Re: [xmca] The essence of the aesthetic reaction

[Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>]

Hmm,  A reminder of  Bateson's work, Hugh, and his appeal towards function
and form.

Larry I also have wondered how to understand, not *reception* of Art, as
consumption but rather production and aesthetic response in everyday life.
I have not read Margaret Gredler, but here
  * humans actively intervene in situations in which natural processes are
inadequate

 I'd ask as living beings we can't really be totally separated from our
bodies and 'natural processes ( I think this turn of going above the
biological became emphasised in reaction to  theoretical stimulus response
theory - but we have now passed this moment and it needs  different
expression)  'Mastery' is not open -ended  in this terminology .
* humans create or appropriate symbols to gain control and MASTER a
cognitive process
* the symbols do not change or influence the object of the task but the
symbols redirect or reconstruct the individual's cognitive behavior in
approaching the task.

Another essay borrowing from Vygotsky appears here
http://www.bath.ac.uk/csat/reading/documents/2012/060212reading.pdf
 Reading through pp4-8 I still struggle to find production rather than
consumption of art objects.

It wouldn't be 'the other way round' that David encounters as weird
" we begin by an idealizing abstraction, and it is only in the subsequent
development of our aesthetic sensibility that we approach complexity "
 As production would be cognitively reaching idealizing abstraction in our
embodied living (I take  Wittgenstein's 'full-blooded' to be a nod to
embodied living) .
 Christine.
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 27 May 2012 18:46, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christine [and others]
> > I'm in over my head with this question and was hoping with the right
> > question to further the conversation and thereby expand my understanding
> of
> > *aesthetic reaction* as a concept.
> > This term for Vygotsky seemed to be central to his elaboration of a
> > *method* of analysis that he then applied to concept development. This
> > method was exploring the *essence of a phenomena.
> >
> > The article Christine recommended from the site *Stanford Encyclopedia of
> > Philosophy* [p 8] has this statement:
> >
> > For Wittgenstein complexity, and not reduction to UITARY ESSENCE, is the
> > route to conceptual clarification. Reduction to a simplified MODEL by
> > contrast, yields only the illusion of clarification in the form of
> > conceptual incarceration ( a picture held us captive)
> >
> > As I mentioned I'm in over my head.
> >
>
> Perhaps you're upside down?   Complexity is the norm.  The simplified model
> only aligns under certain circumstances which are special cases of
> complexity.
>
> Huw
>
>
> >
> > Larry
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca