Paul has written:
>
>How do you account for the attraction of positive and negative which is so
>common at every level of the material and spiritual universe in terms of
>affinity?
Paul, I do perhaps not well understand your question. My problem is
that I do not know what you may mean by "positive and negative which
is so common". The two words, as you use them seem to be meant as
pure abstractives. But abstracted of what and in what respect? Can an
abstraction make sense without its referent and its abstractive
respect?
You mention the material and spiritual universes. In considering
stuff and energy I see only electro-magnetic fields that are assigned
positive / negative "values". Of course, this is an arbitrary
attribution of two poles of a necessary polarisation wherever a
current flows, assigned upon the flow direction. Gravitational fields
develop attractive forces, but their apparent "repulsion" results
from their movement or from magnetic forces. What else could be
positive or negative as such?
And what is positive / negative in a or the "spiritual universe"? Do
you mean a good / bad polarity or opposition? I can easily agree that
both members of both pairs of terms obviously imply or are relational
in character; so they can sometimes easily turn into their opposites,
if their relata or circumstances change? Goethe even spoke of "that
force that always wants the good but always does the bad"; open
whether he spoke of the devil only or of more. Are these more than
attributions of ours? Aren't these our attributions to fictions
anyway?
But how should relations or abstractives which are at best parts or
aspects of something interact or transact in reality and not simply
as symbols thereof? Perhaps you should give your own examples to make
it clear. I'm afraid there is a nest of problems attached to positive
/ negative, and not only but particularly in the scientific domain.
In general I should emphasize that semiotic ecology is a conceptual
system that is designed to operate on the level of concrete entities
and their interactions and transactions. Classes of things do not
interact, only the concrete things themselves. Science on the level
of class concepts is most suspect to me. Similarly there is no
interaction or transaction of abstractives except perhaps in the head
of those who think make the abstractions. And that is most irrelevant
and also suspect when the thinker mixes up the things and his
concepts thereof. When symbols referring to the abstractions rather
than to concrete things are manipulated, whether in the head, on
paper or in computers, it may be difficult to get back to reality
from the results of the manipulation.
Good / bad and positive / negative are certainly not qualities of
structures themselves but may be used to characterize the outcome of
their interactions from a certain point of view. To be eaten by a
predator may be negative for the eaten and more so to her dependents,
not really bad if being sick and not quite positive if being a flower
the seeds of which can thrive if carried to a good place, perhaps
even packed in an enriched environment. Something to eat appears
usually positive for the eater, except when already satiated. And
what is positive for one may be negative for another.
At any rate positive / negative characterization can at best come
after affinities have already come into play. Affinity is for example
needed to recognize something or someone, whether it is to be
searched or fled. Whether on an inborn instinctual or acquired level
affinities may develop habit character and so gain attractive or
repulsive tendencies and action pattern. But as these can sometimes
change into their opposite (friend to fiend or vice versa, an
attractive food turning out poisonous) I see it wise to distinguish
affinity as the potential to interact or transact from its
realization under concrete circumstances, whether habitual or not. I
understand habit patterns as sequels of the operation of affinity
rather than as the affinities themselves. Maybe an orienting response
begins on the level of affinities; there are data showing that it
takes time, however brief, with unfamiliar situations to
differentiate it into either a defensive or an approach pattern
Best, Alfred
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch Website: http://www.psy.unibe.ch/ukp/langpapers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:49 PDT