Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

> On 21 April 2011 18:18, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Huw:
>>>
>>>
> Hi, Eric.  I'm a bit fresher now, so I thought I'd give this a go.
>
>
>>  I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words.  I can appreciate
>>> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
>>> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
>>> reality.  6" of snow in april is what it is, right?  So, if one were to
>>> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera and
>>> media time is that a tool or a concept?  Methinks a concept is neutral
>>> and
>>> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april.  Thanks to Martin I have
>>> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
>>> discussing the merger of thinking and speech;  being that word meaning
>>> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
>>> speaking the word.  However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
>>> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept:  Snow
>>> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts but
>>> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.
>>>
>>
> If you're using quality as mentioned in your more recent post, then I'm in
> agreement here that it is the concept (or seed of the concept to be
> subjectively discovered).
>
>
>>   Tool use is an
>>> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea onto
>>> another but it is merely a quantity.  No?
>>>
>>
> No.  A scientific concept is a system of relations, as is a quality.
>
> Regarding use, my employment of a hammer is a system.  As is my employment
> of a concept.  We could talk about a quantitative change to this system of
> action, increasing the mass of the hammer for instance, but the action
> itself comprises a system.
>
> The concept of mass refers to a system of relations.  The measurement of
> mass comprises a quantity.
>
>
Measurement as in the product of measuring.  Measuring is a system of
action.


> There is a nice bit in Bateson's "Mind and Nature" when he talks about the
> interaction between Form and Process that he stumbled across whilst out
> doing field work of Iatmul culture (page 210 in my copy) where he describes
> the interaction of systems of process (action) and systems of type
> (qualities, concepts).  This might help you to get your head around the
> system of action and the system of a concept.
>
>
>>   Going back to the example of
>>> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it that
>>> qualifies poverty?
>>>
>>
> If there is an agreed concept of poverty  then it will be based on an
> implied set of relations, this is the agreed qualification (e.g. income less
> than the cost of rent + food for a given area).
>
>
>>   I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
>>> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is
>>> not
>>> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>>
> Still fuzzy on your meaning for this bit.  The word does not _need_ to
> denote a systemic concept in this sense.  Typically, noun phrases are used
> for this purpose, though someone can say a word without thinking its
> meaning, or think up their own meaning, if that's your point?
>
> I hope this helps for you,  Eric.
>
> Of course concept formations are only going to come about through
> particular kinds of social interaction.  So if this is all seems really
> crazy, I'd wait till your fresh and then hang on with some determination.
>
> Huw
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca