This is what I get out of reading [HAB]
There are two interesting things about how [HAB] works
a) the felicity condition of [HAB] determines the state of our agency. In the negative felicity condition I flow mindlessly along [HAB], or perhaps I do not dare questionning it. I do things because "things are done this way". In the positive felicity condition I may do "manual restart", I may become (in the way activity theory speaks about things) the subject of my activity. (I know that in AIME [HAB] is supposed to be indifferent to pseudo-subjects and pseudo-objects, but I stay close to the chapter that is concentrating on [HAB], chapter 10)
b) Between moving along [HAB] with the [PRE] key present but veiled and "remembering" the key of the course of action there is a contrast that reminds me the contrast I think I have read as James' between concentrating on something and using it, perhaps between understanding something (as it becomes the focus of our attention) and using it towards something else.
Returning to the first point, there is the question of what is my motive, why would I care to "remember" the key of my course of action, and thus become "more and more skillful" (pg 269)? My feeling is that I care to do so as an expression of my subjectivity. So the motive for this action (of unveiling rather than just "accepting the misfortune" and move along - "the pipe leaks, oh well....") is provided by the modes that create pseudo-subjects: [REL], [POL], [LAW]. ( Can I allow to see myself as incompetent, irresponsible, bad/condemned, moving blisfully along automatic pathways while things move away from normality?)
Why should I forget the key? Because (it seems to me) a [MET] being has grabbed and deformed me.
Going to the second point, I take it to be that "essences" are useful for doing work. I can also make taxonomies of concepts and that is fine as far as working with them goes. So for example I may make a taxonomy of chairs, distinguishing categories of different levels and perhaps connecting categories in networks. But if I ask what is the essence of "chairness" , if I go for understanding, then it is better to move towards the discourses of the Modes of Existence, rather than searching a "solid substratum, that of substance causa sui" (pg 273). ""Behind" appearance there is not "reality", but only the key that allows us to understand how reality is to be grasped- and this key does not lie underneath, but alongside and ahead. Appearance allows itself to be seen in the direction given by the preposition, like the path folowed by the hiker who is reassured but nevertheless careful not to make a mistake" (pg 271). Understanding "opens-up" the situation but it does not create levels of concepts but flows with different [PRE] keys on the same level .
Now the character who is suposed to be paradigmatic of the search of essences (in the sense of substance causa sui), is Socrates. ("This doesn't mean that we have to grasp every course of action according to the mode of reference alone, as Socrates requires of his interlocutors, while unduly exaggerating the emprie of that mode" (pg 273). This is Plato read by Russel (I think) but is this the only or main reading of Plato? In this reading all the [REL] aspects of Plato are thrown down the drain. It is more probable that this is an interpetation of Classical Philosophy coming from the Catholic Religious tradition (if that is true then it is interesting why Catholics read Plato this way in the Middle ages).
There are two interesting things about how [HAB] works
a) the felicity condition of [HAB] determines the state of our agency. In the negative felicity condition I flow mindlessly along [HAB], or perhaps I do not dare questionning it. I do things because "things are done this way". In the positive felicity condition I may do "manual restart", I may become (in the way activity theory speaks about things) the subject of my activity. (I know that in AIME [HAB] is supposed to be indifferent to pseudo-subjects and pseudo-objects, but I stay close to the chapter that is concentrating on [HAB], chapter 10)
b) Between moving along [HAB] with the [PRE] key present but veiled and "remembering" the key of the course of action there is a contrast that reminds me the contrast I think I have read as James' between concentrating on something and using it, perhaps between understanding something (as it becomes the focus of our attention) and using it towards something else.
Returning to the first point, there is the question of what is my motive, why would I care to "remember" the key of my course of action, and thus become "more and more skillful" (pg 269)? My feeling is that I care to do so as an expression of my subjectivity. So the motive for this action (of unveiling rather than just "accepting the misfortune" and move along - "the pipe leaks, oh well....") is provided by the modes that create pseudo-subjects: [REL], [POL], [LAW]. ( Can I allow to see myself as incompetent, irresponsible, bad/condemned, moving blisfully along automatic pathways while things move away from normality?)
Why should I forget the key? Because (it seems to me) a [MET] being has grabbed and deformed me.
Going to the second point, I take it to be that "essences" are useful for doing work. I can also make taxonomies of concepts and that is fine as far as working with them goes. So for example I may make a taxonomy of chairs, distinguishing categories of different levels and perhaps connecting categories in networks. But if I ask what is the essence of "chairness" , if I go for understanding, then it is better to move towards the discourses of the Modes of Existence, rather than searching a "solid substratum, that of substance causa sui" (pg 273). ""Behind" appearance there is not "reality", but only the key that allows us to understand how reality is to be grasped- and this key does not lie underneath, but alongside and ahead. Appearance allows itself to be seen in the direction given by the preposition, like the path folowed by the hiker who is reassured but nevertheless careful not to make a mistake" (pg 271). Understanding "opens-up" the situation but it does not create levels of concepts but flows with different [PRE] keys on the same level .
Now the character who is suposed to be paradigmatic of the search of essences (in the sense of substance causa sui), is Socrates. ("This doesn't mean that we have to grasp every course of action according to the mode of reference alone, as Socrates requires of his interlocutors, while unduly exaggerating the emprie of that mode" (pg 273). This is Plato read by Russel (I think) but is this the only or main reading of Plato? In this reading all the [REL] aspects of Plato are thrown down the drain. It is more probable that this is an interpetation of Classical Philosophy coming from the Catholic Religious tradition (if that is true then it is interesting why Catholics read Plato this way in the Middle ages).
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου