[Xmca-l] Re: Time, Imagination, Metaphor

[HENRY SHONERD]

Re: “vertical” and “horizontal”: think paradigmatic and syntagmatic. 
Henry

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Francine,
> Your comment:
> 
> "The 'Natural' Science  that arises from European culture begins as
> mechanical physics and alchemy
> in which machines have parts and chemicals have elements."
> 
> Having "parts" and having "elements" as the beginning "point" or "position"
> from which we get "in" to this theme of "natural" science
> Francine would you say  this theme iis also a "mytheme"?
> I read this as a type of *opening* of an origin narrative or  history as
> situating development in specific concrete situations. [situate as both
> verb and noun] with a theme of "cultural diversity"  I keep mentioning
> Raymond Williams as I find he writes within *THIS* STYLE and it is very
> helpful for getting my bearings.
> 
> It will put IN play what we mean by "academic or scientific" concepts as
> possibly historically effected understandings.
> Will we also explore Kris's notion of "vertical" and "horizontal"  concepts
> within cultural synergy?
> David K's "grammatical metaphors" may also be involved in this cultural
> diversity.
> I have been considering reading more from Raymond Williams, so would
> consider a shared reading with a similar exploration of cultural
> permeability of  time, imagination, metaphor, perception and trans-versal
> ways of orienting or moving *in* the world.
> Larry
> 
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:37 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 
>> Message from Francine:
>> 
>> These three threads are all related (not forgetting perception and
>> imagination).
>> 
>> One of the things about XMCA threads is that the members each have so much
>> to contribute, from their own perspectives as well as bibliographic
>> references.
>> 
>> The discourse does get philosophical raising old metaphysics questions of
>> epistemology "How do we know what we know?" "How is our understanding
>> shaped by language and culture?" XMCARs tend to be particularly
>> self-conscious
>> about their own use of language - which is good. There seems to be a
>> striving
>> for a new framework (paradigm) that clarifies these cross-cultural semiotic
>> differences.
>> 
>> The project I am working on is on how new ideas, customs, inventions,
>> language,
>> art, music, etc. are created through Cultural Synergy - when 'artifacts'
>> from one
>> culture enter another and are combined into something  more than how the
>> artifacts functioned in their original cultures. I can give mundane
>> examples such as how
>> noodles from China become spaghetti, elbow macaroni, etc. Or, the wheel as
>> a potter's wheel, a wagon wheel, a gear, a grinding stone, a steering
>> wheel, etc.
>> (and all the mechanical devices that combine wheels, like pulleys and
>> clocks and
>> the first calculator). Concrete examples are a good start but there are
>> more
>> conceptual examples that I have just not had time to clarify. The
>> discussion
>> of time as it differs cross-culturally is  a good starting point. Where I
>> personally
>> would want to go with this, is to look how how new conceptions of time
>> emerge through
>> inter-cultural contact. That is metaphysics.
>> 
>> I also wonder how the semiotics of European, Middle Eastern, and Chinese
>> cultures
>> are related to their invention of the wheel and advancements in metallurgy.
>> (Noting that Western African tribes did smelting of ore). The 'Natural'
>> Science
>> that arises from European culture begins as mechanical physics and alchemy
>> in which machines have parts and chemicals have elements. It has evolved
>> into
>> the study of energy, and systems theory.
>> 
>> There is enough here for ten volumes. Anyone interested?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 03:25:02 -0800
>>> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Time
>>> 
>>> This notion of our  being a "verb" or being a "noun" or being a
>> "position"
>>> or possibly being a "pre" - position.
>>> What I am wondering is where we are going??
>>> Are we actually "verbs" and "nouns" and "positions" and "pre"-positions??
>>> Do we "exist" in the grammar [syntax] or do we "exist" in the "semantics"
>>> [meaning] or do we  "exist" in the "Pragmatics" [doing, activity]
>>> 
>>> I apologize if this question is merely "idio"-syncretic but it is the
>>> imaginal mutually reciprocal "third space" which I am being invited to
>>> occupy in THIS SPECIFIC community as we trans-late the imaginal into
>>> "genres" or "forms". For this reason, I want to hold on to the moral
>> virtue
>>> of "cosmopolitanism" that Kris Gutierrez articulated in her paper. [Yes a
>>> trans-position]  Kris wrote:
>>> "At the CORE of its [the third space] political-philosophical ROOTS, this
>>> program is oriented towards a FORM {LP adds a form as a genre]]  of
>>> "cosmopolitanism" (Appiah, 2006) characterized by the ideals and
>> practices
>>> of a shared humanity, a profound OBLIGATION to others, boundary crossing,
>>> and intercultural exchange in which difference is celebrated without
>> being
>>> romanticized.
>>> To get to this "space" or "place" requires imagination.
>>> 
>>> If Buckminster Fuller "seems" to be a verb, and others "seem" to be nouns
>>> while others "seem" to be positions [stances] , while others "seem" to be
>>> "pre"-positions, then the imaginal "seems" to be *IN* play. [with the
>> full
>>> awareness of *IN* as David K out-lined or under-scored or high-lighted.]
>>> 
>>> I  want to ask Francine what she meant by "metaphysical" in her signing
>> off
>>> on her recent examples or cases. Kris "pragmatics" or "performance"
>> seems
>>> to me "grounded" in the sense of rising [ideal] and returning [to ground]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:17 AM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I seem to be a verb
>>>> 
>>>> R. Buckminster Fuller 1970
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:36:03 -0700
>>>>> From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Time
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting how you have taken this Andy - to suggest that the Hopi
>> lack
>>>> a
>>>>> founding principle of Natural Science.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whorf actually takes this in generally the opposite direction. In his
>>>> work
>>>>> on the Hopi language, he suggests that one finds a language much
>> better
>>>>> suited to thinking about the theoretical physics of Whorf's day
>> (e.g.,
>>>>> Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.). In that
>> sense,
>>>>> Hopi is, in fact, closer to describing the way the world really is.
>> (and
>>>>> I'll quickly rescind those last six words if you have any
>> objections!).
>>>>> 
>>>>> As to your assumption that science requires the objectification of
>> the
>>>>> natural world, I'm sure there are others on the list who would agree
>> with
>>>>> me that there is good reason to question the necessity of
>> subject/object
>>>>> dualism for science. (and perhaps you were referring to a particular
>>>>> scientific tradition by calling it "Natural Science" - maybe scary
>> scare
>>>>> quotes are needed?).
>>>>> 
>>>>> -greg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is an extremely interesting paragraph or two on the contrast
>>>> between
>>>>>> typical modern expressions of Time and how the Hopi language
>> expresses
>>>>>> corresponding situations. It seems that taking Nature (including
>> Time)
>>>> to
>>>>>> be something which exists independently of us humans and can be
>> known
>>>> as
>>>>>> such, in other words, the founding principle of Natural Science, is
>>>> built
>>>>>> into a premodern language, and is not shared by (at least one)
>>>> indigenous
>>>>>> people.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Helena and David,
>>>>>>> I wonder if this quote below from Benjamin Whorf (one of the
>> so-called
>>>>>>> authors of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis - a kindred
>> tradition
>>>> to
>>>>>>> Vygotsky's) might be useful. In it Whorf is comparing the Hopi
>> notion
>>>> of
>>>>>>> "time" to the SAE (Standard Average European - including English)
>>>> notion
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> "time" and how each of these languages offers different
>> affordances of
>>>>>>> meaning. Whereas Hopi has a much more processual understanding,
>>>> English
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> a much more reified/objectified/entified sense of time. (btw, I
>> think
>>>> the
>>>>>>> first paragraph is easier to follow than the second - and in that
>>>> first
>>>>>>> paragraph you'll find our old friend "imagination").
>>>>>>> David, does this jibe with what you were pointing to?
>>>>>>> -greg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Taken from:
>>>>>>> http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/extra4/sloan/
>>>>>>> mousesite/Secondary/Whorfframe2.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> " "Such terms as summer, winter, September, morning, noon,
>> sunset" are
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> us nouns, and have little formal linguistic difference from other
>>>> nouns.
>>>>>>> They can be subjects or objects, and we say "at sunset" or "in
>> winter"
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> as we say "at a corner" or "in an orchard." They are pluralized
>> and
>>>>>>> numerated like nouns of physical objects, as we have seen. Our
>> thought
>>>>>>> about the referents of such words hence becomes objectified.
>> Without
>>>>>>> objectification, it would be a subjective experience of real time,
>>>> i.e. of
>>>>>>> the consciousness of "becoming later and later"--simply a cyclic
>> phase
>>>>>>> similar to an earlier phase in that ever-later-becoming duration.
>>>> Only by
>>>>>>> imagination can such a cyclic phase be set beside another and
>> another
>>>> in
>>>>>>> the manner of a spatial (i.e. visually perceived) configuration.
>> "But
>>>> such
>>>>>>> is the power of linguistic analogy that we do so objectify cyclic
>>>> phasing.
>>>>>>> We do it even by saying "a phase" and "phases" instead of e.g.,
>>>> "phasing."
>>>>>>> And the pattern of individual and mass nouns, with the resulting
>>>> binomial
>>>>>>> formula of formless item plus form, is so general that it is
>> implicit
>>>> for
>>>>>>> all nouns, and hence our very generalized formless items like
>>>> "substance,
>>>>>>> matter," by which we can fill out the binomial for an enormously
>> wide
>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>> of nouns. But even these are not quite generalized enough to take
>> in
>>>> our
>>>>>>> phase nouns. So for the phase nouns we have made a formless item,
>>>> "time."
>>>>>>> We have made it by using "a time," i.e. an occasion or a phase,
>> in the
>>>>>>> pattern of a mass noun, just as from "a summer" we make "summer"
>> in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> pattern of a mass noun. Thus with our binomial formula we can say
>> and
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> "a moment of time, a second of time, a year of time." Let me again
>>>> point
>>>>>>> out that the pattern is simply that of "a bottle of milk" or "a
>> piece
>>>> of
>>>>>>> cheese." Thus we are assisted to imagine that "a summer" actually
>>>> contains
>>>>>>> or consists of such-and-such a quantity of "time."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In Hopi however all phase terms, like "summer, morning," etc.,
>> are not
>>>>>>> nouns but a kind of adverb, to use the nearest SAE analogy. They
>> are a
>>>>>>> formal part of speech by themselves, distinct from nouns, verbs,
>> and
>>>> even
>>>>>>> other Hopi "adverbs." Such a word is not a case form or a locative
>>>>>>> pattern,
>>>>>>> like "des Abends" or "in the morning." It contains no morpheme
>> like
>>>> one of
>>>>>>> "in the house" or "at the tree." It means "when it is morning" or
>>>> "while
>>>>>>> morning-phase is occurring." These "temporal s" are not used as
>>>> subjects
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> objects, or at all like nouns. One does not say "it's a hot
>> summer" or
>>>>>>> "summer is hot"; summer is not hot, summer is only WHEN
>> conditions are
>>>>>>> hot,
>>>>>>> WHEN heat occurs. One does not say "THIS summer," but "summer
>> now" or
>>>>>>> "summer recently." There is no objectification, as a region, an
>>>> extent, a
>>>>>>> quantity, of the subjective duration feeling. Nothing is suggested
>>>> about
>>>>>>> time except the perpetual "getting later" of it. And so there is
>> no
>>>> basis
>>>>>>> here for a formless item answering to our "time." "
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>