[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] activity (was concepts)

Hi Huw,
My worry about seeing activity in terms of cybernetics is that, for the most part, cybernetics is a dynamic system and has interesting ideas in terms of feeback loops, it is also representatitve of basically a closed system (at least that seems to be the way is was discussed at the Sears conference, which is one of the reason Bateson may have felt so out of place there - well that and the fact that nobody would talk to him.)
All right, all right, I can already hear Andy saying, "What do you mean closed system Michael?"
So by closed system I guess I mean that all the players are already there in the system, and while they change based on the ways they interact with each other and there is a dynamism to the interaction, it does not promote or welcome, or particularly know what to do with links out to unexpected information sources.


From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd
Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 8:20 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu; lchcmike@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)

> > Huw--
> >
> > What notion of activity are you using when you write below:
> >
> > "The omission I'm noticing here is that knowing and experiencing is an
> > activity" ?
> >
> > (I include the immediately preceeding paragraph for context)
> > mike
> Mental activity.  Experiencing is not passive, it is met half way and is
> actively interpreted (when I get round to it, Husserl is the place to go for
> this, I believe).
> [...]

For clarity, with respect to further interpretations lifted from the other
thread, I am conceiving of this activity cybernetically, i.e. as part of the
process of self-regulation.  That is, our experience and our knowing is,
amongst other things, mediated by our concepts (or the semiotic units
derived from their employment) as part of our regulatory processes which we
call activity.

I hope that helps!

xmca mailing list


xmca mailing list