Dear Friends,

The notes of Jerry and Stan, taken together, give me the chance of clarifying 
several issues;

Jerry wrote:


>Your post was studied for some time. I would suggest that, from my 
>perspective, that you are developing a internal language that orders your 
>feelings in a manner that >is satisfying to personal your needs.  But, I find 
>it difficult to translate your expressions into the usual usages that allow me 
>to understand your expressions.  What is it, >really, that you are seeking to 
>signify?

I have no interest in translating my expressions into the usual usages since it 
is exactly those I claim fail to give an adequate picture of the real processes 
involved in creativity. My personal needs have nothing to do with it. My system 
is grounded in science, and I seek scientific validation. 

>In particular, your style suggests that the notion of sign, signals and 
>semiosis at the base of natural and human communication is purposefully 
>excluded from your >discourse.  The information content of messages comes to 
>us in these forms. And, we give our sensual experiences to others in these 
>forms.  Is this merely my >imagination or do you intentionally exclude the 
>profound separation that guides an artist from the sensory impressions to the 
>sensual expressions? 

I do not wish to exclude semiosis from my system. I merely point out that your 
style excludes the dynamics ;-). Both are needed for an adequate description of 
the complex of creative processing of information. I will indeed exclude the 
"profound separation" to which you refer. I see nothing but complex systems of 
non-separations.

>The phrase:


"be directed inversely to the logic of ethics, inversely to any rational or 
irrational process, that is, inversely to processes that lead toward the 
absolute identity or diversity of non-contradiction."reads to me as an abuse of 
the everyday usage of the notion of both inverse and and identity.  Can you 
give meaningful definitions of how you are using the terms "identity" and 
"inverse" in this context?(Neither of these terms cohere to logic as it is 
typically expressed although both are common in mathematics.) 


It should be clear by now that my system cannot be judged in terms of what it 
critiques. I am dealing with neither everyday usage nor what and what does not 
cohere to logic "as it is typically expressed". An identity to me is a 
macrophysical object that to all intents and purposes does not enter into 
interactions with its environment (since its production). It is a 
non-contradiction without an antagonistic "partner". Moving in the inverse 
direction means moving toward maximum dialectic interaction, where there is the 
ground for creative emergence.

>Perhaps the critical phrase in your thinking is:"dynamic electrostatic 
>equilibrium".Is it your intention to communicate that mental dialectics in the 
>parliament of the >mind must engineer the absolute stoppage of time?

Exactly the opposite. I wished to point out that the "resting" potential of a 
nerve cell is anything but rest or stoppage.


> In my simple notion of a Greek-ish world, the pleasures of art should 
> parallel the pleasures of good friends, good food, good wine and a good 
> lover!   

I would not dream of changing your notion, which I totally share. What have I 
said that might have led you to think otherwise?

Stan wrote:

>As an artist (all media) my reaction to the below is quizzical.  Neuroscience, 
>information science, esthetics, etc. are logical products in the realm of 
>'knowing that', >which I call Nature, or Reality, while the unfolding of an 
>artistic work takes place in the realm of 'knowing how', which I call The 
>World, or Actuality.  The one is a >view from the outside, the other a view 
>from the inside, reflecting the 'externalist / internalist' duality.  

My logic in reality states that this duality is an illusion. External and 
internal, reality and actuality interact dialectically, that is, share part of 
one another's properties such that when one predominates, the other is 
repressed (or potentialized) and vice versa, alternately and reciprocally. 

>I think it could be urged that the current 'social intent' of external logical 
>understanding is to serve technology (as in computation).  In this it makes 
>things replicable.  

This is because "external logical understanding" is as (unnecessarily) as 
limited in its scope as you imply. My logic is a logic of "non-computability", 
that is, it applies to real processes that are non-Markovian, hence 
non-computable.

>An artist makes things unique, as is any actual occasion, even though it may 
>be working within a strong tradition (e.g., medieval Islamic tilework), or 
>with the intent of >making copies (etchings, photographs).  Art might be said 
>to be the intent to focus the unique moment in the service of beauty, or 
>expression, or shock, or (considering >the modern arts) anything whatever.

Your definition of art is acceptable in my extended logical framework, when it 
refers to the artist making something. Beyond this, it does not talk directly 
to the un-real aspect of art, that is, the creation in writing of non-existent 
objects (whose information content might be the subject of much discussion). 
But art is not only the focus of a unique moment; this is an example of a 
tendency to prefer a clean-cut "identity" as I was talking about in my response 
to Jerry. Art is, also, an on-going process, at the limit, the entire life a 
human being. My own experience of only one art, that of poetry also suggests 
this. Rather than focus on the one or two verses that happen to emerge while I 
brush my teeth, what about the largely unconscious processes (information 
processing) that led to those lines? In other words, in the logic of art that I 
am proposing, to be quite brutal, the output is not some concrete object to 
sell, or even show your wife. It is a constant becoming which of course 
includes, and is not separated from, the art object in the usual sense.

I hope the box is still open for Jerry, Stan and all of you. Thank you.

Best wishes,

Joseph 
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to