On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Joseph Brenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Dear Friends,
...
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.
Well. This would all be very well if there were some definitions to
support the terms you use and some evidence of a scientific approach.
With respect.
Steven
>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 or inert
concept 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 the moving of two contradictory elements
toward maximum dialectic interaction, where there is the ground for
creative emergence under the right conditions.
>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) 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 of 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. Thank you.
Best wishes,
Joseph
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
