What are you drawing on for your conception of _mimesis_?
Michael Taussig treats mimesis as magic - my first encounter
with the idea of it. Donald Mercer treats mimesis in some
phylogenetic scheme as a pre-linguistic mapping of the
body-in-space (was this a resource for you?). I'm interested
in mimesis as possibly underlying an attraction to _the same_
- not, as in play, filling the self with the possibility of
the other but, as in a certain aspect of love, filling
the space of relationship, of being/knowing, with what is
familiar, what is already known, what is already a part of oneself.
- That comfortable aspect of love that, minus play, turns couples
into doubles of the same (you know, where couples seem to look alike).
I would appreciate any additional references.
- Judy
At 03:37 AM 6/27/96 -0700, you wrote:
>I see play as mimesis in action: the filling of the self with the
>possibility of the other (trying it on for size?). Symbols might enter
>recursively as imagination is created -- that is, initially, I see both
>imagination/symbols as outcomes rather than preconditions. Later, these
>latter would make the next move in the game possible (visible to action).
>Perhaps even later, whole scenarios (goals? rules?) would evolve. Does that
>make sense?
>
>Rolfe
>
> Rolfe Windward [UCLA GSE&IS: Curriculum & Teaching]
> e-mail: rwindwar who-is-at ucla.edu (Text/BinHex/MIME/Uuencode)
> 70014.646 who-is-at compuserve.com (text/binary/GIF/JPG)
>
>
>
....................
Judy Diamondstone diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Graduate School of Education Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm. Blake