I've heard this term, and maybe used it once or twice. Hoping I had it "right". :-) did you know there are many different techniques? After reading this explanation, I'm not sure I've used it correctly OR understood it right. Alas!
I think I had it sortof backwards - more of a "putting together" rather than a "taking apart." Might these be two sides of the same spinning coin?
Exoteric - Esoteric. Are these in opposition or in conjunction? This is one theme in Enoch's class on consciousness.
Another is number. I can only find definitions on the www that privilege its material, conventional construction. From this view, 1+1 can only equal 2. Another view, that of sacred geometry, poses a different answer.
Briankle was in a rare mood last night - he inquired about my oh-so-close-to-psychological thoughts. Well, he asked me to "say something" at a moment when I was thinking about my own theoretical problem - of trying to enact a consciousness premised upon an epistemology that accepts the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics. (btw - I'm not very good at it.)
Radhika asks if one can be liminal, really, ever - "in any context."
If time is, then existence is pertually liminal, always becoming, what Enoch called "the dissident now."
Now is described as "dissident" to emphasis the notion of existence continually coming into being (in a quantum mode, and/or in keeping with ancient mystical epistemologies) against popular "commonsense" linear conceptions of temporality.
Enoch challenged us to problematize desire. Is it possible that desire itself is an evolutionary cause? Did fish grow legs over millenia because of desire to leave the water? Or small mammals wings from desire to fly? Or humans consciousness out of desire to understand?
Here are some quick results of a google search:
We (thankfully) postponed Habermas for a week, and I'm trying to prep for Mass Comm this afternoon - have finished Gramsci and now onto Althusser, which I did read before (last year, Li gave it to me thinking it might relate to the mentoring project, hmmmm. :-)
There's a section here that has me thinking back on the private-public debate between me and Stephen (last entry February 21).
Althusser writes: "The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its 'authority'" (1971, 137).
Liminality. Who will I be? Who do I want to be?
In LinguaMoo I want to be rewind. (I wanted to be endless reflexivity but it wouldn't accept that - I think I needed an underscore. Oh well. rewind is better.)
In pmc2 - a different space. How do these relate to each other? LinguaMoo is e-theory...experimentation and application of/with theory (or so I gather...)
pmc2 is ... for play? Or, perhaps, for plurking? (although I wager such is welcome in LinguaMoo, too).
Matter does not exist, according to George Berkeley, "one of the three most famous eighteenth century British Empiricists" (along with Locke and Hume), who utilized "strictly empiricist principles in defence of the view that only minds or spirits exist."
Motto: esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived.
Careen says:
"You're not outside what you want to be inside of."
I'm holding this despite all evidence to the contrary! ;-)
Dang. Have I had metonymy all wrong? Hall describes is a linguistic term in which a part is substituted for the whole inadequately because, as a one-sided or single moment it can never provide or capture a process (or object or event or . . . ) holistically, in all its dimensions, moments, and aspects.
I've been considering it alternatively as a representation or symbol in which the whole enacts itself within the part.
Interesting NCA paper, on Reading Identity Politics through Marx.
Critique of Althusser and also of Foucault: A Lover's Discourse: Using French Social Thought for Media Criticism.
According to Raymond Williams.
I'm trying to find the full text of a quote excerpted and ellipsed by Stuart Hall (1986). The closest I've found is:
Working with James (we are going to get this piece published!) -
"According to Husserl, intersubjective experience plays a fundamental role in our constitution of both ourselves as objectively existing subjects, other experiencing subjects, and the objective spatio-temporal world. Transcendental phenomenology attempts to reconstruct the rational structures underlying - and making possible - these constitutive achievements."
and
Here is an excellent primer on Foucault.
The author, John Haber, poses Foucault vs Sartre: "For Sartre, a self-assured fighter who violently distrusted revolutionaries, alienation is normal. For Foucaultóa homosexual who died of AIDS in the midst of composing an ambitious, unfinished History of Sexualityóaccepting normalcy as others define it is out of the question."
This "light, little book" that Briankle assigned us for pleasure and a change of pace is striking me heavy. It's fascinating, and fun, as some of my colleagues have said. And... its full of resonance for me - so many overlaps with my last relationship and the extended circle of "friends."
Stealing the Mona Lisa: What Art Stops Us From Seeing, by Darian Leader, has taught me more about art (to which I've "come late", as I once said to the FP, not all that long ago) than anything else I've ever read or heard or discussed.
One of my classmates said this today, describing an experience she had during meditation ("sitting") when she felt the two lobes of her brain widely separated by "the void" of the universe. Of course it sounds like a drug trip, illustrating the subsequent conversation we had about the academically-sanctioned search for causality - as if a knowledge of material causality is the only worthwhile epistemology.
I'm just wondering. Are Koreans always late or is it just HUNJU?!!!! I can handle it though, because I am getting The Best tutoring on philosophy a person could possibly wish. :-) We had an awesome talk about the first two chapters in Moran's Introduction to Phenomenology. It's pretty complicated stuff, but fascinating. Sheer downright absa-tooting-lutely fascinating. Folks are welcome to join us, if you want, we're reading fairly big chunks every two weeks then meeting to hash out understanding. Today we went over the Intro and the chapter on Brentano. It's wild to imagine being back in the day just figuring these things out, like how to separate and/or integrate and/or comprehend the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. "Objectivity-for-subjectivity" is the formulation that stuck in my mind... meaning (if I can wrap my head around this one more time)....whatever we experience or perceive as objective is always already conditioned by subjectivity...the question is "how the world comes to appearance in and through humans," or, as Husserl put it: "how does objectivity get constituted in and for consciousness?"
Oh dear. I am going to worry this one for awhile. Why is it staying on my mind? (Attachment?) :-)
Iím talking about the damn tree. Itís still falling. Making noise. Iím reading about Franz Brentano, who invented descriptive psychology and inspired all kinds of folk, including Edmund Husserl. The book is Introduction to Phenomenology. The discussion Iím just now reading is about intentionality.
Merleau-Ponty uses this term to describe the inevitable and inextricable intertwining of consciousness with being. The phenomenological challenge he undertakes is to describe this mutual imbrication of selves and the world.
There is a medical reference, the optic chiasm, and a literary reference. Most simply, it means "an intersection or crossing of two tracts in the form of the letter X", and is reference to form.
