What I said was:You both keep insisting that representation is objective. I don't think you have any clear idea of how subjective representation can be and still be accepted as a literal transcription.
I don't think you should insist on the literalness of representation. And not having a clear idea of something is not the same as having no idea. Insisting on literal representation limits your options to a more modern concept. You said: The current view, far more accepted among "philosophers" and literary/artistic types than scientists, is that the subjectivity of the mind affects, reconstructs, distorts, multiplies, perception of nature to the extent that each case produces a different "truth". This shift is amply discussed in Martin Jay's seminal book, Downcast Eyes. It might be summarized as a shift from a monocular perspectival view of the world to a binocular, multi-perspectival view of the world. The concept of representation needs to be examined in light of the paradigm shift in the 20-21 C. This was interesting. KAte Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 9:59 am Subject: Re: representation You go way too far in saying that "you" (and who is that?) have "no idea" of how "subjective" representation "can be". One may make that statement about anything any human does. The issue is far more complex and subtle, and historical. You might even start with Descartes who admitted the subjectivity of human perception but insisted that it was the perception of God if properly reasoned, meaning it could be objectively true. This is precisely the path chosen by the scientific community in seeking the 'laws" of nature, meaning that truth with respect to our knowing nature can be discerned, if we are purely rational, open to correcting human errors as we proceed. The current view, far more accepted among "philosophers" and literary/artistic types than scientists, is that the subjectivity of the mind affects, reconstructs, distorts, multiplies, perception of nature to the extent that each case produces a different "truth". This shift is amply discussed in Martin Jay's seminal book, Downcast Eyes. It might be summarized as a shift from a monocular perspectival view of the world to a binocular, multi-perspectival view of the world. The concept of representation needs to be examined in light of the paradigm shift in the 20-21 C. You seem to be espousing the new view, multi-perspectival-binocular-constructive, while retaining a word, representation, within the context of Cartesian logic.metaphysics. Again, IF by representation you mean imitation of Nature, then no matter how necessarily abstracted that IMITATION is, if it is not imitating nature (I refer to evolutionary nature) it is not a representation. You can say you choose to "represent" a dragon but since there are no dragons in nature that have ever been seen by anyone, then you can only invent a dragon in your mind by making it physical in some way or by calling to mind some previous physical invention, both of which need to be argued, somehow, as signs of the "mythical" dragon. As is well known, there was a popular ancient and medieval history of inventing all sorts of "composite creatures" to serve as visual metaphors of mythical beings, gods, or terrors, and the like. In the middle ages, "Bestiaries" were made as quasi-fanciful dictionaries of animals.
