I have to laugh a bit, but it seems like now that my dissertation is done and I should be relaxing, all I do is work! But in a sense it is more of a fun kind of work... but then my dissertation had its fun too.
Amongst my recent readings, a poem called Tea, posted on Woodmore Village, was especially delicious.
I also read (1997) Buddhist reductionism (mentioned on my last post). Zen Unbound says he'll have a look, "wearing my golf shoes and carrying a dictionary." I would suggest waders and a machete. After reading it, I probably wouldn't suggest it to anyone outside of philosophy and/or Buddhist studies. (If you have a look, let me know what you think.) I had to jump to the dictionary and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy several times to figure out what was happening. That said, he does convince me that the arguments in the other article ((1993) THE NO-SELF THEORY: HUME, BUDDHISM, AND PERSONAL IDENTITY) are wrong - so it's important. Perhaps I'll post a summary down the road.
The Hegel test went ok, I survived it at least. It only had three questions, but here is the second one:
Carefully discuss the psychological/phenomenological/ontological/social dynamic that Hegel is depicting in the "master-slave" parable? (sic) How does this dynamic play itself out within the more determinate context that is presented in "The Spiritual Animal Kingdom" (i.e. "the bourgeois zoo")? How would you assess Hegel's arguments?
The other two questions were similar. I'm hoping the professor has a good sense of humor, because, with time running out, I answered the last 'part' of this question: "Hegel's arguments are very,
Other than that, though, I suppose life has been fairly calm (I'm now drinking a cup of tea as per Nacho's suggestion).
I did teach a bit on Buddhism Thursday, but only had one student. I have the space for the next 5 weeks, and I hope more will find their way there in the future. It was a lovely experience though, this one student is my only student, or if I only have one more student in all of the next 5 weeks, I will be satisfied.
Today I spent some time reading through a dialog/debate between Drs. Alan Wallace and Juan Carlos Marvizon about the nature and connections of consciousness, science, and Buddhism on a discussion list devoted to the work of the Mind and Life Institute. It is a fascinating crossroads (these three: consciousness, science, and Buddhism), and I hope to work in the area some day myself. Sadly, I'll be missing the HUGE conference going on next week devoted to the topic, Investigating the Mind.
Suggested reading: "Neurophenomenology : A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem" - as much for me (I haven't read it yet) as for anyone else. I Think this is more readable than the "Buddhist Reductionism" article I mentioned before, but don't hold me to that. But I think it will be equally important (in my neck of the woods at least).
I've also been 'turning the pages' of Notre Dame Press book reviews (surprised by both how informative book reviews can be and how little I know about most of the topics that people devote whole books to, for instance "The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation". Sheesh.)
Posts
3 comments:
Justin! You are hurting me here man. I want to comment still on the last post, especially in response to the Post Modern stuff, which I happen to study and teach, and I want to read the pieces ou are suggesting, which are of great interest to me, but I'm shackled by way too much going on here. Parenting the little ones in the morning (now), and then spending time with my oldest (18), until later this afternoon, and then I have to put finishing touches on an article, edit another one, etc. The upside in all of this is that it does allow me to practice letting go. From a more scholarly perspective, I've been immersed in contemporary rhetorical theory, and Marxist theory on issues of the formation of subjectivity, so some of the questions of the last post resonate well with what I'm doing. Ok, I'll be back, and I'll try to sit beforehand!
Well, I hope you can see how easy the answer to the Hegel question is! It should have taken no more than three or four sentences to put that question to rest, no? *I'm Totally kidding* That sounds like one of those questions that you just stare at when you first get it, tears come to your eyes, and then you figure what the heck I'll give it a try. I hope you had fun doing it. I'm much happier with questions regarding Hegel's Philosophy of History, and those on his work on Right (Law/State).
Ok, back to parenting. I shall return.
Nacho -
just drop a note when and were you can. I'd love to hear more about post modernism from you.
I have a good friend here who is a devout Nietzsche enthusiast. He has also recently gotten into Baudrillard, and is in the Hegel class with me. We've had some good talks, often constructive, but he does often seem to fall into nihilistic (a la Steven's comments) gloom with a response of self-exertion ("become the person who you are!" - Pindar, 'Du sollst der werden, der du bist.' - in The Gay Science)
In a sense, post modern work appears to me as the violent upheaval caused by the rigor mortis in much of western social thought. It's necessary and useful for breaking us free as a society from our stasis, but the angst/exertion pattern must wear itself out eventually...
But... I'm a total amateur in this area and my words are tossed out only with hopes of correction from those more learned.
The Hegel question was a toughie - I could BS my way through the first 1/3, was completely dumbfounded by the next 1/3, and, well, you saw my answer for the last 1/3! :) - we're embarking on the Philosophy of Right starting next week... sigh.....
Cool conversations you've been having here Justin. Thanks again for having this space. Cool links to the MTFreethinkers also.
You know, Postmodernism (PoMo) gets a bad rap. Believe me, I am no fan of the excesses I find in PoMo thought, but there are excesses everywhere. The problem is that I find many folks pathologizing those excesses and extending them to PoMo as a whole. PoMo is hard to define, not because it does not have some coherency to its critique, but because the term is applied in many ways. So, we have PoMo applied in chronological way to mark out a period after Modernity. We also hear about PoMo as applied to Art and Aesthetics. Other accounts talk about PoMo as the aftermath to Structuralism... and so on. PoMo is both/and, or all of these things. It makes most sense as an attitude or disposition in oppositional relationship with Modern and pre-modern unitary our foundational conceptions.
I think we can start on PoMo by rehearsing some basic Structural and Post-Structural understandings and assumptions: meaning is not found in signs that have a direct reference to an independent object world. Meaning is about the relationship of signs to other signs. Saussure points this out early on with his semiotic triangle: signs have no direct referent that exist in an independent object world. No independently existing objective world exists to which our signs connect. We speak about this in two ways usually: no "correspondence" theory of truth, and "a crisis of representation." Signs generate meaning through their relationship to other signs. Those signs are organized into structured codes (English language is such a code).
The relationships between signs are not stable. This means that meaning is unstable, slippery, sliding. Derrida makes much of this. Yet, although meaning is formally undecided, it is the case that in social practice meaning is regulated, organized, temporarily stabilized --in and into -- pragmatic narratives and forms of discourse.
What those basic themes do is really open up a three-pronged crisis (Norman Denzin): 1) A crisis of Representation (we cannot capture direct lived experience. Such experience is constituted textually. This renders the connection between experience and text problematic also). 2) A crisis of Legitimation ( if we have a crisis of representation, how do we legitimate validity, generalizability, etc.), and 3) A crisis of Praxis (how do we act, how do we effect change in society if its nature is essentially marked by textuality). These three concerns/crisis are good ones to frame Postmodern thought. They accord quite well with what has been called the Linguistic, Cultural, or Rhetorical Turn (Rorty himself has contributed greatly to this debate with his account against representationalist epistemology in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature).
Still, most people first encounter a definition of PoMo that repeats Lyotard's basic formulation: "distrust of meta-narratives (grand narratives)." Lyotard was right, but this statement is conclusion, not explanation. The three theses above provide grouns for the conclusion. Grand narratives are huge schemes that sought to provide explanations for much, based on an internal coherence, that PoMo and Post-Structuralism challenged based on the non-representationalist and anti-foundationalist thinking. The effect of such a linguistic or rhetorical turn was to challenge normative accounts, and deconstruct deeply grand narratives. PoMo is characterized by a hermeneutics of suspicion, that challenges the "sense-making" of previous accounts. In practice, some of those challenges appear amazingly nonsensical, or as others will say as "non-sense." The first account is pejorative, the second is a good play on words, especially since PoMo's ethos has been to challenge what previous accounts took as making coherent sense. There were, and probably continue to be excesses. But, primarily PoMo found itself trying to deconstruct while enmeshed and embedded in the same language, thus some of what was called excess, is in reality a way to enact the deconstruction it sought. Derrida's play on words, the ideas about the trace, erasure, and so on.
Once PoMo's Pandora's box was open, it spread like a virus and infect every account. So, from feminist thought onward (geography, built environment, urban affairs, etc.), PoMo seems to have penetrated all sorts of fields an an ethic and aesthetic. It tends to be very self-reflexive, deconstructive of itself also. The problem is that in its anti-foundationalism, it left many without ground, so most PoMo and realist interventions have attempted to ground theory again. A few folks have rallied behind something called Post-Realism that seeks to arrive at temporary firm or firmer grounds, and to protect those from the anti-foundationalism of PoMo.
The insights about language, meaning, the constructed nature of all, really apply to issues of the subject and subjectivity as well. Hence, PoMo makes much of that decentering of the subject, of the problematics of agency, etc.
Now, many folks do make a claim that PoMo is nihilistic, that we cannot just progress with such a deconstructive approach, etc. The task is to rebuild and carefully look at our assumptions. I don't think PoMo is nihilistic, but I also think that Nihilism gets a bad rap. Nihilism about what? Certainly about grand narratives, and that has been a fortunate thing. PoMo ethics are based on a non-realist understanding, and I think one of the major proponents of such is Radical Christian Theologian Don Cupitt (British). So, some folks end up depressed about PoMo, and see a Nihilism that will not leave, when they encounter the kind of undermining that PoMo does to what they thought were secure foundations. What they usually miss is that PoMo places and demands plenty of rigor and carefulness in the accounts we posit, in the explanations we suggest, and that it requires that we be quite reflexive, constantly looking with a deconstructive eye. I think this dovetails nicely with Zen, although there are parts here that obviously provide more difficulty. More later? : )
This is a very truncated and generalized explanation. There are plenty of good people to read, Zygmunt Bauman is a prime proponent of postmodern thought.
Best,
N
Post a Comment