Dear all.

Unfortunately, Martin’s text arrived too late, and since I have had problems with my eyes I couldn’t read it even though I wanted, or the other texts again as planned yesterday. I read Niklas text (and the other texts, except the extra one that I gave up reading since it did not appeal to me) several weeks ago. Niklas text is well written and interesting, and I read it with pleasure. The two other texts, though, are a (maybe too) narrow passage to affect theory for me, and I would suggest a broader, or different,  approach next time. Or is this, as Jørgen wrote yesterday, the new framework of our group? If it is, I must rethink my role in the group, since cognition theory will not be part of my theoretical framework. Maybe I misunderstood the whole concept of the affect group when it was initiated (and developed in Höör by a few of you).

I couldn’t see that the second text differentiated in a consistent way between aisthesis (the direct sensory perception and bodily experience) and aesthetics (the philosophical reflection upon them) (to broadly describe one way to distinguish these terms, but to avoid the notion of “art” will of course also be prioritised when researchers decide to use the first term today). Maybe this initiated Jørgen’s question about roughly the same thing in the beginning, but at least it explains my confusion while reading.

I wish I had had the possibility to re-read the three texts and read Martin’s, but learned a lot from the discussion, thanks! I will work the next days, so:

Have a nice summer!

Per

---