Sorry for the delay in reply...i have been in the field conducting a
community research project...i agree with you concerning the mechanistic
facade that this approach of mine has, apologies...i am at that frienzied
stage of engagment with work that we have all been at some time.

the amazing thing is that simple mechanisms are so generative and that
emergent orders of many kinds are possible...in vision...and our language
often fails us when we attempt to give this generative power due
reverence...if you ever have the opportunity to view Papuna Tula Art from
North West Central Aust you will see these represent the Dreaming in a
deeper manner...i tend to avoid using the 'Dreaming' as a term, preferring
correspondence system etc. instead because this avoids the ladders of
inference within the academic institution...which tends to place the
Dreaming as 'ancient knowledge' not in recognition of its 45 to 80 thousand
year history of visual intellectual development but as a relegation to
primitive status...in this world view the sharing of 'mental images' is a
demonstration that correspondence exists at many levels and that
relegations, segmentations or barriers are mostly constructed with some
other intent

as far as the question of intent in PhDs...the extension on literature
(semantics) provides some place to stand at the beginning of the journey, a
departure point so that you can say...i came from there...this is the
question...  for me the aim is to get to a point where interpretation is
not enough and then journey off (into research) 

inquiry beyond semantics...for me means 'letting places speak' as research
metaphor and then 'letting places lead' as the methodology emerges...(place
equals context in my view) and believe that journey issues self-resolve
(when you know where you came from and your method is context relevant) a
tyre-print or  reflector on the bike metaphor

research and discovery is a project that the context of my work
forbids...letting places speak...means recognising our own ignorance and
inability WITHOUT that context (as human beings and researchers) not
exercising our power in it...following from this it would be foolish for me
to propose a correspondence theory and then use a non-correspondence
methodology to test it...so the idea of segmentations in conceptualising is
to be avoided...literary traditions tend to institute such divisions and
design tends to be based in bringing diverse influences together (Klaus's
wonderful words)

at the basis of this is the view that it is not necessary to be reductive
to understand...and if research is only concerned with delimiting
experience to measurable contexts we should all be physicists... something
that arises from this reduction in research view is the problem of defining
creativity ...can creativity be defined by reduction to examples or
instances? is this an oxymoron?..we can  only understand the generative by
reducing it to fit our schema 

creativity is a mental state (for me a correspondence) in relation to
(action in) the world...eg when we stir our coffee we generate
patterns...we all do it all the time so its not creative!! but if we become
aware of our coffee stirring action one morning it can spark some
inspiration for a physicist or a painter so suddenly it is creative (like
Newton's apple)it may become an exemplar...so defining creativity may be
seen as a social tool that points to that certain mental state.

i am stating that the value of all this is that these patternings of
definition through and across contexts are revealing (Bryn's bike in many
states)and that they reveal not just a history of definition styles but a
field of correspondence (mutual adaptation between definition contexts)
that may contain 3rd order understanding concerning
(human)creativity...then the fit of patterns of definition in other
contexts may reveal 4th order understanding and so on etc. 

all this is based on the view that we live within an ecology of
intersecting systems not within a developmental stream (i believe that this
is increasingly apparent in many domains especially physics)

so research becomes a project of understanding relations in contexts first
and then if some part of a context determines it is some amazing creative
discovery well & good but there is no a priori creative dynamic... there is
just the intent to understand

norm

01:03  12/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Thanks for your reply, Norm.  It is interesting and useful.
>
>I'm not sure whether you are a zealot, but I wonder if you have
>considered alternative hypotheses to address the problem.  It would be
>valuable to do so, I think.  Your ideas may not change, but they may. 
>There are some very powerful alternatives to the somewhat mechanistic
>explanation that you have given.  I think they would not directly refute
>your analysis, but they may open up quite different lines of thinking
>that you may find rewarding.  In other words, one may accept the
>biological and psychological explanation you have given and still not
>find it entirely adequate to the problem of "seeing."
>
>I wish we could talk in person.  Ah, this is where e-mail begins to
>break down, doesn't it.  We could bounce references back and forth over
>e-mail, but the real meaning may elude us.  And isn't this precisely the
>problem of seeing and looking?  Your explanation of the mind's eye, if I
>may use this phrase now, only raises further questions for me, rather
>than settling them.  What is there about the mind's eye that lets
>us--you and I--share an idea and know together what we mean?  The
>chemistry of our brains may account for it, but I wonder . . . if there
>are other things not revealed by brain chemistry--or by cognitive
>matters of information processing.  Herb would tell me that this is all
>there is, but I still wonder.  And I wonder, if it is all so clear, why
>other smart people are not satisfied by the explanation.  
>
>Will your ideas be part of your dissertation?  It will be good reading,
>I am sure.
>
>By the way, I think there is an important difference between "semantics"
>and "inquiry."  Semantics, in the sense I am using the term here, is a
>set of established meanings that come from someone's work--reading
>Vygotsky, for example.  We may take up those meanings and work ahead a
>bit along the path that they suggest.  This happens often enough among
>people--and, unfortunately, in many doctoral dissertations.  Most of the
>work lies in untangling the meaning of an author's words.  This, to me,
>is not inquiry.  Inquiry is not about figuring out an author's words--an
>important skill at the undergraduate level and at the master's level,
>but only a small tool at the doctoral level.  Inquiry is about figuring
>out the world.  I think there is a fundamental difference between a
>semantic problem and a problem for inquiry.  I suspect that many
>doctoral students--in all fields--never reach a point where they
>understand this difference.
>
>I am interested in your thoughts on this matter.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dick 
>
>
[log in to unmask]
Norman Sheehan
Senior Research Officer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%