Re: Semiotic Ecology and Affinities >>> direct perceptAlfred,
Would it be correct to understand you as in object-subject argueing for a
non-seperation or what I took earlier as your "non-solution" to the problem.
What I mean here is an approach in contrast to mediation solving a dualism
problem, you question the seperation in the first place. We could maybe say
for argument sake that dialectics shows how object and subject are related,
but still accepts the seperation as a given.
I guess the reason I ask is reading Bill's characterization it did give a
feeling of "realism" or direct "unmediated" contact with the "world" which
was not necessarily the impression I got from reading a few of your papers.
Specifically my impression from reading the material is questioning such
things as object-subject, individual-activity, "self regulation"- external
regulation etc. A questioning if such seperations are needed or even useful.
Maybe rather than S----O (direct perception) or S><O (mediation), argueing
for a S/O in which a seperation is not called for. No inside or outside or
maybe giving up the project of "thing in itself".
Maybe wrongly, reading your work reminded me a little bit of the arguments
of Goodwin et al in MCA 7.1&2 that pointed toward, at least for me, how
individual/ activity, subject/object, perception/classification are
constitutive - (their non-seperation).
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:52 PDT