The talk: http://cas.au.dk/en/currently/events/the-futures-lectures-series/bruno-latour/
In Latour's drawing the spatial element is pronounced and thought about. But time seems to be "sliced":
"We" are now facing a situation and "we" need to decide. It seems that "we" , who come together "now" to decide, can split time between the past and the future.
So although space seems quite complicated time seems a continuous thread.
I thought. What about our ancestors? The ancestors whose voices go through us. Is their judgment, their wisdom, their intuition allowed to arrive to our hearts? When we insist on something, not because we can prove it, but because we feel sensitive to these old voices and waiting for responses that cannot be foreseen "objectively", are we just stubborn?
In my tradition I think of the church gathering the saints, the angels, us living now. One may also think of those indians smoking their pipes in special houses
So let us make another picture, similar to the one with the Globe
I think that here too there is a third attractor which I called the house of history (I do not mean Whigg history)
I think also of Ricoeur in “What make us think?”
“pg 268. the idea of being preceded in one’s capacity for speech by the word of another is for me the point of origin, the point of departure, and , in the last resort, the ultimate source of religious authority”
And feel: We need to draw sactity from somewhere. This is not the case of "risky creativity of our own future". Something more solemn is at stake.
In Latour's drawing the spatial element is pronounced and thought about. But time seems to be "sliced":
"We" are now facing a situation and "we" need to decide. It seems that "we" , who come together "now" to decide, can split time between the past and the future.
So although space seems quite complicated time seems a continuous thread.
I thought. What about our ancestors? The ancestors whose voices go through us. Is their judgment, their wisdom, their intuition allowed to arrive to our hearts? When we insist on something, not because we can prove it, but because we feel sensitive to these old voices and waiting for responses that cannot be foreseen "objectively", are we just stubborn?
In my tradition I think of the church gathering the saints, the angels, us living now. One may also think of those indians smoking their pipes in special houses
So let us make another picture, similar to the one with the Globe
I think that here too there is a third attractor which I called the house of history (I do not mean Whigg history)
I think also of Ricoeur in “What make us think?”
“pg 268. the idea of being preceded in one’s capacity for speech by the word of another is for me the point of origin, the point of departure, and , in the last resort, the ultimate source of religious authority”
And feel: We need to draw sactity from somewhere. This is not the case of "risky creativity of our own future". Something more solemn is at stake.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου