Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 19:41:40 -0800
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Anybody there??????


Mark Bower wrote:
> 
> Warren,
> 
> At 09:20 PM 1/17/98 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >Do we understand differends (when we are an instance of the phrase)
> >and are differends interesting?
> >
> >'interesting' perhaps points at the joy of recognizing,
> >linking and resolving a differend.
> >
> >.. and once resolved a differend becomes already known?
> 
> One of the things that I have been thinking about is the difference between
> Lyotard's "linking" and Gadamer's "fusion of horizons."
> 
> Lyotard uses several metaphors to describe linking:  what one might call
> "island hopping," leaping over the abyss, etc.  They all sound like must be
> "interesting," by this definition, or nothing at all.  Somewhere in the
> Lyotard Reader there is a paragraph that quotes Kant on what I would call
> "blind spots."  How he experienced a disorientation in looking at his goal,
> then turning to see from where he had come, he would forget where he was
> going.  (The inspriation for the phrase:  you can't get there from here?)
> The existence of these blind spots seem to be what make "linking" (as
> opposed to bridging) the way to get "there."
> 
> Gadamer, on the other hand, offers (though I haven't read it carefully) a
> quite different metaphor.  At first, "fusion of horizons" conjured up an
> image of two overlapping circles, but then I thought, "is this how we
> experience horizons?"  The two circles gave way to two individuals standing
> back to back, staring straight ahead, melding their pictures of the world
> to provide 360 degree coverage  (philosophers, having left the cave,
> covering each others backs?).  I finally settled on a drawing two
> individuals standing face to face, with wedge shaped "horizons" emanating
> from the points representing them, intersecting at the mid point (assuming
> a sort of symmetry I guess).  This speaks to the understanding of
> horizon,and brings up the limits or peripheral vision but leaves out a
> great deal about "fusion."
> 
> In the end, this exploration of vision as a metaphor asks what we do with
> peripheral vision and blind spots.   I do not expect that these two
> paragraphs will not change the world.
> 
> Mark
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Mark, Warren, et.al.

A few items:  1) Linking, seems to be more of a technical matter,
                 somewhat like grammar, putting together phrases
                 in accordance with generally understood modes/genres
                 of speech.
        l    
              2) Metaphors are descriptions we use for lack
                 of something better. For instance, we say light
is                       corpuscular as are ping-pong balls, 
                 or light is like waves in lines, or in water.
                 If we had talked about light in imaginary lives
                 in which we had never experienced the metaphors we
                 would describe it in other words.
              3) Horizons seem to be more about content, as when one
                 thinks of memory and expectations, or a horizon of
                 possibilities - imaginings of a future which
	         doesn't exist and consists of contradictory scenarios 
                 which may never happen.
Hugh