Re: intersubjectivity

Tim A. Connor (
Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Jim Legg wrote:

> Tim A. Connor wrote:
> >
> > ... I suppose complex to-simple is also possible, but it
> > would be so uneconomical that I doubt it occurs.
> Tim,
> Given the software icon is an example of simple-to-complex, I imagine
> there are sexual icons that might fit the complex-to-simple scenario. In
> which case, does your view of what is uneconomical show a gender
> specific or more fundamental phenomenon.
> --
> Jim Legg
> Man*Soul/Computer='See What You Think...'


Interesting--I guess I'm not sure what you mean by a sexual icon. Do you
mean a complex erotic image that serves as a vehicle for a simple state of
arousal? (assuming that arousal is simple). In any case, that particular
comment was very much off the top of my head, I didn't take much time to
search for examples, so you may well be right--it wouldn't surprise me if
the economy of symbolism was context-bound (everything else is!).