[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: "cultivating Minds



Dear Larry,

[Did you mean to say "as-if" or "as-it"?]

Also... as I attempt to follow your thread, with it's twist and turns, emphases, I responded to Boesch's apparent dichotomy of explicit and implicit. I'm not sure if I am correct to make that distinction, but I have.

In any case, one aspect I become aware of in the quote you present is the absence of discourse surrounding feeling and affect (which seems to be my recent bang on a gong) and how these human experiences/interactions involving emotion are vital in both doing science and doing art. 

I'm not sure how one drives the tool of imagination, for example, without feeling and affect there. When we see with our eyes we rarely are conscious THAT we are using our eyes. We just see what we see without thinking much about it. Why is it not the same with feeling and affect?

Here it is again, a grouping: dreamers, poets, and neurotics. Why this suspcious grouping? Perhaps that which is implied is just a different language that has its own coherency, it's own rationality, it's own reality. Why the assignment of "implied meaning" to these people? Why is the implied not present in the realistic? or the explicit in the symbolic?

I am of the impression Boesch is pointing this question out but from a different angle than I when he says that they are separate but interdependent. 

Perhaps I'm not fully understanding the meaning (explicit and implicit) of polysemic and polyvalence, however why must rationality and symbolism be separate at all?

Kind regards,

Annalisa