Once more trying to understand it
pg 163
"we are going to try to define how many other forms of alterities a being is capable of traversing in order to continue to exist.... we are going to try to find out how many distinct ways a being has[,] to pass through others... We have the right to question the alteration of beings in several keys......There are several modes of beings that ensure their own subsistence by selecting a distinct form of alterity, modes that we can thus encounter only by creating different opportunities for instauration for each one, in order to learn to speak to them in its own language"
So what sense do I make out of it:
As "I" experience experience, "I" is the witness of articulations, "I" is constituted by the witnessing of articulations, at different levels of entanglement with "I" (I find myself moving towards... and owning that movement, I find myself floating in an emotion, I hatch thoughts, I witness meetings, I witness shifting away from here and now and entering memories, imaginations and projections, I entangle in dialogue with fellow humans etc), which articulations are entanglements and therefore there is a sense of presence of other beings, of which beings "I" only get a glimpse, together with the sense of their presence and a sense of fullness of the experience, (my guide here is my understanding of Alva Noe's account of visual perception) as beings with strong entanglements with the "I" (beings that collectively create the sense of "I", perhaps as the lens makes an image) pass through these other beings.
In a similar way that (at least in visual consciousness) though I have a sese of general presence and fullness of experience, when I focus intently there is an "extended foreground"/background structure that seems to be always present and defies a pin-pointing manner of description, in cognition (at least in the way it unfolds when dealing with material like the ones mentioned in the MOE book) though I have a sense of general presence and fullness of "understanding" (of the text, of sentences that I produce, of sentences in a dialogue), when I focus intently there is a structure of "passing through"-ness that seems to always be present and defies a pin-pointing manner of description.
Finally (this is something I do not see been highlighted but I do not see how one can do without it unless the modes of existence end reifying into a modeling device alternative to the use of elementary particles and their differential equations) all this is stabilized by the experience of humans sharing understanding in dialogue (verbal or other). The ethnographer in MOE calls us to participate in a new discursive universe, promising a new flow of meaning as we gather in a liturgy of incarnation of the word into the world.
If I take this stance then when reading " a being is capable of transversing" I am reading it from the point of view of this experience and therefore the "being" is not something that stays extensively in time in front of my mind-eye to contemplate on it. The "being" is not like the "initial conditions" in a Physics problem. The "being" is the fleeting being of which I get a glimpse while the "passing through" takes place.
And then what about all these sentences that I am producing in the blog message? How can one be so verbose about glimpses, if everything ends up being like pilled glimpses?
It feels as if being able to produce sentences about an experience, but the unfolding of the sentences is not similar to the experience (as it happens with what we usually call description). The elements of the sentense point to the experience, as it happens with a poem.
So let me close with part of a poem written in Greece in very difficult times
(http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/181853)
pg 163
"we are going to try to define how many other forms of alterities a being is capable of traversing in order to continue to exist.... we are going to try to find out how many distinct ways a being has[,] to pass through others... We have the right to question the alteration of beings in several keys......There are several modes of beings that ensure their own subsistence by selecting a distinct form of alterity, modes that we can thus encounter only by creating different opportunities for instauration for each one, in order to learn to speak to them in its own language"
So what sense do I make out of it:
As "I" experience experience, "I" is the witness of articulations, "I" is constituted by the witnessing of articulations, at different levels of entanglement with "I" (I find myself moving towards... and owning that movement, I find myself floating in an emotion, I hatch thoughts, I witness meetings, I witness shifting away from here and now and entering memories, imaginations and projections, I entangle in dialogue with fellow humans etc), which articulations are entanglements and therefore there is a sense of presence of other beings, of which beings "I" only get a glimpse, together with the sense of their presence and a sense of fullness of the experience, (my guide here is my understanding of Alva Noe's account of visual perception) as beings with strong entanglements with the "I" (beings that collectively create the sense of "I", perhaps as the lens makes an image) pass through these other beings.
In a similar way that (at least in visual consciousness) though I have a sese of general presence and fullness of experience, when I focus intently there is an "extended foreground"/background structure that seems to be always present and defies a pin-pointing manner of description, in cognition (at least in the way it unfolds when dealing with material like the ones mentioned in the MOE book) though I have a sense of general presence and fullness of "understanding" (of the text, of sentences that I produce, of sentences in a dialogue), when I focus intently there is a structure of "passing through"-ness that seems to always be present and defies a pin-pointing manner of description.
Finally (this is something I do not see been highlighted but I do not see how one can do without it unless the modes of existence end reifying into a modeling device alternative to the use of elementary particles and their differential equations) all this is stabilized by the experience of humans sharing understanding in dialogue (verbal or other). The ethnographer in MOE calls us to participate in a new discursive universe, promising a new flow of meaning as we gather in a liturgy of incarnation of the word into the world.
If I take this stance then when reading " a being is capable of transversing" I am reading it from the point of view of this experience and therefore the "being" is not something that stays extensively in time in front of my mind-eye to contemplate on it. The "being" is not like the "initial conditions" in a Physics problem. The "being" is the fleeting being of which I get a glimpse while the "passing through" takes place.
And then what about all these sentences that I am producing in the blog message? How can one be so verbose about glimpses, if everything ends up being like pilled glimpses?
It feels as if being able to produce sentences about an experience, but the unfolding of the sentences is not similar to the experience (as it happens with what we usually call description). The elements of the sentense point to the experience, as it happens with a poem.
So let me close with part of a poem written in Greece in very difficult times
(http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/181853)
The light
[...]
Light, angelic and black,
laughter of waves on the sea’s highways
tear-stained laughter,
the old suppliant sees you
as he moves to cross the invisible fields —
light mirrored in his blood,
the blood that gave birth to Eteocles and Polynices.
Day, angelic and black;
the brackish taste of woman that poisons the prisoner
emerges from the wave a cool branch adorned with drops.
Sing little Antigone, sing, O sing. . .
I’m not speaking to you about things past, I’m speaking about love;
adorn your hair with the sun’s thorns,
dark girl;
the heart of the Scorpion has set,
the tyrant in man has fled,
and all the daughters of the sea, Nereids, Graeae,
hurry toward the shimmering of the rising goddess:
whoever has never loved will love,
in the light;
and you find yourself
in a large house with many windows open
running from room to room, not knowing from where to look out first,
because the pine trees will vanish, and the mirrored mountains, and the chirping of birds
the sea will empty, shattered glass, from north and south
your eyes will empty of the light of day
the way the cicadas all together suddenly fall silent.
Poros, ‘Galini’, 31 October 1946
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου