[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Imagination
I am imagining Yutaka Sayeki's presentation of participation by entering
the inner form of the teacup and then moving to the external vantage point
but with a new "sense" of possibility and a new approach to the teacup as
object as enacting a Mobius strip type of oscillation?
Also the way Yutaka Sayeki's connected Noddings notion of "caring for"
and the shrine carpenter's "caring for" the shrine [object] as showing us
a "disposition" or character type that embodies "bestowing care" on the
"other" [material or social objects] and in this way, approaching
the other through creating a "mutual space" that the participants come to
inhabit as an "actual place" The possible and the actual as a Mobius strip.
Peg shared the ethical principles of Sayeki's articulation of kobito theory
in order to arrive at "deep understanding":
In kobito theory as elaborated by Sayeki, "point of view" and active
participation in different modes of activities (such as "throwing in, "
"acting out," and "feeling about") is considered to be crucial for
exercising roles of actors, viewers (audience and directors) in order to
get deep understanding.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dear Beth!
> Don't go away!
> I would suggest that when there is a collision of sameness in the
> timelessness of now, that it means that there is a now-ness that for the
> most part of all infinite parts (objects like onions) exploding all about,
> means above all all-ness, that you, above all, are on the right track! :)
> This means that the sychronicity of events is not something that can be
> planned, nor can it be *merely* a coincidence, but that there is a flow of
> events (in the stream of time) that means there is meaning there and here
> and everywhere all at once!
> This is to say that consciousness is not "inside" us or that everything
> "outside" is nothingness, but rather that consciousness is ALL THERE IS:
> there is no inside/outside.
> We are swimming in consciousness, a knowingness of all that was, is, and,
> will be.
> If there is no inside nor outside, then how does one surrender? What does
> one surrender to?
> There is just is-ness, which is a vision of joy!
> It's about the connection to the thing...
> Kind regards,
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 8:33 PM, Beth Ferholt <email@example.com>
> I have been thinking all weekend about Yitang Zhang's description of
> solving a math problem that had not been solved in over a century. It was
> just in the New Yorker and it was odd to read both what Mike and Peg sent,
> above. and this in one weekend. They both remind me of Martin Buber's I
> and You relationship with the cat ... relationships with numbers, cats and
> teacups sounds like Alice in Wonderland.
> Zhang was in a friend's back yard, taking a several week break from
> thinking about the problem, and then, he says, "I see numbers, equations,
> and something even -- its hard to say what it is. Something very special.
> Maybe numbers, maybe equations -- a mystery, maybe a vision."
> Buber says of, perhaps, surrendering -- the power of exclusiveness has
> seized me.
> And then there is play, which is often dialogue with an object, no?
> Always? When Harriet the spy tries out being an onion, for instance.
> THanks for these,
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Is feeling "surrendering" or just feeling?
> > If feeling is just feeling, then is there a need to surrender?
> > Kind regards,
> > Annalisa
> Beth Ferholt
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
> 2900 Bedford Avenue
> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
> Email: email@example.com
> Phone: (718) 951-5205
> Fax: (718) 951-4816