I'll make a few comments in italics:
Starting with the observation that you provided a narrative that serves as a descriptive example of "a fear".
In your last posting Allan you wrote that, '.... its not always that we imagine something in the dark that we then fear.' Let me try to illustrate this through: Fact, Vulnerability & Imagination by way of both a current and practical example. On Saturday (Dec 04, 2010), we visited New York City and it became my wife -Memory's first experience on a Ferry. For the past nine years of our marriage, I tried to persuade her-Memory, that it is safe to be on a: boat, ship, canoe, ferry and so on; but she always told me that she would rather be on anything else than to risk her life on top of water.
Now on Saturday, our friends (married -man & woman) who were with us asked each one of us to pick on a favorite place to visit and they were willing to take us there no matter what. My wife picked Ground Zero and I picked the Statue of liberty. I picked my choice on purpose knowing that the trip was going to include a boat or a ferry. My wife was not alert enough to think about all that and our friends were not aware if anything. So, when it was time for my choice we simply walked to the Ferry station and got into the ferry in the midst of hundreds of other people.
As were sitting down, my wife (Memory) whispered into my ears, 'Today you got me, you must be very happy then, and if anything happens to me, you are responsible..' I laughed out loud and our friends became very curious and we had to share the joke. One of them asked, what is your problem with water, have you drowned before or what? Memory's response was, It is purely nothing close to that but I know that I can not swim very well or rather I can't swim (which is a fact) so I feel vulnerable on water...... What if the worst happens and everyone swims for safety leaving me behind, to die from drowning (imagination). Through her explanation, it was clear that the fact her not being a good swimmer -mixed with the imagination of being left behind by some good swimmers to drown alone and die caused her to be fearful.
Nonetheless, the man-my friend- also shared his past experiences with the water and that he is not a good swimmer. He expressed that his peace during such moments comes from the fact that there are always life jackets available in case of emergence, and also that there were many other people like him -not good at swimming- as well. So, as we continued to talk, take pictures, and so on, the ferry was moving and we safely got to the other side and came back. I was glad she also enjoyed the trip.
It may be useful to consider similarities and differences between "fear" and say, "pain". These are concepts that aim to capture a wide-range of particulars experienced as "my fear" and "my pain". Put differently, "my fear" is not "your fear" and "my pain" is not "your pain". Yet we use a common concept to communicate a very vague and general sense of these psychological and sometimes physical senses of ourselves. In this way, I agree with what you cited from Tuan below....we are not discussing "a permanent state of mind". In fact, "states of mind" is a troublesome locution. But it is a convenient and also conventional one.
It's much much harder to begin to build up a framework of understanding that includes that "individual" and the "group". To the point that, "my fear" (in the way I experience it "whole") is totally unique. Yet it most likely will share in some common aspects of "others' fears" . And then there is a troublesome mistake of treating the use of the concept as point to something that it cannot point to.
The concept misses the phenomena we want to grasp and better understand. And this is where description comes in. That is: description in the words, body language, attitudes of the person having the experience. And these descriptions may shed light on a more precise understanding of the nature of what "fear" . More important though than "defining" is how this plural and diverse reformed notion of "fear" connects usefully with other experienced phenomena. At the described level of "experiences had" (qualitatively respected in their uniqueness) there is room for understanding overlaps with "other kinds of experiences" (such as "leadership").
How individual and group fear is manifested and described (probably with conventional conceptual norms....all of which carry with them enormous taken for granted assumptions and "baggage") (this is the job of philosophy to get at and unpack).... and how this is then understood as parallel or connected to other experiences..... this interests me.
These views are pretty much what I take away from reading Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations). The work of philosophy (thinking about things) is located at the level of "ordinary words in use" (in the contexts of their uses.
Now the question is; Will my wife be OK with all the waters from now on? Should I think that her fear is completely gone? I do not really know.
It strikes me as "good" that you cannot really know. There is really very little we can "know" in the conventional sense of "knowing" (scientific and explanatory or predictive) about an individuals conscious-dynamic of their experiences (had, felt, known). So when you reported how Memory reported and described her "fear" it was like a whole world in just a few sentences. The question of how to deal with anything that seems to stand in need of correction (therapy or education) is also something that is largely due to actual transactions....of individuals with environments....and sometimes these environments have people in them (as part of them). In this case, you and your friends....through an experience....begin a transacted, social process of which a predictable "outcome" is not knowable in advance. However, I suggest that the qualities of those transactions make an enormous difference.
In this way...nothing can truly be generalized. And everything important to know and sense is known and sensed by respecting particulars. Yet, with a studied range of particulars, described with a desire to capture the whole perception of the "subjects experience/s".... one has a different platform for then creating a different kind of generalization from what is possibly a new configuration of similarities and differences that are observed. This mode of approaching something is potentially more "respectful" of how people actually "experience".
Anywhere, if that happens sooner or later, then probably this may be a way to confirm what Yi-Fu Tuan (1979) pointed out in his study,Landscapes of Fear. He wrote that, 'Landscapes of fear are not permanent states of mind tied to invariant segments of tangible reality;....'(p. 8). Still, the fact that Tuan further pointed out, 'we need to approach landscapes of fear... from the perspectives of both the individual and the group .... and to place them in a historical frame'(p.8), makes it imperative that we do not make some generalized conclusions when dealing with the phenomenon of fear. I do not think it would be fair to use my wife's case to come up with a position that fits all.
I do not really know, we will see ...
To see a little more clearly is always a good goal!!
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment