It is currently 22 Oct 2017, 06:28

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2015, 14:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2013, 11:21
Posts: 155
Location: Berlin
Attachment:
PICT1789b.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Mein bratwurst has a first name, It's F-R-I-T-Z, Mein bratwurst has a second name, It's S-C-H-N-A-C-K-E-N-P-F-E-F-F-E-R-H-A-U-S-E-N.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Aug 2015, 20:58 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
i love that, seriously.. i've mentioned the other one from the similar series where a man punches out another person in a road-rage argument and then realises its a woman.

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 11:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2013, 11:21
Posts: 155
Location: Berlin
Attachment:
pervers.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Mein bratwurst has a first name, It's F-R-I-T-Z, Mein bratwurst has a second name, It's S-C-H-N-A-C-K-E-N-P-F-E-F-F-E-R-H-A-U-S-E-N.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 08:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013, 08:00
Posts: 374
....


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 19:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 Feb 2015, 21:31
Posts: 171
Location: NYC
Image

Goat with a pigeon friend.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2015, 19:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013, 08:00
Posts: 374
nemeth tokyo


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 17:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013, 08:00
Posts: 374
Y's


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 18:11 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
feels somewhat related to the above for some reason

phpBB [video]


and more related things from the early colour leiter book..

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2015, 11:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2013, 07:29
Posts: 279
MJRH wrote:
Just read this from Carlo Mollino: "Only when a work is not explainable other than in terms of itself can we say that we are in the presence of art. This ineffable quality is the hallmark of an authentic work. Whoever contemplates it receives a "shock" that is unmistakable and, above all, unexplainable - a shock that he or she will try in vain to explain in rational terms. There are no reasons. If there were, we would have a way to build a convenient machine for making art through logic and grammar....."

The above quote from MJRH in the Lang thread reminds me of my recent trip to the state gallery with students. I went past a Soulages painting, perhaps my favourite piece in the gallery, and mentioned to a student that I loved it. They asked me why, and I couldn't explain the why, could only explain how I loved it.

Painting is this one--not my favourite of his, but the only one I can stare at often in person:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2015, 17:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 18:33
Posts: 338
If you want a handy quip, whenever people ask me things like that I tell them nothing explicable is worth feeling. (Maybe not good depending which class this was for.)

_________________
the eye of the beholder is in the eye of the beholder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2015, 18:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013, 08:00
Posts: 374
I sometimes want in vain to manage to verbalize "a shock", the silence, though.



" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
from madame edwarda


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2015, 03:17 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 18:33
Posts: 338
Sometimes—say, if the right person unexpectedly enters the room you're in—it's like that roar in your ears after being underwater, silence and noise together. "Thought that does not have a dead fragment as its object has the inner existence of flames"—see, it's not at all vain to talk about this, but it's hard to communicate, and it is vain to try talking about it with the wrong people. How many people thought Mme. Edwarda was only smut, and why did Bataile have to use a pseudonym...

_________________
the eye of the beholder is in the eye of the beholder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 01:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2013, 07:29
Posts: 279
MJRH wrote:
Sometimes—say, if the right person unexpectedly enters the room you're in—it's like that roar in your ears after being underwater, silence and noise together. "Thought that does not have a dead fragment as its object has the inner existence of flames"


*rambling thoughts incoming*

I like this. One of the things that that moment (the moment of compelled wordlessness in the face of a thing) reminds us of is this, the general possibility of terror and loveliness outside of all expectation. Various words used for it by philosophers (the sublime, the real, etc.), each with its own baggage. But the idea is there in Plato--the necessary steps we must take around saying a thing because it cannot be explained in speech, only pointed to--the other person needs to have seen it before you can even tell them that it's there. The possibility which follows is that this encounter might shake our world or change our mind in ways that we were not prepared for (could not prepare for) since there was no way of assembling a context for the event in advance.

I think this possibility of genuine surprise is also a reason to be suspicious of the whole Kantian turn to the subject that we are still living under. The world, I would say, not only exists in itself, but it may reveal itself in and as itself. A world we only have access to in interpretation (where the real is unknowable and this means "beyond any possible encounter") would provide no genuine surprises. Much of the postmodern turn could seem from this perspective an attempt to pre-empt this naive moment of terror and doubt by using irony, developing a kind of savoir-faire of possible encounters (you'd never need the phrase "...always already..." if this were not the case). Who are we to say how directly the world may reveal itself, to insist on the necessity of mediation just because we are familiar with a mediated perspective?

Leads to a weird place, of course, this kind of realism--it's maybe why theology has become more interesting for some of the present generation of thinkers.

(And yes, I'm thinking of Badiou a little when using "savoir-faire" and meaning it as a barrier to an encounter http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1557-alain-badiou-people-cling-onto-identities-it-is-a-world-opposed-to-the-encounter)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 20:45 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 18:33
Posts: 338
fit magna caedes wrote:
I think this possibility of genuine surprise is also a reason to be suspicious of the whole Kantian turn to the subject that we are still living under. The world, I would say, not only exists in itself, but it may reveal itself in and as itself. A world we only have access to in interpretation (where the real is unknowable and this means "beyond any possible encounter") would provide no genuine surprises.


So confused by this stance. When the world reveals itself, it reveals itself to someone—that means interpretation, like it or not. And even saying "the world reveals" implies agency on the part of a non-agent; what you mean is that people reveal the world to and for themselves (the world can't be "revealing" any more than it can be "depressing" or "wonderful," it's our interpretations that engender these emotions).

Likewise, can you explain why interpretation precludes surprise? It would seem to me that it's precisely because of the extremely limited scale of human understanding that the world continues to surprise us: our interpretations are completely inadequate, and so the world continues to provide, as you rightly called it, sublimity, reality, surprise etc, or in Bataille's use, ecstasy.

(I sometimes wonder how much of this is flabby philosophizing and how much is inadequate translation :lol: )

phpBB [video]

_________________
the eye of the beholder is in the eye of the beholder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 22:32 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2013, 07:29
Posts: 279
MJRH wrote:
fit magna caedes wrote:
I think this possibility of genuine surprise is also a reason to be suspicious of the whole Kantian turn to the subject that we are still living under. The world, I would say, not only exists in itself, but it may reveal itself in and as itself. A world we only have access to in interpretation (where the real is unknowable and this means "beyond any possible encounter") would provide no genuine surprises.


So confused by this stance. When the world reveals itself, it reveals itself to someone—that means interpretation, like it or not. And even saying "the world reveals" implies agency on the part of a non-agent; what you mean is that people reveal the world to and for themselves (the world can't be "revealing" any more than it can be "depressing" or "wonderful," it's our interpretations that engender these emotions).

Likewise, can you explain why interpretation precludes surprise? It would seem to me that it's precisely because of the extremely limited scale of human understanding that the world continues to surprise us: our interpretations are completely inadequate, and so the world continues to provide, as you rightly called it, sublimity, reality, surprise etc, or in Bataille's use, ecstasy.

(I sometimes wonder how much of this is flabby philosophizing and how much is inadequate translation :lol: )


Oh I'm no doubt flabby--philosophy is not my area. Although I'm hesitant to suggest that being a professional grants one the ability to think, either.

My position on realism is a contentious one, I admit.

You are correct to see a granting of agency; but how can you deny the possibility that the world has agency, if all your contact with it is irredeemably mediated, and we have no means to step beyond that mediation and say in what precise manner it is mediated (which would of course be a kind of unmediated access)?

I can't say that the world is only ever revealed to a person and that this is a limit on all revelation. It would contradict the very limits of my finitude to declare that finitude universal... I think we usually get around this problem by granting ourselves access to other humans in some way, and so make the finitude itself a common thing we share. But I see no reason to allow this, or to privilege the human entity over all others--human/world has no great ontological primacy, it's just one possible correspondence. I can declare my own finitude, but not all finitude of all entities. And that means I can only declare my own finitude to the extent I know myself (very partially) and only for the moment.

In short: I disagree with the Lacanians like Badiou in much the way Nietzsche criticised Kant: he says too much about the thing in itself. We cannot know whether or not the unmediated real has the capacity to transcend mediation (we cannot say it doesn't).

The factor of surprise is the other half of this, but my train is pulling in, will have to get back to you on that. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Sep 2015, 23:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 18:33
Posts: 338
fit magna caedes wrote:
You are correct to see a granting of agency; but how can you deny the possibility that the world has agency, if all your contact with it is irredeemably mediated, and we have no means to step beyond that mediation and say in what precise manner it is mediated (which would of course be a kind of unmediated access)?


I didn't mean to deny the possibility that the world has agency, I meant to aver the pointlessness of speculating on something which by definition it is impossible for a human to ever see. If I understand your argument aright, you're saying "we'll never know this." Well, good, we agree, so why not restrict the speculation to what can be known?

It's really like that argument, how do you know you're not just a madman locked up somewhere imagining everything around you. Answer: the question is framed so that you can't know it. The fact that the question is framed to be unanswerable doesn't make it deep, it makes it facile.

To rephrase my objection: if the world revealed itself "in and as itself," that would still involve an interpretation. As long as there is someone or thing doing the understanding somewhere, even if it's God, there's interpretation; in any case where there is no interpretation, there is no understanding, and no subject.

Hehe, I'm personally enjoying this conversation but maybe we should have a tag similar to [spoiler] that reads [philosophy]. ;-)

_________________
the eye of the beholder is in the eye of the beholder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Sep 2015, 01:58 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
I'm enjoying it as well.. no spoiler tags necessary.

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2015, 07:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2013, 07:29
Posts: 279
MJRH wrote:
fit magna caedes wrote:
You are correct to see a granting of agency; but how can you deny the possibility that the world has agency, if all your contact with it is irredeemably mediated, and we have no means to step beyond that mediation and say in what precise manner it is mediated (which would of course be a kind of unmediated access)?


I didn't mean to deny the possibility that the world has agency, I meant to aver the pointlessness of speculating on something which by definition it is impossible for a human to ever see. If I understand your argument aright, you're saying "we'll never know this." Well, good, we agree, so why not restrict the speculation to what can be known?

It's really like that argument, how do you know you're not just a madman locked up somewhere imagining everything around you. Answer: the question is framed so that you can't know it. The fact that the question is framed to be unanswerable doesn't make it deep, it makes it facile.

To rephrase my objection: if the world revealed itself "in and as itself," that would still involve an interpretation. As long as there is someone or thing doing the understanding somewhere, even if it's God, there's interpretation; in any case where there is no interpretation, there is no understanding, and no subject.

Hehe, I'm personally enjoying this conversation but maybe we should have a tag similar to [spoiler] that reads [philosophy]. ;-)


Have also considered the spoiler tag for these asides, or starting a new thread, but will refrain until somebody complains.

Meant to write more days ago but my time is being eaten by work.

the questions for me centre around the nature of surprise: if we know in advance what form surprise will take, it stops being genuine surprise in the sense that the real is supposed to be. So the Lacanian idea that the real must be horrific to experience is already saying more about it than we should: cannot the very horror lie in the new thing being utterly un-horrific, even pleasant or beautiful? Lacan says that the real is like this because it is something outside language and structure and so forth, and so must be an assault on the subject's self-constitution. But cannot an undermining of the subject be good? The question here is about whether the surprising thing, the real, can have content prior to or separate from our reading of it. We allow this with human encounters, even radically surprising ones like love: we don't simply erect a structure to enclose and make sense of this other person, but our inmost structure is itself altered. Or the encounter with a book of philosophy: Plato may deconstruct US rather than we deconstructing him. And if the encounter has its own structure and content, linguistic or otherwise, which forces itself upon us, this structure rather than our reading of it may determine how we relate to it.

To put it another way: it is possible, I contend, to make an utterance within a structure of language that is not reduced to that surrounding language, to our prior knowledge, but which itself siezes the surrounding structure and reshapes it, until we read everything else in the light of this utterance rather than vice versa... And that includes even the utterance itself, which thus escapes determination via context. This is why the encounter is not reducible etc. and I would extend this to any genuine encounter within any interpretative structure: the world itself may make such an utterance, or something analogous to it.

Why accept this? The alternative is to say we can know what the real will and will not be before encountering it. It is a Thatcherism of the mind, declaring that "there is no alternative" to a common sense view of the real that we have snuck into our supposed skepticism regarding our knowledge of it. The real is very likely very, very weird. Realism should be just as weird.

The consequence is unfortunately that philosophy has to accept unprovable things, claims by others to have seen and understood things they cannot share, and to have truths that seem more like revelation. But then, philosophy accepted this at the beginning (Plato) and I see no reason it cannot do so again.

Uh, I hope that makes sense,mum typing on the train, on my iPad... Which autocorrects things in a truly idiotic manner. Will try to edit for sense/proofread when I have time, but need to submit the comment before I reach the station.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2015, 09:54 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 774
Location: Germany
Very nice discussion indeed :)
When it comes to our knowledge of the world, a number of philosophers of science have taken a post-Kantian direction of keeping the a priori structure as underlying our process of learning of/about the world, combined with the philosophy of language (late Wittgenstein especially). What you get then are "contextual a priori categories", characteristic of a certain language-game, and changing over time, from one scientific paradigm to another. As a result, we can say that the world in which we live is different from the world of, say, XVc. scientists (though some prefer to speak of a "world-view" here, rather than the world itself), without saying that anyone ever has an access to the world in itself. We just perceive the world through quite different categories, and these categories remain deeply entrenched for certain periods of time, in which some scientific theories/language-games are dominant. A Hegelian response to that would be interesting, exposing the problems of such a notion of the world-in-itself, but I'm not sufficiently fit in that territory to write any further on it ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2015, 20:54 
Offline

Joined: 12 Jul 2013, 09:24
Posts: 138
Location: swedistan
*deleted*


Last edited by omen on 11 Nov 2016, 16:57, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
cron

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy