yo,
> [gav]
> does systems theory privilege the interactions of the
> elements within a
> system over the elements themselves?
>
> [Krimel]
> I make no pretext to expertise in formal systems theory so
> I can't really
> answer that. But from my own perspective a system is:
> elements interacting.
> In the absence of elements there is nothing to interact.
> Without interaction
> elements are just inert. Neither could be considered a
> system.
gav: the point i am getting at is one of priority. the interactions are
dynamic, the elements static. are the interactions - the processes -
ontologically prior to the elements? if so then there is accord twixt the MOQ
and systems theory.
how can there be interaction between elements without there first being
elements? well this is the pivot point - do we observe directly, empirically,
the elements or the interactions?
i would say that only process is empirically given; that is we cannot observe a
static element. we can only observe immediate flux, and from this flux we can
abstract (static) elements - patterns.
the flux or process is aesthetically apprehended, the elements are conceptual.
your point about systems requiring both elements and their interactions does
not contradict my point above. Dq and sq cannot exist independently of one
another (on the relative plane). form and formlessness are polar opposites.
each presumes the other. we can never totally or purely experience DQ (except
perhaps in madness or death or altered states); the static patterns that make
up 'me' are always to a greater or lesser degree influencing perception of the
immediate aesthetic flux.
the crux lies in the privileged ontological status of the dynamic, the
unpatterned, the pre-conceptual, this flux. anything we identify *in this
flux*, any pattern, is abstracted from it, ie it comes after the experience of
the flux.
i hope this made some sense
sartre's 'nausea' deals with this when the author/protagonist, when looking at
a tree, sees not a tree but an alien, unique, dynamic flux of perceptions. the
category 'tree', he realises, is abstract; the 'real' tree is unique, infinite.
gav
Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter
now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
