Re: [xmca] Hybridity in Living Color

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Hi David-- I feels kind of as if the intertwining of topics is getting
particularly dense at present.

Responding to your hybridity note while thinking about tool/sign and rules.

I don't get what makes dimensions of power, such as size, or hardness, or
speediness NOT a part of hybridity. Such assymetries, as I understand it,
are central to the process of development. They are central to the spiraling
process we try vainly to depict in our symbolic gestures around MCA. Perhaps
a sort of Multi-modal, multi-dimensional, multi-magnitude, multi-chronic
hybridity?

I was knocked over when I saw the picture of Ayer's painting by the
inclusion of people gardening and the man/manikin -- and the fact that I had
an editor sufficiently in tune with my intent to recognize the affinity
totally out of the context of her work.

mike

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:42 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> What I like about it is the idea that the tension between mechanical
> organization and organic organization is reproduced within the mechanical
> and within the organic, and it never goes away; there is no point
> of entropy.
>
> I think that's what strikes us in Thinking and Speech. BECAUSE they have
> separate roots, they can merge and transform each other and branch again
> (into verbal thinking and thoughtful speaking) and each branch can branch
> again.
>
> For example, reading is intensely VERBAL verbal thinking and mathematical
> logic is much more THOUGHTFUL verbal thinking. In an opera an aria is much
> more like thought and a recitative is much more like speech but neither one
> is really speaking. And within each speech genre, new gradations arise.
>
> Is that hybridity? It seems to me that hybridity lacks the idea of
> dominance, and contains the idea of entropy, and I think in the oppositions
> we are looking at the shifting nature of dominance and the lack of ultimate
> entropy are both key.
>
> For example, as a painter, my first response to this thing is to ask:
> That's an OIL painting? It sure looks like acrylic to me. With oil you get
> MUCH better definition between flesh and non-flesh. Acrylic is great for
> clutter (and this is a really cluttery painting) and oil is better for
> nuance.
>
> I guess if I were doing this painting I would use both (acrylic first, and
> then oil to top off the organic bits). But I would definitely want the sense
> that acrylic and oil are really like salad dressing: you can get an
> infinitely delicate emulsion, but you will never get a mixture.
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
> --- On *Sat, 10/16/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Subject: [xmca] Hybridity in Living Color
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Saturday, October 16, 2010, 12:54 PM
>
> This image which served as the cover for cultural psychology has, among its
> virtues, that it
> appears to match key themes of the book, including the metphorical use of
> culture-as-garden
> and humans as hybrids.
>
> Pretty too.
>
> mike
>
>
> http://www.philipayers.com/images/oilpaintings/paintings90_prs/Fullsize_90_prs/01.jpeg
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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