(Не)определение реальности

В этой статье я предлагаю один из возможных подходов к определению реальности. Реальность – это то, что случается между строк. Иными словами, реальность состоит в интеракциональной игре между общими для всех фреймами события (теми "строками", которые обозначены бесспорно) и другими фреймами, которые, будучи действительными для некоторых участников, как правило, недоступны для остальных. Реальность является игрой реальностей – эксплицитной и неявной, скрытой или альтернативной – которые сосуществуют в какой-либо конкретной ситуации. (Перевод с англ. Муравьевой Л.Е.)

(Не)определение реальности:

изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2799319

English Abstract:  

The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight

I shall put forward here a definition of reality, or perhaps a particular take or perspective on reality. Reality is what happens between the lines. Or again, reality is constituted by the interactional play between shared frames of action (those "lines" which are unproblematically on the page) and other frames which, though they may be active for some of the participants, are not generally shared. Reality is a play of realities — the explicit one, and other secret, discreet or alternative realities which coexist in any given situation. (Russian translation by L. E. Muravieva).

Note: Downloadable document is available in Russian.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 9
Keywords: Interactionalism, Frame theory, Perspectivism, Philosophy, Topsight, Narratology, Reality, Social behaviorism, Interpretation

Reference Info: OpeNarratology (March 16, 2016)

  

eJournal Classifications (Date posted: June 23, 2016)

AARN Subject Matter eJournals      Psychological Anthropology eJournal - CMBO          AARN: Cognitive Anthropology (Topic) - CMBO

AARN Subject Matter eJournals      Cultural Anthropology eJournal - CMBO          AARN: Theory (Topic) - CMBO              AARN: Emerging Areas of Theory (Sub-Topic) - CMBO

CSN Subject Matter eJournals      Cognition & Culture: Culture, Communication, Design, Ethics, Morality, Religion, Rhetoric, & Semiotics eJournal - CMBO          CSN: General Cognition & Culture (Topic) - CMBO

PRN Subject Matter eJournals      Philosophy of Action eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Action Theory (Topic) - CMBO

PRN Subject Matter eJournals      Epistemology eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Knowledge (Topic) - CMBO

PRN Subject Matter eJournals      Social & Political Philosophy eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Metatheory, Methodology, Standpoint Theory (Topic) - CMBO

PRN Subject Matter eJournals      Continental Philosophy eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Phenomenology (Topic) - CMBO

PRN Subject Matter eJournals      Philosophy of Mind eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Philosophy of Psychology & Cognitive Science (Topic) - CMBO

(Не)определение реальности: 

изменение рамок восприятия и спор законтролирующую перспективу

Also here:

_____. "(Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу." [The (In)definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight]. Trans. Larissa Muravieva. OpeNarratology 16 March 2016.*

https://www.opennar.com/singlepost/2016/03/16/Неопределение-реальности-изменение-рамок-восприятия-и-спор-за-контролирующую-перспективу

   http://www.opennar.com/accueil/author/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5-%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BB-%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B0-%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0-(Jos%C3%A9-%C3%81ngel-Garc%C3%ADa-Landa)

         2016 DISCONTINUED 2020

_____. "(Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу (The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight)." Trans. Larissa Muravieva. Social Science Research Network 23 June 2016.*

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=2799319

         2016

         Psychological Anthropology eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Psychological-Anthropology.html

         2016

         Cultural Anthropology eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Cultural-Anthropology.html

         2016

         Cognition&Culture … eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Cognition-Culture.html

         2016

         Philosophy of Action eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Philosophy-Action.html

         2016

         Epistemology eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Epistemology.html

         2016

         Social & Political Philosophy eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Social-Political-Philosophy.html

         2016

         Continental Philosophy eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Continental-Philosophy.html

         2016

         Philosophy of Mind eJournal 23 June 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Philosophy-Mind.html

         2016

_____. "(Не)определение реальности." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 25 July 2016.*

         http://vanityfea.blogspot.com.es/2016/07/blog-post_25.html

         2016

_____. (Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу." Trans. Larissa Muravieva. Academia 7 April 2017.*

         http://www.academia.edu/32313018

         2017

_____. (Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу." Trans. Larissa Muravieva. ResearchGate 8 April 2017.*

         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315824336

         2017

_____. "The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight."  Online at Wixstatic.com.*

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/3b11da_36190c7dd7e34db78be52587391d4d3d.docx?dn=In-definition.docx

         2021

_____. "The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight." Social Science Research Network 13 April 2016.*

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=2763243

         2016

         Cognition & Culture… & Semiotics eJournal 2 May 2016 (13 April 2016).*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Cognition-Culture.html

         2016

         Philosophy of Action eJournal 9.11 (19 April 2016).*

         http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/IssueProof.cfm?abstractid=2763243&journalid=1001534&issue_number=11&volume=9&journal_type=CMBO&function=showissue

         Online 13 April 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Philosophy-Action.html

         2016

         Metaphysics eJournal 9.11 (19 April 2016).*

         http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/IssueProof.cfm?abstractid=2763243&journalid=950386&issue_number=11&volume=9&journal_type=CMBO&function=showissue

         Online 13 April 2016.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Metaphysics.html

         2016

_____. "The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 27 April 2016.*

         http://vanityfea.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/the-indefinition-of-reality-reframing.html

         2016

_____. "The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight." Academia 9 April 2017.*

         https://www.academia.edu/32351646/

         2017

_____. ""The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight." ResearchGate 10 April 2017.*

         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315840394

         2017

  

—oOo—

Retropost #254 (22 de mayo de 2005): Lo que todos pensamos

Lo que todos pensamos no vale la pena decirlo, sería repetitivo. Cuánto menos escribirlo. Lo dicho explícitamente debe ser una pequeña punta de iceberg visible, lo que vale la pena mencionar o escribir, asentada sobre una gran masa sumergida en el silencio, lo que no vale la pena decir y no se dice pero que hace explicable lo que sí decimos (de este iceberg han hablado Hemingway y Merleau-Ponty). Qué raro, o qué tonto, el que se dedica a sacar a la luz parte de esa masa sumergida: para empezar suponemos que si hace asomar ese fragmento flotante será porque su masa sumergida tiene una estructura y volumen distinto al de la nuestra.

Como lo que se dice o se escribe es lo que no todos pensamos, eso crea dos efectos contrarios (turbulencias acuáticas alrededor del iceberg). Una: que las presuposiciones que utilizamos contribuyen a mantener en su sitio la masa de significado sumergido y presupuesto. Dos: que al hacerse visible única y constantemente lo que no todos pensamos, se erosiona lo que todos pensamos, de hecho parece que no lo piense nadie, pues todo el mundo dice otra cosa. Si hay observadores ajenos a la comunidad del común pensamiento, podrían fácilmente creer que nadie piensa lo que todos pensamos.

Pero hay más turbulencias. De hecho, sí que vale la pena decir lo que todos pensamos; no para informar, claro, sino para crear comunidad y solidaridad, o empatía. Esto es más relevante hacerlo en unas situaciones que en otras; a veces no necesitamos empatía sino información. (Que hay empatía también puede ser información relevante). El caso es que con tantas causas parciales o posibles para lo que se dice, no hay una manera simple de saber por qué decimos lo que decimos, ni qué pensamos detrás de lo que decimos, y menos aún qué pensamos detrás de lo que pensamos.

"However", dicen Sperber y Wilson, "we much prefer a model that can be applied mechanically. Isn’t this what taking cognitive science seriously is all about?" (Relevance 277). Perhaps. Pero, ¿y si la relación entre el modelo y el objeto a modelar no es mecánica, sino dialéctica? ¿Y si la ciencia, para hacer explícito lo que subyace a lo que se dice, pretende sacar el iceberg del agua levantándolo con un artilugio mecánico implantado en el propio iceberg?

En todo caso, no existen tales modelos mecánicos de la interpretación (menos mal). Y menos mal también que no todos pensamos lo mismo. Eso sí que nos silenciaría pero a base de bien.

Retroposts

—oOo—

The Structure of Irrelevance

La dinámica de lo relevante y de lo irrelevante en la realidad social—en Facebook se percibe agudamente, por ser espacio público comprimido, pero se aplica a todo espacio público o todo mundo social. Esto viene de Berger y Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality:

Although the total stock of knowledge represents the everyday world in an integrated manner, differentiated according to zones of familiarity and remoteness, it leaves the totality of that world opaque. Put differently, the reality of everyday life always appears as a zone of lucidity behind which there is a background of darkness. As some zones of reality are illuminated, others are adumbrated. I cannot know everything there is to know about this reality. Even if, for instance, I am a seemingly all-powerful despot in my family, and know this, I cannot know all the factors that go into the continuing success of my despotism. I know that my orders are always obeyed, but I cannot be sure of all the steps and all the motives that lie between the issuance and the execution of my orders. There are always things that go on 'behind my back'. This is true a fortiori when social relationships more complex than those of the family are involved—and explains, incidentally, why despots are endemically nervous. My knowledge of everyday life has the quality of an instrument that cuts a path through a forest and, as it does so, projects a narrow cone of light on what lies just ahead and immediately around; on all sides of the path there continues to be darkness. This image pertains even more, of course, to the multiple realities in which everyday life is continually transcended. This latter statement can be paraphrased, poetically if not exhaustively, by saying that the reality of everyday life is overcast by the penumbras of our dreams.

My knowledge of everyday life is structured in terms of relevances. Some of these are determined by immediate pragmatic interests of mine, others by my general situation in society. It is irrelevant to me how my wife goes about cooking my favourite goulash as long as it turns out the way I like it. It is irrelevant to me that the stock of a company is falling, if I do not own such stock; or that Catholics are modernizing their doctrine, if I am an atheist; or that it is now possible to fly non-stop to Africa, if I do not want to go there. However, my relevance structures intersect with the relevance structures of others at many points, as a result of which we have 'interesting' things to say to each other. An important element of my knowledge of everyday life is the knowledge of the relevance structures of others. Thus 'I know better' than to tell my doctor about my investment problems, my lawyer about my ulcer pains, or my accountant about my quest for religious truth. The basic relevance structures referring to everyday life are presented to me ready-made by the social stock of knowledge itself. I know that 'woman talk' is irrelevant to me as a man, that 'idle speculation' is irrelevant to me as a man of action, and so forth. Finally, the social stock of knowledge as a whole has its own relevance structure. Thus, in terms of the stock of knowledge objectivated in American society, it is irrelevant to study the movemements of the stars to predict the stock market, but it is relevant to study an individual's slips of the tongue to find out about his sex life, and so on. Conversely, in other societies, astrology may be highly relevant for economics, speech analysis quite irrelevant for erotic curiosity, and so on.

One final point should be made here about the social distribution of knowledge. I encounter knowledge in everyday life as socially distributed, that is, as possessed differently by different individuals and types of individuals. I do not share my knowledge equally with all my fellowmen, and there may be some knowledge that I share with no one. I share my professional expertise with colleagues, but not with my family, and I may share with nobody my knowledge of how to cheat at cards. The social distribution of knowledge of certain elements of everyday reality can become highly complex and even confusing to the outsider. I not only do not possess the knowledge supposedly required to cure me of a physical ailment, I may even lack the knowledge of which one of a bewildering variety of medical specialists claims jurisdiction over what ails me. In such cases, I require not only the advice of experts, but the prior advice of experts on experts. The social distribution of knowledge thus begins with the simple fact that I do not know everything known to my fellowmen, and vice versa, and culminates in exceedingly complex and esoteric systems of expertise. Knowledge of how the socially available stock of knowledge is distributed, at least in outline, is an important element of that same stock of knowledge. In everyday life I know, at least roughly, what I can hide from whom, whom I can turn to for information on what I do not know, and generally which types of individuals may be expected to have which types of knowledge.

(from ch. 2, "Language and Knowledge in Everyday Life")

______

PS, 2024: Hay que señalar que especialmente desde el memorable año 2020, por sentar una fecha representativa, el supuesto "conocimiento experto" está patas arriba y ha demostrado que los supuestos consensos y presuposiciones están allí para ser manipulados y reutilizados por quienes son más expertos que los expertos.... en manipular expertos, y a través de ellos a todo el cuerpo social.

Recontextualizando

 

—oOo—