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

[Xmca-l] Re: Parts and wholes


I'm confused about the ontological distinction between the stone and the
arch. Seems like the stone is just a collection of relations between parts
in the same way that the arch is a relation between parts of stones. The
stone is made up of molecular relations that are subsequently made up of
atomic relations. If you look at the atomic and molecular scale of the
stone, it looks something like a bridge - a bundle of relations that are
held together in time.

And if you look across long enough scales of time, you could watch the
relations of molecules begin to fall apart as the stones turn to dust.

Thus if we look across longer timescales or smaller spacescales, the
relational nature of the stone is no more "closed and implicit" than the
arch of the bridge.

It seems like the important difference between the two has to do with
"humanly-constructed" vs. "naturally constructed"?  One was constructed
(instituted) by human ideas, the other by natural ones...

This seems less of an ontological matter and more of a practical matter of
"how it's made".

But, perhaps I've misunderstood the proposed ontological distinction?


On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 7:21 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alfredo, I notice you referred to the “mental” in scare quotes. This
> reminds me of an earlier post where we explored the notion of the “mental”
> as an aspect of our “folk” psychology.
> In the background I also hear David Kellogg moving from material problems
> of existential problems with flooding bridges, abstracting and going
> deeper, and then re/turning to the concrete.
> Question?
> Does the language of *parts and wholes* express this bi-directional
> movement adequately?
> I also hear in the background Merleau-Panty's notion of developing “new
> organs of sense”.
> The word “repetition* in relation to same/difference seems critical.  To
> repeat the (identical) may be technology, mechanical, scientism, but
> something is lacking?
> Reading the movement of *repetition* not as (identical) or the (same) but
> as bidirectional *back and forth* through questions and answers, and
> through regression to the known and  anticipation of *something* new seems
> to be a  particular notion of movement, moving towards developing *new
> organs of sense*?
> In anticipation of discussing the meaning of perezhivanie it seems we may
> be *setting the table* for a lovely chat by opening a clearing
> Possibly, could be.
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil

Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602