Christine, Peter, David, [and all the others who are participating in this conversation about aesthetic *reaction* or *responses*] First I also want to offer a gift in return on this topic. The attachment is Chapter 3 by Saalea, On Wittgenstein's engagement with this topic. I have been reading Saalea as SHOWING us how Wittgenstein is DESCRIBING the COMPLEXITY of this topic and how this topic *resists* [does the text have agency??] simplification. In the background I have Gadamer responding to Vygotsky, Wittgenstein, " I appreciate your *beautiful* interpretations of *aesthetic experience*. These are very *deep* and developed DESCRIPTIONS of aesthetic reaction *as* complex particular use and functions. They also offer detailed *ways* of understanding our participation in the descriptive horizons they elaborate." Gadamer in response would ask a further question beyond our theories and models. For Gadamer ALL theories are *simplfying and reducing this complexity. [Gadamer] may want to ask one further question. " I use the term *fusion* as a KEY term within my question. "After developing particular MODELS OF phenomena -explanatory or interpretive - HOW do WE [in conversation, dialogue, intersubjectively] FUSE *OUR* horizons which are elaborated in your theories and models This notion of *fusion* in Gadamer's possible question I find intriguing. Gadamer seems to be extending the notion that *perspectives* views* *traditions* *discourses* all are HORIZONS. Horizons can EXPAND [we can see further and more and *deeper*] BUT FUSION is never SUBSUMPTION or REDUCTION or IDENTITY or DIFFERENCE, What is left??? As I read Gadamer, what is left is *fusion* as a clearly reflected term to explore *expanding horizons* Fusion has a structure and a *dis-position* [a commitment to a *way* of *seeing* and *showing* through gesture, images/symbols, and signs] This structure IS an *AS- structure*. [not metaphor as a part of language but metaphoricity AS language The terms *as if* or *as* are *fusion* terms [neither merely similarity OR dissimilarity] There seems to be another structure or *way* of understanding relata [HOW phenomena are fused] I want to again remind others that I am new to this conversational *style* and THIS entire reflection is *in over my head*. I could not participate without the mediation and tools offered by all of you and Vygotsky, Wittgenstein, Gadamer and others. The DESCRIPTIONS are indeed complex, and the models elaborate. Marx being invited back to converse with the classical Greeks [and my "listening in* as a witness. FUSION as the metaphoricity [as circling being/becoming within EFFECTIVE history] that I'm attempting to *see* through the fog of my horizon to a wider more expansive horizon of understanding. Christine, is my RESPONSE [my answer] a construction, a composition, an ensemble, that *I* am reacting to or MAKING [with mastery??] expressing my *self* spontaneously or reflectively ??? OR am I being CARRIED along within the *play* [dance, song, drama] OF effective history openning and unveiling the *unsaid* within the fusion of my horizon and histories horizons. THIS play *as* reciprocal & expanding BOTH *my* horizon* AND *effective histories* [plural] horizons ? The past not as DEAD metaphoricity but LIVING metaphoricity Christine, thank you for that article on Wittgenstein. The article attached is exploring *similar* themes. Larry On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Christine Schweighart < schweighartc@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm, A reminder of Bateson's work, Hugh, and his appeal towards function > and form. > > Larry I also have wondered how to understand, not *reception* of Art, as > consumption but rather production and aesthetic response in everyday life. > I have not read Margaret Gredler, but here > * humans actively intervene in situations in which natural processes are > inadequate > > I'd ask as living beings we can't really be totally separated from our > bodies and 'natural processes ( I think this turn of going above the > biological became emphasised in reaction to theoretical stimulus response > theory - but we have now passed this moment and it needs different > expression) 'Mastery' is not open -ended in this terminology . > * humans create or appropriate symbols to gain control and MASTER a > cognitive process > * the symbols do not change or influence the object of the task but the > symbols redirect or reconstruct the individual's cognitive behavior in > approaching the task. > > Another essay borrowing from Vygotsky appears here > http://www.bath.ac.uk/csat/reading/documents/2012/060212reading.pdf > Reading through pp4-8 I still struggle to find production rather than > consumption of art objects. > > It wouldn't be 'the other way round' that David encounters as weird > " we begin by an idealizing abstraction, and it is only in the subsequent > development of our aesthetic sensibility that we approach complexity " > As production would be cognitively reaching idealizing abstraction in our > embodied living (I take Wittgenstein's 'full-blooded' to be a nod to > embodied living) . > Christine. > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On 27 May 2012 18:46, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Christine [and others] > > > I'm in over my head with this question and was hoping with the right > > > question to further the conversation and thereby expand my > understanding > > of > > > *aesthetic reaction* as a concept. > > > This term for Vygotsky seemed to be central to his elaboration of a > > > *method* of analysis that he then applied to concept development. This > > > method was exploring the *essence of a phenomena. > > > > > > The article Christine recommended from the site *Stanford Encyclopedia > of > > > Philosophy* [p 8] has this statement: > > > > > > For Wittgenstein complexity, and not reduction to UITARY ESSENCE, is > the > > > route to conceptual clarification. Reduction to a simplified MODEL by > > > contrast, yields only the illusion of clarification in the form of > > > conceptual incarceration ( a picture held us captive) > > > > > > As I mentioned I'm in over my head. > > > > > > > Perhaps you're upside down? Complexity is the norm. The simplified > model > > only aligns under certain circumstances which are special cases of > > complexity. > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > Larry > > > __________________________________________ > > > _____ > > > xmca mailing list > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > > > __________________________________________ > > _____ > > xmca mailing list > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >
Attachment:
MAY 26 2012 SAALEA Wittgenstein in Aesthetic Reactions.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca