consciousness (one of my favorite books of all time), Philippe Rochat presents a social model of human cognition,
-
-
Rochat, in contrast, models human cognition as fundamentally social in nature. Each person learns to be aware of himself – is constrained toward self-consciousness – by other people being aware of him. He learns to manage his image in the minds of others, and finds himself reflected, as in a mirror, through the interface of language and non-verbal communication.
-
We learn to become self-aware, we are "constrained" toward that goal by other folk. Other folk are our first mirrors through non-verbal then oral and then written "interfaces".
-
-
infinite recursion
-
infinite recursion
-
We see ourselves through the constraining influences of other people, through the 'peopling' of others. Others people us. It is a limited recursion. I think this has significance in #rhizo15. How? We are all seeing ourselves through the eyes of others. How accurate is that subjective view? Sometimes it is off by degrees of magnitude. For example, I see some pretty effusive praise for stuff that by its nature is half-baked. Yes, some is very good for a first draft, but most goes little past the initial draft and into further revision. I expect further recursion, further refinement through reciprocal action, sometimes I get it, mostly I don't. Part of me take no offense while another part is deeply disturbed that the responses I get are so cursory. And the cursory nature of most responses, the desultory considerations of others we have come to respect become the default. And, worse, they become internalized as the default mutual mental modeling. Shallow of necessity, quick by force of circumstance, and a bare reciprocal exigency.
-
How much of that is on other people? How much of it is on us? How inviting are we to gather up ideas, particularly those who challenge our thinking? That "infinite" word in there .. that's a lot of recursive thinking going back and forth, toppling on itself ...
-
-
The self is not unitary and separate from others; peopling occurs in the context of mutual-mental-modeling relationships, which continue to affect each person when he is alone.
-
Each person’s self is spread out among many people, simulated in all their brains at varying levels of granularity. And each person has a different “self” for each one of the people he knows, and a different self for every social context.
-
Therefore, we have different subjective reflections from among different folk. Each reflection is a unique self simulated by another's mind. The same is true for social context. We have a Rhizo15 self created by our Rhizo15 folk. My question here is whether it is in any way an objective measure and does that matter? Should any of us care about the simulations of others? Should we rebel and subvert these simulacra because they are not 'us'? It is hard to argue for this position simply because this acceptance of the peopling of others seems quite natural. It is natural for us to consider this subjective and recursive view from others as the real deal. Or is it just the default view? Can we generate another way toward identity that is a balance between outer and inner subjectivity?
-
-
The self at work is different from the self at home with close friends, or in bed with a spouse. And none of these are the “true self” – rather, the self exists in all these, and in the transitions between them. There can never be one single, public self; to collapse all these multiple selves together would be akin to social death.
-
We are many selves. No one reflection gets them all not even our own. Especially not our own.
-
This reminds me of how to think of our students -- of their lives outside of our classroom,our building ... what literacies are authentic for them?
-
-
Mentally maintaining one’s identity in relation to others, including one’s accurate social status and relationships in each case, is the core task of being human.
-
Powerful assertion here. And the proof is in asking what happens when we do not maintain that identity.
-
-
a huge portion of our internal cognitive machinery, of which we are not normally aware, is concerned with the ordinary function of maintaining one’s own identity and that of others
-
I wonder how much of our cognitive load is spent maintaining (breaking down and building up) identity, the metabolism of identity?
-
-
Baumeister and Masicampo posit that interfacing between identities – both within a single mind, and between minds – is the purpose of conscious thought (Conscious Thought Is for Facilitating Social and Cultural Interactions: How Mental Simulations Serve the Animal–Culture Interface). And just as Rochat proposes that we are “constrained toward consciousness” by others, Kevin Simler says that we “infect” each other with personhood.
-
Three views of this social model of cognition: 1. Baumeister and Masicampo: conscious thought is the transport mechanism for moving between inner identity and outer identity. 2.Rochat: we become conscious because of others, 'constrained by folk' in order to be. 3. Simler: we infect each other with consciousness through the interaction of identity.
-
-
There is a profound irreconcilability or dissonance between first-and third-person perspectives on the self once objectified and valued. This dissonance shapes behaviors in crucial ways, as individuals try to reconcile their own and others’ putative representations about them. These two representational systems are always at some odds or in conflict, always in need of readjustment. It is so because these systems are open, and they do not share the same informational resources: direct, permanent, and embodied for the first-person perspective on the self; indirect, more fleeting, and disembodied for the third-person perspective on the self. A main property of this dissonance is that it tends to feed into itself and can reach overwhelming proportions in the life of individuals. More often than not, this dissonance is a major struggle, expressed in the nuisance of self-conscious behaviors that hinder creativity and the smooth “flow” of interpersonal exchanges. Others in Mind, p. 41
-
I have never seen the problem of identity so succinctly put. And it explains why there is and can be no permanent solution to the conflict here except perhaps the meditative one of observing the breath and making that identity.
-
-
People are able to accomplish this feat of mutual simulation by use of two tools: language and ritual. Ritual allows for the communication of information that language can’t convey – hard-to-fake costly signals of commitment, dependability, harmoniousness, and cooperative intent.
-
So how do we play this infinite game of mutually modelling each other's identities to each the other? Language and ritual Language for the easy stuff and ritual for the hard stuff. So what are the #rhizo15 rituals?
-
-
If humans are somehow calibrated to expect a constant flow of social information, then the sparseness of ritual and social participation in modern environments might trigger a cascade of rumination.
-
The sparseness of ritual environment in rhizo15 is very painful to me. The sparseness of feedback from language is just as painful, but the lack of ritual makes it even more so. Dreadfully more so. In fact I am on the edge of withdrawing all the time. I think it is the ritual that will save me.
-
-
-
A very simple example is greetings. “Greeting everyone you see” is a candidate for a ritual universal, a part of the ritual atmosphere that displays good fit with peopling
-
-
(with some caveats).
-
Ritual 2:"Serene Social Sloth Sunday, a made-up internet holiday in which we avoid posting "outrage porn"
-
-
Ritual 4: Share natural spaces through YouTube, make part of any group meeting e.g. Hangout.
-
Ritual 5: "With joy and zest, publicly celebrate milestones and recurring events. Affirming shared history, we nourish community, crystallize a sense of accomplishment, and build group identity by unifying our stories and common goals. Can be planned and ritualized, or as spontaneous as a group cheer." Celebrate | Group Works. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://groupworksdeck.org/patterns/Celebrate
-
Ritual 6: Feedforward with the imagination. In other words project your self into the future and 'recall' all that 'happened' from the beginning of #rhizo15. In a way I think this defines what rhizomatic learning is. Each of us creates identity for the group by being who we are with the voices we have. Why not imagine that forth along with others instead of relying solely upon the weekly proddings of one person identified as 'teacher/leader'. Feedforwardings would allow us to compare rhizomatic identities. and from there decide where we might go as a group as well as individually.
-
-
Information about the self from the first-person perspective tends to be inflated and self-aggrandizing; information about the self from the third-person perspective, projected into the minds of others, tends to be deflated and self-deprecatory.
-
-
A freeway is useful for getting from place to place, but it’s not a place to merely exist in the moment.
-
Interesting, since the "internet highway" was an early metaphor for technology and online elements .. and now we are working on ways to slow down, be more reflective, plant flowers along the ugly underpasses of the freeway
-
-
“we’re here to fart around together.”
-
-
In conclusion, drink tea, together with your friends; pay attention to the tea, and to your friends, and pay attention to your friends paying attention to the tea. Therein lies the meaning of life.
-
There are also linguistic differences...for example, the verb vs noun thing does not work the same in Spanish (and perhaps to some extent in other Romance languages as in English, where verbs are the power words. Syntax and the role of particles-prefixes are other factors.
