Yes indeed, beware empty abstractions, Andy!
And rise to the concrete if we can.
My major point in that note was that in moving between "levels" of
abstraction contained with the image, our perception, how we
"see" the constituents changes. Might this be akin to the dynamics
between scientific and everyday concepts, and/or between differently
configures systems of higher psychological functions?
mike
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Well, we're all hanging out for the next issue of The New Yorker
now! I feel really "exposed" by this exercise. :) In both cases I
failed to see the cultural reference. I picked up the
abstract-theoretical reference, indeed I'd even already used No. 2
to illustrate "Gestalt", but still failed to see the real-world,
cultural meaning. :( Once an abstract-thinker, always an abstract
thinker, no matter how many books you read.
Andy
White, Phillip wrote:
Well, certainly, Mike, I thing that knowing the song "Love and
marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and
carriage. Dad would say to Mother, "You can't have one without
the other."
So, yes, two peas in a pod, a pair of shoes, and a pair of eyes.
Phillip
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
Sender: "xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>"
<xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 19:57:24 To: eXtended Mind,
Culture,Activity<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
Reply-To: "lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>"
<lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>, "eXtended
Mind, Culture,
Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [xmca] comparing NewYorker images
I want to use the occasion of martin coming late to the second
of two new
yorker covers we have
been disscussing, to talk about some interesting properties of
each and
different approaches to their
interpretation (I have still to deal with local microgenises).
What both images seem to have in common is that an overall
concept covers
all the examples. One you see the overall concept, you
perception/interpretation of the constituents changes. And, if
you are
working upward from the constituents, but still have not got
"IT" the little
its do not "add up."
So someone sees the two eyeball shaped almost green things as
"two green
dots." But after one takes
in the heart *near* the top, and then the two bells with what
look like
ribbons, on may think (June=prominent
month for getting married, weddding bells...... and from there
on, there are
functional relations among the parts and those functions have
changed in
some cases where the function is difficult to discern, like those
two partly green eye shaped things. Now they become "two peas i
a pod" and
you might notice that it is
kind of strange that they are only partly green.
I am pretty sure this is what Paula and David were writing about
in a more
consistent way.
One thing I am pretty certain of. Getting "it" requires
voobrazhenie,
into-image-making, and the process of
voobrazhenie is path dependent.
What would LSV think?
mike
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca