[Xmca-l] Re: Solids and Liquids/Entities and dynamic flows

[Lplarry]

Not to loose sight of the theme (entities and dynamic flows).
Annalisa noticed *the cup* can be *the container* moving from particular to abstract and this way of moving is meta/phor. 
The cup as an image expresses what?
An entity? A theme? A causal sequence?

Is the cup is an expression of *a* container* OR is the cup an expression of *contain/ing* and do different cultures and languages give contrasting answers?

Is *a* container (entity) more or less adequate, more or less *right* in contrast to *contain/ing*?

What is this relation of (container & containing).
Is the answer causal or metaphorical, or hermeneutical circle, or thematic,  or aggregate (ex: Winter – snow).

Is this a process of persons  who have *minds* constructing the above relations and (relations of relations)?
OR
Are these relations flows of language *use* in which the language process (itself) is concealed as the use is revealed 
OR 
Does language itself have two poles ( historical constituents) AND ( aesthetic novelty).

I will mention Umberto Eco whose last book (2014) traces how deeply implicated Western forms of conceiving of thoughts (entity) and thinking (dynamic flows) are historically influenced by the tree metaphor  and the theme of generality, taxonomy, super and sub structures, categorization, classification.
This *tree metaphor* is  in contrast to Dogen and Rein who highlight that these ways of conceiving flow as things with higher and lower levels of generality  are historical artifacts *arising* within a tradition (see Eco’s last book).

Entities/essence (including social pychco/LOGY) contrasting with *ity*

 Structures of consciousness  developing as processes that may or may not follow a particular universal sequence of steps OR
 historically situated influences developing through novelty as thematic aggregations without systematic structure.

The 10 or 11 ox frames as icon (vagueness) index (gesturing) and symbol (thirds) of a *way* (path) that is not so focused on *controlled* intentions* which Mead postulated as required and necessary for human transactional thirds to exist as  transactional (instrumental?) *thirds*.

Zygmunt’s latest book is on *managed* liquid modernity.

This word (managed) with Zygmunt’s other book exploring the moral blindness of liquid modernity seems to be critical as we explore the image and meaning *potential* of the cup metaphor.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Annalisa Aguilar