[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Meaning extended from index to Correspondence
So what is your take on Eisenshtein's interest in written Chinese, David.
Shot, gaze,.... You remarked about his interest in some earlier text. I
always read him
in relation to Luria & Vygotsky. I find the notion of "generalized
representation" interesting because it turns up in Luria in a quite
There used to discussion of such matters when Giyoo Hatano was alive
because of the relation to Japanese Kanji, but no one I know of has taken
it up with respect to China and Eisenshtein.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:10 PM, HENRY SHONERD <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But I am curious about what (awearable?) is doing at the end of your post.
> You can’t put on the Buddha nature?
> > On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:54 PM, David Kellogg <email@example.com> wrote:
> > A colleague of mine down the hall is working on the translation of the
> > Platform Sutra of the eighth century Sixth Patriarch, Huineng. Huineng
> > the first Buddhist patriarch who could neither read nor write, and (more
> > importantly) the Platform Sutra is the historical moment when Buddhism
> > became a religious option for the illiterate masses of China. It is a
> > written text, but it is a written account of speaking, and it is written
> > be spoken.
> > One way in which Christianity became a religious option for the
> > masses was through simple, narrativistic artforms, such as the mosaics of
> > San Marco in Venice, or the icons of Russia. Buddhists have this
> > has already been some discussion here on the ox pictures (there is, by
> > way, a beautiful text that goes with the pictures, and there is a place
> > the lintel of most temples in Korea where the pictures with their
> > can be seen). In one of our books we use the ox pictures for Vygotsky's
> > account of the six periods and five crises in which the child's
> > arises.
> > But that's not what my colleague is doing. She is using two pictures by
> > same twelfth century artist Liang Kai. They adorn different translations
> > the Platform Sutra, and each has a specific relation to the way the
> > Platform Sutra has been translated. In one, the patriarch is at eye level
> > and he is tearing up the previous sutras in disgust, a roguish gleam in
> > eye and his tongue protruding in fun. In the other, the patriarch is
> > kneeling to cut bamboo (which he did for many years before being
> > as a patriarch) and we see the top of his head.
> > The idea is that eye-level and from above represent two different camera
> > angles and two different stances towards the represented object: one of
> > which is egalitarian and the other of which is authoritarian. There are
> > other relevant systems of interpersonal meaning: the "shot" (close up or
> > distant) and the "gaze" (direct or avoidant). Now, these systems are all
> > meaningful: "shot" is about the relation of text to context, and "gaze"
> > about willingness to engage withe the participants.As for the system of
> > "angle", it expresses the power relation between the viewer and the Sixth
> > Patriarch.
> > I think this is somewhat anachronistic--Chinese painting is more like
> > calligraphy than like cinematography. I also don't think that my
> > colleague's systems are textual systems, because they don't have a
> > lexicogrammar: the meanings are not encoded in symbols but rather, as
> > child proto-language, more directly in indexes. What they lack is
> > "correspondence"--a relationship that can be uncoupled and recoupled in
> > different ways, a relationship which involves "realization" in both
> > because as the content is encoded in expression it is "realized" in the
> > sense of being made material, and as the expression is coded as content
> > is "realized" in the sense of being made aware, or being made awareable.
> > Instead, they are attempts to get around language, or anyway, to get
> > written language, and make the fundamental insight of common
> > part of the everyday garb of the illiterate masses (awearable?)
> > David Kellogg
> > Macquarie University
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Lplarry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> We have been exploring identity and subjectivity and selfhood.
> >> In relation to a few themes:
> >> • We have been exploring perezhivanie and this phenomena expressing
> >> *meaning*
> >> • James Ma shifts the focus to *potential* in (meaning) potential
> >> • In relation to James Ma’s contribution we turned to Paul Kockleman and
> >> the Semiotic Stance.
> >> • The semiotic stance has classically referred to an indexical relation
> >> a sign standing for an object
> >> • Kockleman expands the classical semiotic stance to always being
> >> (thirds). Thirds include double relations of (standing for): The sign
> >> standing for the object AND the sign standing for the interpretant in a
> >> double relation of (standing for) which expands from (2nds indexical) to
> >> (thirds corresponding)
> >> • An example is the correspondence of pronouns (you) (me) (it). Me as
> >> Stand in relation to it and Me as I stand in relation to you. In such a
> >> that you stand in relation to it and you stand in relation to me in a
> >> double relation of standing for that (corresponds). The object’s
> >> to both you and to I correspond as (thirds) which is general and
> >> • Rein introduced (ity) as (arising) phenomena that do not exist as
> >> objects (in potential) or as objects with (essence). All is
> >> as thematic NOT STRUCTURALLY opposite to permanence or stability or
> >> solidity. (ity) has existence as arising when the *now* HAS arrived.
> >> arising of existents do not exist in potential. (ity) is also not under
> >> agents *control*. Arising phenomena exist as momentary things materially
> >> but radically particular and idio/syncretic.
> >> • Ity is not general
> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch