<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR><BR> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR><BR> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Dear David Samuels, I have had a chance to
have a proper look your posting on Tues. 19th,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2> You wrote, "I don't think that
resolution is a prerequisite of either a narrative structure or for creativity
to take place"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Niether do I, I didn't say reconciliation was a
prerequisite for creativity, rather the other way round. I said " in order
for there to be reconciliation, there needs to be creativity." I placed
them, and numbered them correspondingly in reverse order , i was hoping to
explain it better that way, i was wrong, clear as mud. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>You wrote, "creativity always takes
place,creativity is involved in saying 'goodmorning' to the
milkman".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I understand what your saying, but...I think
your taking it out of context, the amount of concentration and effort that
goes into 'creating' is immense compared to that of a few words with the
milkman, no matter what the attraction of the milkman
! I think you understand what level of creativity i'm thinking
of, not chatting with the milkman; </FONT><FONT size=2>not a bit of
cutting and pasting with the kids; but </FONT><FONT size=2>creating
greater artwork, designing unique houses, composing music, dance, poetry,
writing, ect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You wrote, " One difference between linguistics and
discourse, i think, is in there disparate judgements of what counts as 'the
same' ( linguistics assuming that phonological, morphological, syntactic forms
circulate wholly made, discourse investigating what accounts for that
circulation and the ideology that the resulting forms are 'the same.') The
non-purposive state is Kantian, and is, I think questionable from the standpoint
of ethnography (since it implies that there is a place that transcends context
for the creation of art)."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If I understand you correctly you are saying 'discourse' is
examining ethnographically and the non-purposive state does not allow for this
as there is no evidence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I'm saying that the conscious mind is learning from the
creation, thinking about the creation using a particular discourse. i.e.
images or icons, and words to describe the same. The subconscious also
recieves the information using the same discourse, and the conscious
remakes ideas using the same discourse. This discourse can be examined
ethnographically, it can be spoken about, it can be labelled, it is not an
illusive abstract idea, as it is about the actual creation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I can imagine what your thinking about this.
:) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Best wishes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Julie.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>