Yes, Diane.
But Vygotsky himself warns, in LA IMAGINACIÓN Y EL ARTE EN LA INFANCIA
(Akal, 1982), when discussing the features of creative imagination, that
some creations of women/men became real and concrete.
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Diane Hodges <dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu>
Para: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Data: Segunda-feira, 14 de Maio de 2001 01:47
Assunto: Re: More time-True Theory?
>HUH.
>i'm perplexed about this "time" and Maturana relation - theory is not fact
>nor true,
>of course,
>so while there are always potentially useful interpretations of an other's
>ideas,
>it's an enormous reach to assert that this True Theory proves anything,
>since no theory is True.
>TIME is a word, a method of measurement that is specifically HUMAN,
>cultural, social.
>it is a language, a semiotic, a desire, a commodity,
>but that doesn't mean it's REAL in any "objective" sense since
>all we have for substantiating what is objective is human perception
>and the tools of human history.
>TIME remains an unknown variable, perhaps - i'd agree with that.
>it is a dimension that human cultures have yet to comprehend since
>everything about TIME is about controlling what may be out of our control.
>it's a politic, a power, a knowledge, a desired "fact" but i can't see it
>as a REAL thing
>beyond its symptoms of movement and change, space,
>and language.
>diane
>
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>>In maturana's Nature of Time the following quotation was found
>>
>>"I have answered the question what distinctions we connote when we talk
>>of
>>time? by showing: 1), that we do not and cannot connote an entity or
>>natural
>>dimension that exists with independence of what we do as observers
>>(humans);
>>and 2), by showing that we use in daily life the word time to indicate or
>>to
>>connote an abstraction of our experiences of the succession of processes.
>>In
>>other words, I have shown that the foundations of the notion of time in
>>any
>>domain rests on the biology of the observer, not on the domain of physics
>>which is a domain of explanations of a particular kind of experiential
>>coherences of the observer."
>>
>>Adhereing to the truth of this statement would explain away any aspect of
>>our
>>existence. Agreeing upon a label to explain phenomenon we experience as
>>outside ourselvelves is what collects us socially. Stating that because
>>time
>>is something we observe and therefore cannot apply it as a nuetral,
>>objective
>>entity is absurd. Things exist within reality and time is a pehenomenon
>>that
>>is separate and unique from any individual's existence. It is the alpha
>>and
>>omega that contains Hegel's dialectic. Within each moment is the option
>>for
>>a million beyond infinity of options, one thing happens and then the
>>moment
>>transitions to another moment where the same million beyond infinity of
>>options is available again. Call time whatever you'd like; possibly
>>transitioning, or being mobile, or a bargain becasue each moment starts
>>fresh
>
>
>"If you'll excuse me now, I'd like to be alone with my sandwich."
>Homer
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:30 PDT