From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 13:45:16 PDT
I'm going to answer this once. I see no benefit to myself or anyone else by
But, my views are much more like those of the complex adaptive systems
> > > > theorists who describe all interactions as "interpretations"
> > > >
> > >
> > > sounds anthropocentric
> > > i don't think the interaction of oxygen and plant life is an
> > > interpretation
> > >
> > Interaction as in interactive engagement with the environment. Even
> > bacteria do this, so I don't know what you're talking about.
> i just don't see interaction as an interpretation
Ok. I disagree.
are you talking about quantum stuff?
> that the data gathering process effects the data dirived?
While this is true about QM, it isn't what I was talking about.
The point made by Derrida in his critique of phenomenology was quite simple,
that in looking we make interpretations, that all sense encounters are
interpretations (this is the meaning of his "always already").
This point is one that much contemp. science also agrees with, esp. contemp.
theories of mind (not just human, btw).
The actual contents of the environment around us, etc. etc. are interpreted
into existence. Much of this is happens via pre-conscious "systems" of
neurons in the brain. There are theories about how this happens, but nothing
These interpretations are one common feature of all life on earth, doesn't
matter what kind of life you're talking about--which is one of the basic
assumptions of much science, esp. evolution--and in field of complex
adaptive systems it is the underlying method not only for natural selection,
but what John Holland has called "hypothesis-testing" which is a feedback
between interpretation, expected result and actual result, a process that
proceeds in a way similar to evolution.
None of this has anything to do with phenomenology, what you're calling
"anthropocentric" or "human consciousness" per se (even though human
consciousness is one example of this view in action).
Now, your example of phil's actions as performance art is an interpretation,
one that you admit is unique to yourself, and not likely shared by phil.
That in itself argues against your claims about this being art, unless we do
adopt such an expansive view of art that the entire discussion of it becomes
(BTW, Your claim of phil's actions as performance art could be called
"colonialism" since it converts an act of agressive rebellion into a
performance your comments show you found entertaining.)
> > > - how sad -
> > > > > i am more of a rationalist
> > > > > i have respect for all life forms
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how you got that I am not/do not from what I have said
> > > > here or elsewhere in the past.
> > > >
> > >
> > > well what u are stating here does not express respect in my mind
> > > saying our processies are beyond other processies isn't respect to me
> > > make an argument for how it is
> > >
> > No.
> > I did't say that. That would be in your mind.
> > It is not an excuse to be rude or condescending to someone you don't
> > even know.
> "know" is relative
No, it isn't. Your comments are presumptive, and the response continues to
but i am more talking of ideas - not personal per say
The response to these ideas is not about ideas, but personal.
That is rude.
Saying "know is relative" is condescending.
There is no ambiguity about your comments here in the context of this
i am sorry that you feel i am being rude
I see no point in arguing this, so I will say this once, clearly, then drop
it as it wastes my time, and the lists'.
To state this:
that means you are a phenomenologist
and a anthropocentric thinker
- how sad -
i am more of a rationalist
i have respect for all life forms
And later claim that you're not being rude is disingenuous.
There is a negative judgement here of me as a person pretending to be a
claim about comments. It is coupled with the suggestion that this view is
not rational ("i am more of a rationalist") and entails a disrespect for
non-human life ("i have respect for all life forms"). That is rude.
The condescension comes from "- how sad -" because this assumes a moral
position over the other person commenting, something that has no place in a
discussion of ideas.
my intent is to discuss ideas not be condescending
> i was talking about that you don't think art is made by other beings
I never said this.
You claimed I did, then attacked me based on your assumption.
i think art = life and
The "art=life" equation is useless for thinking about any question of this
It is so broad as to be incapable of providing any clarity on the questions
I've been asking.
i think art is made by other beings
So "art" is a universal, then?
"Art" has always existed, will always exist, everywhere for all cultures?
Great! :) This sounds so democratic.
So why are some films generally held to be good/important/significant and
Making everything into art doesn't avoid the question of how do we choose
good/bad when looking at art.
(After all, "bad art" is still art.)
As soon as the question becomes "quality" the discussion stops and argues
over irrelevant things. Why is that?
Is the question of "values" so forbidden that we can't consider it?
i think i am being clear
> ur statements b4 represent a phenomonoligists way of thinking
No, actually they do not. There is not enough context there to make any
assessment about that question either way. Were I to be quoting Husserl (for
example) then perhaps there would be basis. Again, you're making assumptions
then responding to what you think, rather than what was written.
Des Moines, IA USA
the avant-garde film & video blog
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.