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

[Xmca-l] Re: Connecting and stability



Annalisa,
Your summary comment:
Understanding happens when the message is received as the message was intended. :)
Is the relation I am putting in question.

Is focusing on the subject or the author authoring intending meaning from within an interior space the only way to understand the formation of meaning?
I am focusing more on the speaker or author projecting a possible “connecting” gesture that is oriented toward the listener. However, whether that connecting “approach” is taken up and “stabilized” resides in the capacity of the listener who is hearing the “invitation”. 
This shift in focus is locating the generation of meaning in this stabilizing of shared joint activity in how the speaker is “heard”.
Mike suggests meaning takes place in the space between the words not within the words. 
The question I have is if this space between the words engendered within joint activity is meaningful to the degree the listener engenders stabilizing understandings of what is projected into the space by the speaker as necessarily fluid and open ended [a gap].

The listener is either open to a degree to the transitory connecting moves which are not yet become meaningful until stabilized by the listener AS understanding. [or not]
>From this POV :) meaning has not occurred until the connecting move as open ended gesture of the speaker has been mediated by the listener and become stabilized as understanding. 

The relation of “vittri” taking shape as something not recognizable becoming recognizable AS-IF real may be imagined in a similar way. What was connected but not recognizable “forms” AS-IF stabilizing into things recognizable. This process is not relegated to language but may be partaking in the same imaginal stabilizing phenomena as language connecting activity.
The focus on “a priori” [a cluster of circles imaged as flowers] are the connecting phenomena. However, the circles could also have been imagined as something else besides flowers until the moment the circles stabilized into flowers. Then there is the impression the flowers preceded the circles becoming flowers.
However the flowers may have been just one possible “a priori” 
Annalisa,
My question is if the quality that I am pointing out that occurs in listening [as stabilizing] may be the same underlying process that occurs when three circles become “flowers” [which could before being stabilized  have been multiple other possible images]. Once the moment of stabilizing the image AS flowers does occur, then all the other open ended possibilities of the three circles no longer seem possible and the meaning that was actually projected within an historical ontological and transitory “place” becomes stabilized into a naturalized assumption of stability emerging from the intended mind of the author or from the naturalized causes occuring within the “naturalized” world. [two sides of the same coin.]

I am out on a limb here and may have lost the trunk or roots, but this is a reflective movement of connection and stability.






Sent from Mail for Windows 10



From: Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 2:44 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Connecting and stability



Hi Larry,

I feel a connection to what you are saying, and it feels similar to my description about the Vedic concept of vritti, but your description is particular to communication of meaning through language between two people, the speaker and the listener. 

Once the vritti takes shape as something recognizable, it is as-if real in the mind, activating meaning, but this is not relegated to language.

In the way a cluster of circles might create an image of a flower, or a dart board depending upon their arrangement, these become recognizable images. Or a drawing of the duck-rabbit will be shift between one or the other in the mind, based upon the word.

The word and the image as provided by the vritti are informed by prior knowledge of a flower, a dart board, a duck or a rabbit, that were derived (in history) through the senses in some way.

Meaning can never be completely 1:1 identical from speaker to listener, as it depends upon the common experiences and concepts and how similar these concepts are between the speaker and the listener. Meaning (to me) doesn't travel from here to there, but is reflective. This can have an appearance of traveling. My meaning doesn't leave me as I write words that travel to you through the internet and meaning is constructed for you as you read them.

Understanding happens when the message is received as the message was intended. :)

Copy that?

Kind regards,

Annalisa