Re: [xmca] Rey's call for a generative overflowing overlapping intertwining of the notion of "sense"

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

Thanks Larry.  I enjoyed reading your reply.  My responses to particular
parts of your email are below.

On 23 July 2011 18:09, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>  With this qualification I will try to respond to the line of
> inquiry that I believe Fernando Rey's article is opening up ABOUT the
> intertwining links between the GENERATIVE aspects of the psyche and the
> "systems of meaning" that value coherence. I will start with a few quotes
> to
> open a "space" of reflection.
>
> [...]

Ok.  I agree with this.  I would take the relations further, i.e.  that
prismic/generative aspects, image creation and catharsis/social "problems"
are implicated in all aspects of LSV's work.

The notion that one would read LSV's CHT without wondering about how these
notions fit with respect to feeling, personality and culture seems a little
odd to me.


>  Lawrence Hass points out that "oppositional division" and "unifying
> reduction" are two sides of the same coin. They both fail to honour the
> differentiated interweaving between the eye [the visible]and the mind [the
> invisible]  Reducing language to representation dissolves the generative
> aspect of psyche.


Ok.  Representation does not need to be a static thing however.  The dynamic
creation of a feeling can legitimately be referred to as representing too
(though I would expect clarification in such cases).


> Last quick comment Anna Sfard's example of math "objects" as "non-material"
> SYSTEMS of meaning or Saussure's linquistic "system" or "structure" are
> examples of seeing with the mind's eye. However as Anna and M-P emphasize
> these OBJECTS [that are non-material and cannot exist outside history and
> sociality] are only one side or aspect of the psyche and are
> representational objects.


The use of "non-material" here is unfortunate, however.

[marksman hitting the bulls-eye].  For the
> marksman to hit the living "bird in flight" requires "expertise" [Anna
> Sfard
> articulates this need for expertise to move from process to structure] but
> once this expertise is acquired a person can see these non-material objects
> with the minds eye. But this can never be separated from the carnal eye.
>  It
> is always a chiasmic intertwining.
>

You might find Bateson's distinction between calibration and feedback
interesting (Mind and Nature, p212):

"It seems that, in these cases, "calibration" is related to "feedback" as a
higher logical type is related to the lower.  This relation is indicated by
the fact that self-correction in the use of the shotgun is necessarily
possible only from information derived from practice (i.e. from a _class_ of
past, completed actions)."

Huw
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca