These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Sounds like it:) -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike Cole Sent: Sun 11/20/2011 1:21 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Ambivalence and system Romantic science, Larry? :-) Mike On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > I wanted to reflect a little more on the centrality of ambivalence as > inherent in all systemic conceptual worldviews by a backward glance to the > tension between early German Romanticism and German Idealism. > This is not an arena I know well but Andy's writings have clled me tlearn > more. > I am reading a book on Schlegel's contribution to the ideas circulating in > Jena at the beginning of the 1800's. A time which has been referred to as > Early German Romanticism. > Schlegel wrote this comment when reflecting on thinking systematically. > > "It is equally fatal for the spirit to have a system and to have none. It > will simply have to decide to combine the two" > This comment seems to share the same sensibility as Zygmunt Bauman's notion > of "ambivalence" as ontological to all system constructions. "liquid > modernity" as diachronic versus more structural notions of solid modernity > is a case in point. > > Every philosopher must have a system, for to make claims and construct > arguments, we must assume some system, FOR WE NEED LIMITS, but this must be > done with the recognition that ANY particular system is a PART of a > PLURALITY of other systems. This is the recognition that one must > simultaneouslly be WITHIN a system and be without it. > > This way of thinking, which can be framed as "romantic" [no final system] > is also hermeneutic. > Just further reflections on the ontological necessity of ambivalence at the > heart of our projects. > > 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