us continue our propaganda pro-Borella, as the clarifications given in The crisis of religious symbolism seem to be beneficial to all. If, in the words of P. Boutang nearly forty years ago, "the first work of reconstruction will be metaphysical, work, work, even if we repeat some :
" These are the considerations that allow us to grasp the true meaning of infinitization the cosmos in the early seventeenth century, and we justify could talk about it, an indefinite limitation. It is precisely this concept of a universal or indefinite restriction that allows us to realize, ironically, and the apparent expansion of cosmic space and the feeling that seizes prison when minds and hearts . We repeat - because that is where our eyes much of the cultural change experienced by the European soul - or the boundless openness of cosmic space is consequential, fundamentally, the reduction of world the geometric extent, that is to say its closing ontological. Conversely, the closure Space medieval and ancient world is a boundless correlative ontological, because the order of things is mysteriously connected to the divine order it symbolizes. This intrinsic boundless world agrees to depth of human life. For the life of man always takes place in a world that is both finite and deep, never in unlimited space and surfacial. Life is finitary, it requires a frame, a circle, a "medium" (Umwelt ) [ rooting, say Simone Weil ], an ecological niche, a matrix, a paradise. But at the same time it added to this space three-dimensional closed (that the cross symbolizes the rivers in the Garden of Eden), a fourth dimension, the only one infinite or near-infinite depth internal, geometrically non-figurative, presence of the hidden world behind in all things be extending their Secret to Being infinite. Therefore Galilean science may well provide the intoxication of a limitless expanse where plunge our eyes, the collective subconscious no mistake. He feels this opening as a loss, this expansion as a decoy. "( The crisis of religious symbolism , p. 89)
- that advertising has for once managed to translate the slogan Film the former (?) - advertising Ridley Scott: "In the Galilean space, nobody can hear you scream" - a quick Google search
to verify that I am right about this slogan tells me that in the space called the "conquest", which Jean Borella spends the rest of this passage is true, we hear nothing .
- What gives me a perfect transition to any other text from the same book. On one hand I have almost no scientific culture, on the other hand, as I explained last May, I have some general reservations on the use of science by philosophy or religion. It certainly does not preclude any reference to contemporary science, here is always so in the writings of J. Borella:
"Analyses of the finest recent physics ... lead to a paradoxical reversal of the ordinary conceptions: it is not the separation or distance between two points is first and obvious, and thus the possible correlation of these two points must be explained, but rather it is the "inseparability" becomes "principle" and distance or gap that is the problem: "the distance is not intrinsically between this or that element of reality independent. It is we who say, somehow, between such and such elements of empirical reality or, in other words, the image of reality that we build for our trade and use " Bernard of Espagnat, In search of the real , Gauthier Villars, 1979 46. This book may raise criticism, especially because the character a little summary (to us) of some philosophical considerations (and must This suggests a physicist of our own views on scientific matters!). But this does not suffice to discredit his basic thesis: the objective reality is not material in nature. "(P. 86N).
striking phrase, so I had the title of my first use of Crisis ... , and which I found today a programmatic look: my cautious temperament, Musil my side if I want to be pretentious, my cowardice if I want to flog, trying to restrain myself, my enthusiasm makes them a frame overflow ("school" in the sporting press, a frame overflow School is still, do not ask me why) and is quick to declare that the only interesting philosophies today, the only ones that can help us overcome the crisis, including financial and elsewhere throughout this shit (shit comes after the food, the fish rots from the head: the crisis is a consequence rather than cause, although it has its own rhythm), are those details and explains the principle. - And that is how, party walking on eggshells, I get excited activist, is typical ...
But back to Espagnat. The old voyers never extinguished in me can only wriggle on reading the name, and go check what that wrote fuck thirty years ago , the master
"We learn through the physicist Espagnat ( In search of the real ) that Bohr defines science primarily as a work of communication between human beings and not in terms of a given reality and its inherent mission would be to try to describe. In other words, science is for Niels Bohr synthesis part human experience. (...) In the design of Bohr's notion of reality properties objects seems to be strictly subordinated to that of human experience and have meaning only through it. So somehow a new cogito : communication alone is certain, everything else is questionable. The conclusion of this delightful school in Copenhagen is that physics can no longer speak of a kind in-itself kind of material self-respect and an object object in itself. For Bohr, the nature and matter are only parts of the world defined as the total activity of men. On Espagnat adds: "More knowledge expands, becomes more of those big field which one can say they are aware of ourselves before being aware of a problem outside world or eternal truth. "(...) The importance
conferred by Bohr instruments to measure Therefore he said that it is impossible to speak of a phenomenon as it fails to fully describe the experimental setup used to study this phenomenon at the limit: the world as experimental device to observe the world as a phenomenon "In truth it must be said that the device is an integral part the phenomenon and thus the world as a device is part of the world as a phenomenon. Thus, the propagation of a particle in space is not in itself a phenomenon. The assembly formed by the transmitter device, the particle environment in the here and a receiving device according to Bohr phenomenon whose physical science can legitimately speak. But the instruments used by men, although men must build them before using them. And why stop there way and define the phenomenon at the laboratory door and does not extend to different locations where instruments are manufactured. Thus this state prepared by the physicist is included in a report prepared by the world itself, this phenomenon is itself a state of the global division of labor and the world is the only suitable device for observing the world, ie the fact alone is qualified to observe reality. "
All this seems perfectly back in our analytical framework of the day. I reproduce even some theories:
" The fact that we pretend that what is meant by words of nature and matter or regions of knowledge does not mean we pretend that nothing exists which is not idea, thought. The movement of the idea takes place in what is and is not it. But what is and is not thinking is not necessarily what is meant by "material" and "Nature." This does not mean that what is and is not thought to be beyond the reach of knowledge as claimed by Kant. Instead, knowledge as a world, practical communication, movement of thought in which it is not destruction of what exists and is not thought, or at least destruction of its independence: mediation self-mediation of what exists. Knowledge as a world, far from foreign to being, is its self-destruction, its internal division infinite. Being is not left untouched out of knowledge, but knowledge is the internal collapse of the infinite being ... Hegel describes highly poetic of this collapse. The style of Hegel, style tornado and storm, is the apocalyptic style par excellence.
other words, what we call "nature" and "matter" are not in what it thought would move. It already the movement of thought is already a part of a state of destruction of what exists is already a region of the founding of the universe.
On this point, we differ from Hegel and are modestly dualistic. The idea of movement is the movement of the idea in what exists and thus becomes the world. We accept that something exists prior to the movement of the idea and not the idea, but we deny that something is "natural" or "matter" at least what is usually referred to by these words. Anyway, this hypothesis dualism is totally free and superfluous in the state of things. It does not eat bread and we do not deprive us of the pleasure of doing it. Which of course for our original sin divine essence. We will never be born as deities ! In the words of Lautreamont, we are also the eternal birth. Religious myths have a rational basis, rational basis which can also claim the laborious fables materialistic, because these myths are the work of a world and known as such. (...)
In a more general, we find ourselves in agreement with Espagnat (...) To challenge the object is the fact that the object exists as an object in object-self, that "nature" exists in nature as nature itself-regardless of the knowledge one can take From this knowledge somehow add-on is inessential and powerless as a reflection to that nature in-itself nature. Similarly, we disagree that there is material in self-respect regardless of the knowledge that we take. The latter expression is also incorrect since it implies that anyway takes knowledge of a subject or even what exists independently of the thought. But it is not. Matter as a region of knowledge is not what knowledge is knowledge but the knowledge itself or at least results. Then knowledge does not acknowledge the "being" that exists independently of thought, but this being destroyed, destroyed its independence. It does not deal with being, it is the destruction of the independence of being. "(Journal of contemporary prehistory, 1982, pp. 140-146)
I do not remember this idea of destruction, expressed here with important nuances in its formulations, has been taken by the author in recent years. Invoking Lautreamont (as in other texts from the same period, Breton), unless I am mistaken, remained the order of the exceptional. Anyway, in 2005, JP Voyer, in a text of a densely , talks about this idea of "dualism modest"
"This allows me to clarify what I heard when I said I was to Dr. Weltfaust, contrary to Hegel and Marx (...), modestly dualistic. I did not say that I feel dualistic mind-matter , But what is the meaning object which is not subject . What is not an object? The appearance, ie the appearance as qu'apparition. This applies, of course, for items that never appear, like the numbers - no one has seen a number and nobody will ever see and yet, judging by Frege, numbers are objects -. I am therefore dualistic because I recognize two orders: the order of objects visible (things) and invisible (invisible, of course, but ... formulable. Forms, otherwise there would be no math), and order appearance. If that does not produce bizarre sentences, it would be unwise to make generalizations visible and invisible in obvious and not obvious . "
- Is dualism still, I do not know, and the distinction kinds of be borrowed from Wittgenstein and Vincent Descombes and discussed later in this passage, could she not, at least in some way be connected to the gradation of depth in the symbolic order that found in the theories of Jean Borella?
Well, that's enough for today ...
... or rather not, because I came across the transcript the wonderful article "Heterosexism," from the Dictionary of Homophobia , led by Tin unfortunate that we found there is little .
I referred in my article lengthy review of this hilarious dictionary in 2006, so it is only fair to inform you of the contents, it is now available online. I will not devote an entire text, life is short, to read it I'll just note how one can be struck not only by the light of historical considerations of the author, by his way of solving the problem by starting its definitions, the confusion, well analyzed by Muray in the time between 'stigma' and 'discrimination' (discrimination mentioned Muray, it was originally, and this can only be, that setting differences, this does not necessarily lead to abuse, in this case, we do not see how the idea of a complementarity between men and women who fit together well as I know, would necessarily result in the submission of the second to first), but also, that in my memory was less attracted my attention, for a reconciliation unfortunately very common between the bourgeois culture of the nineteenth century, indeed as hard to homosexuals as very hypocritical, and the history of the "Christian West" and - to phobia phobia and a half - a dull and unpleasant misogyny my faith quite common among gays.
And this time, good day!
The technique, well ... But the spirit!
0 comments:
Post a Comment