>My recent ideas about generalizing semiotics more to include non-categorial
>modes of meaning, more 'topological' or meaning-by-degree in continuous
>variation along multiple dimensions, might lend themselves to a less
>reductionistic, or 'atomizing' approach to a semiotics of feeling. I agree
>with Diane that you don't want simple rulers for describing fuzzy clouds.
>But today we have fuzzy set theories and topology and many sorts of guides
>to how to more gently and subtly characterize matters of these sorts.
In terms of "atomizing", or reducing something to its most minute particle
expression, in contexts of emotions; isn't it possible to mark this as a
place from which to begin? I don't think I meant that atomic principles
should control our understandings of emotions, but more to identify some
sort of initial affective character.
These are constructed, as I mentioned, in studies of infant temperament,
which suggest individuals are predisposed to kinds of affective states _at
birth_;
these in turn influence the kinds of interactions the infant will have
throughout her/his life; thus anyone's emotional characteristics are
traceable to the questions of temperament, or affective predisposition.
I am not sure this "over-simplifies" the complexity, so much as signals an
aspect of the project which is completely beyond our control.
And then, how might we begin to account for dramatic
chemically-influenced affective states
(e.g., over/under-productions of seratonin?) -
Of course, now that I'm writing this,
I recall Judy's remarks, at one point can we know when our own emotional
dispositions are influencing our understanding of "others" emotional states?
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
tel: (604)-874-4807
mail:
3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8