[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
On 21 April 2011 18:18, Huw Lloyd <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
Hi, Eric. I'm a bit fresher now, so I thought I'd give this a go.
> I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words. I can appreciate
>> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
>> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
>> reality. 6" of snow in april is what it is, right? So, if one were to
>> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera and
>> media time is that a tool or a concept? Methinks a concept is neutral and
>> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april. Thanks to Martin I have
>> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
>> discussing the merger of thinking and speech; being that word meaning
>> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
>> speaking the word. However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
>> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept: Snow
>> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts but
>> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.
If you're using quality as mentioned in your more recent post, then I'm in
agreement here that it is the concept (or seed of the concept to be
> Tool use is an
>> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea onto
>> another but it is merely a quantity. No?
No. A scientific concept is a system of relations, as is a quality.
Regarding use, my employment of a hammer is a system. As is my employment
of a concept. We could talk about a quantitative change to this system of
action, increasing the mass of the hammer for instance, but the action
itself comprises a system.
The concept of mass refers to a system of relations. The measurement of
mass comprises a quantity.
There is a nice bit in Bateson's "Mind and Nature" when he talks about the
interaction between Form and Process that he stumbled across whilst out
doing field work of Iatmul culture (page 210 in my copy) where he describes
the interaction of systems of process (action) and systems of type
(qualities, concepts). This might help you to get your head around the
system of action and the system of a concept.
> Going back to the example of
>> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it that
>> qualifies poverty?
If there is an agreed concept of poverty then it will be based on an
implied set of relations, this is the agreed qualification (e.g. income less
than the cost of rent + food for a given area).
> I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
>> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is not
>> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
Still fuzzy on your meaning for this bit. The word does not _need_ to
denote a systemic concept in this sense. Typically, noun phrases are used
for this purpose, though someone can say a word without thinking its
meaning, or think up their own meaning, if that's your point?
I hope this helps for you, Eric.
Of course concept formations are only going to come about through particular
kinds of social interaction. So if this is all seems really crazy, I'd wait
till your fresh and then hang on with some determination.
xmca mailing list