Sun-hong’s online journal

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds.
Massachusetts: Harvard                             University Press. Approaching the literary Nicholas of Lyra proposed many centuries ago, for example, that biblical texts are amenable to four levels of interpretation: litera, moralis, allegoria, and anagogia, the literal, the ethical, the historical, and the mystical. (p.5)
But stories, in Paul Ricoeur’s phrase, are “models for the redescription of the world.” But the story is not by itself the model. It is, so to speak, an instantiation of models we carry in our own minds. (p.7)
P8. Bruner narrate his experience about tension between psychology and narrative.
David Rumelhart, began to work on “story grammars,” formal descriptions of the minimum structure that yielded stories or storylike sequences. And as if part of a Zeitgeist, even historians and historiographers, not notable for innovative courage, were again brooding about the powers of narrative history – Francis Parkman, say, in contrast to an analytic social economist sorting over the same period. (p9)
I discovered that there were two styles of approaching narrative, a discovery pressed upon me while I was teaching concurrently two seminars on narrative. One of them, at the New school for Social Research, was dominated by psychologists. The other, at the New York Institute for the Humanities, was made up of playwrights, poets, novelists, critics, editors. Both seminars where interested in psychological questions; both were interested in literary questions. Both were interested in readers and in writers. Bother were interested in texts. But one group, the psychologist, was dedicated to working “top down,” the other to working “bottom-up.” It is a distinction worth exploring, one that foretells something about the conflict one senses in working on narrative and on the psychology of literature generally. (p.9)
P10 top-down approach and bottom-up approach…

1. Two modes of thought

There are two modes of cognitive functioning, two modes of thought, each providing distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality. The two (though complementary) are irreducible to one another. Efforts to reduce one mode to the other or to ignore one at the expense of the other inevitably fail to the rich diversity of thought.              Each other ways of knowing, moreover, has operating principles of its own and its own criteria of well-formedness. They differ radically in their procedures for verification. A good story and a well-formed argument are different natural kinds. Both can be used as  means for convincing another. Yet what they convince of is fundamentally different; arguments convince one of their truth, stories of their lifelikeness. The one verifies by eventual appeal to procedures for establishing formal empirical proof. The other establishes not truth but verisimilitude. (p.11)
P12.  Karl popper and story.
P14
Science – particularly theoretical physics – also proceeds by constructing worlds in a comparable way, by “inventing” the facts (or world) against which the theory must be tested. But the striking difference is that, from time to time, there are moments of testing when, for example, light can be shown to be bent or neutrinos must be shown to leave marks in a cloud chamber. It may indeed be the case, as Quine has urged, that physics is 99 percent speculation and 1 percent observation. But the world making involved in its speculations is of a different order from what story making does. Physics must eventuate in predicting something that is testably right, however much it may speculate. Stories have no such need for testability. Believability in a story is of a different order than the believability of even the speculative parts of physical theory. If we apply Poppers’ criterion of falsifiability to a story as a test of its goodness, we are guilty of misplaced verification. (p.14)
Narrative deals with the vicissitudes of human intentions. (p.16)
Literary theorists as various as Victor Turner, Tzvetan Todorov, Hayden White , and Vladimir Propp suggest that there is some such constraining deep structure to narrative, and that good stories are well-formed particular realizations of it. Not all literary scholars take this view – Barbara Hernstein Smith being a notable dissenting voice. (p.16)
Perhaps, as with Aristotle’s recipe for tragedy in the Poetics, drama is a working out of character in action in a plot constrained by a setting. (p.20).
Which brings us directly to Wolfgang Iser’s reflections in the act of reading in what manner of speech act is a narrative. (p.24).  – who is he???
Discourse – presupposition, subjectification, mode, intention, result, manner, aspect
The second is what I shall call subjectification: the depiction of reality not through an omniscient eye that views a timeless reality, but through the filter of the consciousness of protagonists in the story. Joyce, in the stories of Dubliners, rarely even hints at how the world really is. We see only the realities of the characters themselves – leaving us like the prisoners in Plato’s cave, viewing only the shadows of events we can never know directly. (p.25) I believe that the writer’s greatest gift to a reader is to help him become a writer. (p.37)I believe that the great writer’s gift to a reader is to make him a better writer.
The rights of persons are formulated in society, while the rights of individuals are demanded of society.” And so Molloy and Malone, the zaniness of the individual soldier in the midst of an insane war, rip-off as the redistribution of property. (p.41)
The virtue of such models is that they enable us to keep an enormous amount in mind while paying attention to a minimum of detail. This is the crowning achievement of the kind of model creation that we call “science” – one of the forms of world making. (p.48)
As I noted in the preceding chapter, folk theories about the human condition remain embedded in metaphor and in a language that serves the end of narrative. And folk narrative of this kind has as much claim to “reality” as any theory we may construct in psychology by the use of our most astringent scientific methods. Indeed, many thoughtful students of psychology believe that one of the richest sources of data for the construction of an adequate psychology are these very folk theories – a notable example being Fritz Heider. Such a psychology would, of course, be more “interpretive” than positivist, its task being to provide a richer, yet more abstract interpretation of human “theories in action,” much as the interpretive cultural antoropologist provides an explication de texte of the culture. (p. 49)
This brings us directly to the activities of the humanist – the historian, the literary critic, the philosopher, the interpreter of culture. And, of course, the artist: the poet, the storyteller, the painter, the dramatist, the maker of music. (p.49).
Science creates a world that has an “existence” linked to the invariance of things and events across transformations in the life conditions of those who seek to understand – though modern physics has shown that this is true within very constrained limits. The humanities seek to understand the world as it reflects the requirements of living in it. In the jargon of linguistics, a work of literature or of literary criticism achieves universality through context sensitivity, a work of science through context independence. (p.50)
Aristotle in the Poetics puts the conclusion well: “The poet’s function is to describe, not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible as being probable or necessary…..And if he should come to take a subject from actual history, he is none the less a poet for that; since some historic occurrences may very well be in the probably once possible order of things: and it is in that aspect of them that he is their poet.” (p.54)  

Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research

None of the
Frankfurt school theorists ever claimed to have developed a unified approach to cultural criticism. (p.87)

There are many critical theories not just one ; the critical tradition is always changing and evolving ; and critical theory attempts to avoid too much specificity since there is room for disagreement among critical theorists. (p.89)

Critical theorists claim that instrumental/technical rationality is more interested with method and efficiency than purpose. It delimits its questions to “how to” instead of “why should.” In a research context, critical theorists claim that many rationalistic scholars become so obsessed with issues of technique, procedure, and correct method that they forget the humanistic purpose of the research act(p. 91)

In the context of oppressive power and its ability to produce inequalities and human suffering, Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony is central to critical research.

Gramscian hegemony recognizes that the winning of popular consent is a very complex process and must be researched carefully in a case-by-base basis. (p93)

Critical researchers appreciate the fact that language is not a neutral and objective conduit of description of the “real world.” Rather from a critical perspective, linguistic descriptions are not simply about the world but serve to construct it. (p94)

Within these limitations, however, the interpretations emerging from the hermeneuticic process can still move us to new levels of understanding, appreciations that allow us to “live our way” into an experience described to us………The production of such thick descriptions/interpretations follows no step-by-step blueprint or mechnical formula. As with any art form, hermeneuticical analysis can be learned only in the Deweyan sense – by doing it. (P.97)

The parts and the unique places they occupy ground hermeneuticical ways of seeing by providing the contextualization of the particular – a perspective often erased in traditional

Inquiry’s search for abstract generalizations (Kellner, 1995; Gallagher, 1992; Peters & Lankshear, 1994; Miller & Hodge, 1998).

Criticcal researchers with a hermeneuticial insight take Dewey’s insight to heart as they pursue their inquiry. (p.99)

Researchers, whether they admit it or not, always have  a point of view, a disciplinary orientation, a social or political group with which they identify (Kincheloe, 1991; Lugg, 1996).

Since language is always slippery with its meaning every “in process,” critical hermeneuticics understand that interpretations will never be linguistically unproblematic, will never be direct representations. (p.102)

In this context, Paulo Freire’s (1985) contribution to the development of a critical hermeneuticics is especially valuable. Understanding that the generative themes of a culture are central features in a critical social analysis, Freire assumes that the interpretive process is both an ontological ( pertaining to being) and an epistemological (pertaining to knowledge) act. (p.103)

Critical hermeneuticics names the world as a part of a larger effort to evaluate it and make it better. Knowing this, it is easy to understand why critical hermeneuticics focuses on domination and its negation, emancipation. Domination limits self-direction and democratic community-building while emancipation enables it. (p.103)

12.22

He mentioned Aristole’s poetics as the paradigm for the kind of referential claim which seems to me be relevant for fictions in general. This is where it can be connected to Schwab. (p.8)

I read Can Fictional narrative be true? (B3279.H94.A129 V.14)

Written by Paul Ricoeur, a famous French philosopher. Also I borrowed his two books “Time and Narrative” and “The rule of Metaphor” I will ask Dr.Craig about his position, then  I will read it.

The purpose of this essay will be to grasp as a whole the narrative kinds of discourse ranging from the most “fictional,” such as tales, romances, dramas, novels, and movies, to the most “empirical,” including histories, biographies, and autobiographies. To put this problem in terms that Wittgenstein has made popular among philosophers, I want to attempt to grasp all these narrative modes as a unique “language-game,” And following Wittgenstein’s example, this means to refer it to some “form of life.” (Ricoeur, p.3)

The time has come to remind ourselves that the term history in most of our Indo-European languages has the intriguing ambiguity of meaning both “what actually happened” and the report of those happenings. (Ricoeur, p.3)

It is in no way my intention to cancel or to obscure the obvious differences between history and the whole set of fictional narratives in terms of their truth-claims. There is a level of analysis and of argumentation for which a conventional concept of truth, defined in terms of empirical verification and falsification, is perfectly valid. (Ricoeur p.4)

To the extent that the great historian cannot help taking a position in the present world of social praxis, the implicit “set of prescriptions” which rule his “metapolitical position” may be approached on the basis of Mannheims’ categorization of ideologies: anarchism, conservatism, radicalism, and liberalism. (Ricoeur p.7)

“Perceptions is already selective and interpretative in its activity. (Ricoeur p.9)

Note that these are the three traits we already encountered in Aristotle’s concept of mythos: saying, making, and emploting. (Ricoeur p.10)

In the conventional sense attached to the term “truth” by the acquaintance with this body of science, only historical knowledge may enunciate its referential claim as a “truth”-cliam. But the very meaning of this truth –claim is itself measured by the limiting network which rules the conventional descriptions of the world. (Ricoeur p.11) 

In other words, our problem is to show how the speaking of our narrative language is part of a form of life (Ricoeur p.11) 

Can fictional narrative be true?

Can narrative become a dissertation?

 I limited myself to published work from 1980 to present. I searched only the trouble shooting problems literature, which means that an equally large number of studies might be found in marketing, organizational dynamics, education, or clinical and counseling domains. I did not include problems solving issues in behavior psychology or cognitive development literature. Finally, I do not claim to be exhaustive in covering all the related literature.

Well-structured problems might be thought of as “puzzles” (Kitchener 1983; Neisser 1976) with a single correct answer, arrived at through application of explicit rules comprising part of a production system(Simon 1978, 1979) within a problem space conceived of as a necessarily closed system (Newell & Simon 1972). Ill-structured problems are more amorphous dilemmas, open to multiple solutions; any particular solution is in large part dependent on the breadth of the problem space. (p25.)

Simon (1978) offers a list of features that distinguish between well-structured and ill-structured problems. The latter differ from the former in that the criterion for establishing goal attainment is more complex and less definite; instructions alone provide incomplete information for problem solution; the boundaries of what might be considered relevant information are vague; and movement from step to step in the solution process is not readily predictable.

The concern with everyday problem solving has arisen in conjunction with an increasing concern with the role of contextual factors in cognitive activities (Rogoff & Lave, 1984).

The thrust of this concern is an appreciation of the fact that thinking is constrained by the context in which it occurs. The impact of context on everyday problem solving is pervasive, and is likely to increase with an individual’s acknowledgement of the relativity, arbitrariness, and contradictions inherent in any problem and its solution. (p.26)

너무나 많은 아이디어가 쏟아져 나오는 요즘이다. 어젯밤에 내가 나한테 놀라서 새벽 3시에 샤워를 했다. 흥분이 되서 잠이 오지 않는 것이다. 휴스턴에 있을 수 있는 비지니스 아이템을 생각해낸 것이다. 하지만 이건 졸업하고 난 이후다. 만약 이걸 지금 하면 졸업이 안되는 수가 있다. 8시까지 자는둥 마는 둥 하고 우유한잔 마시고 학교로 향했다. Jump loop를 한바탕 하고 학교에서 article을 읽는 데 여전히 흥분이 가시지 않았다. 12시정도 까지 읽는둥 마는둥 하고 12:30쯤 랩실로 향했다. Tim과 몇명이 오전일을 마치고 막 점심을 먹으려고 갈라는 찰나였다. 나는 남아서   cover up하겠다고 했지만 (속으로는 I am hungry, too) 같이 가고 싶으면 같이 가도 된다고 해서 나도 끼였다. (a sa!!!) 딘, 안젤라, 팀 그리고 나 4명이서 차이니즈 스타에 가서 식사를 하고 돌아와서 열심히 일했다…팀은 식사시간에도 여전히 우리를 웃겼다. 랩에서 일하다가 휴식시간에 방학동안 가고 싶은 곳을 얘기하는데 내가 cancon이라고 얘기하자 딘이 다니엘한테 우리를 그곳으로 데려가 달라고 했다. 다니엘이 최근에 미국사람이 그곳에서 get raped되었다고 하길래 야 미국애가 get raped되면 아시안들은 gang bang당하겠네..거기는 안가는 게 좋겠다. 그러니까 다들 넘어갔다…이 놈의 유머감각은 태평양을 넘어와도 여전하다… 

                                        어마마마…….저 선홍장군 문안드리옵니다. 아직 교수님과의 관계는 잘 진척이 안되오나 교수님께 잘 보이기 위해 열심히 공부하고 있고 저에게는 저 좋다고 쫓아다니는 5명의 아가씨가 있사오니 너무 제 장가때문에 심려 하지 마시옵소서.. 생일때는 안젤라 라는 국민학교 선생하는 미국낭자가 노래도 불러주고 밥도 사줘서 잘 얻어 먹었습니다. 그래도 눈깔 파란 며느리는 곤란할 것 같아 그냥 얻어먹기만 하고 말았습니다.  그 다음날은 한국학생들끼리 교수님과 함께 만나 한 해 또 잘 보냈다고 회포를 풀었는데…교수님이 지나가는 말로 자기는 의리가 있고 그런 남자가 좋다고 그럽니다. 캬..부산사나이 앞에서 의리를 논하시다니…의리하면 황의리인데.교수님이 또 제 가슴에 불을 댕겼습니다. 그래도 혹시 또 모르니 새해 계획을 세웠습니다.
“어리버리한 인간말고 의리 있는 인간이 되자…” 어마마마…이제 여기는 12월19일 오후 4시가 다 되갑니다.  날씨는 약간 쌀쌀합니다. 또 문안인사 드리겠습니다. 만수무강 하십시오.   

장장 5시간에 걸쳐 교수님한테 발렌타인 데이때 보낼 편지를 적었다. 그리고 친척과 가족을 간략히 소개하는 글을 적어 보냈다. 영희 선배가 자기 가족 얘기들을 많이 했으니 나도 하는것이 당연하지 않나 싶다.

CITE lab에서 일을 좀 했다. 혹시나 사람이 없으면 곤란 할것 같아서 가 봤는데 사람은 생각보다 많았다. 다행이다. 우리는 끈끈한 사람들이라서. 

수강신청을 했다. 수강신청이 블럭된 이유는 예상한 대로 돈을 내지 않아서 인데 파킹비로만 213불이었다. 다음 학기는 파킹실수로 생기는 비용을 100불 미만으로 줄여야 겠다.

배가 고픈데 한국음식이 먹고 싶어 좀 멀지만 서울마켓에 갔다. 갔다 오면서 차안에서 아이디어가 마구 쏟아졌다. 어떻게 하면 교수님께서 쵸콜렛을 받게 할 수 있을까? 보성이 진성이가 공부하는 중학교로 찾아가는 것이다. 가서 쵸콜렛을 맡기면서 보성이, 진성이가
드리는 것처럼 해서 올해는 초콜렛과 편지를 같이 드리고 받아드리시지 않더라도 
내년에 다이아 반지로 다시 도전할 계획이다. 될때까지……

비지니스 아이디어는 영어강사 에이전트를 시작으로 휴스턴에서 온라인 강의를 하는것으로 옮겨갔다. 한국 메가스터디에 양질의 강사를 공급한다는 계약을 하고, agent역할을 하는것이다. 문제는 능력있는 강사들이 한국 현지에 가기는 그렇다는 것이다. 거기서 그럼 여기서 온라인으로 가르칠수 있도록 하자는 생각이 들었다. 비단 영어뿐만 아니라 중급반을 대상으로 한 영어와 컴퓨터,  경상도 사투리와 컴퓨터, 전라도 사투리와 컴퓨터등등의 특화된 내용을 공급하는 것이다…..

LIT 박목사님한테 이 계획을 말씀드리고 허락을 받고, 한국에 계신 김성봉 선생님한테도 말씀드리는 것이다.  강사로는 Tim(window xp+영어)과 Michael(Adobe premiere+영어), 송호림(전라도 사투리 + photoshop), 황선홍(경상도 사투리+digital story), 김성봉 선생님(영어) 웹싸이트를 만들어서 그걸 나중에 파는 것이다. 더 큰 회사한테…Ok..교육은 유통사업이다. 난 사람 장사를 해야한다.

사회적 약자에 대한 공동체의 책임을 묻는 것, 그것이 진보의 혈액형이다.

나는 진보다.

[문학속의공간] ⑭학교-순수하기에는 버거운 현실

햇살 가득한 교정에 정답은 너무 근엄해학교란 교사와 학생이 지식과 도리를 가르치고 배우는 곳이다. 당연히 가르치는 쪽은 교사고, 배우는 쪽은 학생이다. 그러나 인생이라는 커다란 학교에서는 가르치는 사람과 배우는 사람이 반드시 명쾌하게 구분되는 것은 아니다. 학생이 교사 노릇을 할 수도 있고, 교사가 학생처럼 배울 수도 있는 것이다. 생전에 별다른 벼슬이 없었던 고인을 `학생’이라 높여 부른 것은 끝없는 배움의 과정으로서 삶의 본질을 정확히 포착하고 있었기에 가능한 일이다.