thesis:book-journals:eye-mind
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
thesis:book-journals:eye-mind [2018/08/24 21:35] avnerus |
thesis:book-journals:eye-mind [2018/08/26 00:38] (current) avnerus |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| * **Page 30** - Science operates in a world of ideas, concepts, models. Paradigms that are subject to change according to the latest trend. In order to succeed, science needs to recognize the arbitrary nature of its ideas, that are created as a result of our physical interaction with the world, unlike idealism which sees the ideas as the actual substrate of the world. We should be careful of giving a-priori status to these models, as if we are able to look at the world from the outside. Cybernetics is criticized as a science that explains human action according to models that were themselves a result of human action. | * **Page 30** - Science operates in a world of ideas, concepts, models. Paradigms that are subject to change according to the latest trend. In order to succeed, science needs to recognize the arbitrary nature of its ideas, that are created as a result of our physical interaction with the world, unlike idealism which sees the ideas as the actual substrate of the world. We should be careful of giving a-priori status to these models, as if we are able to look at the world from the outside. Cybernetics is criticized as a science that explains human action according to models that were themselves a result of human action. | ||
| - | * From //Thinking Technology with Merleau-Ponty//: | + | * From //[[https://www.academia.edu/12765146/Thinking_Technology_with_Merleau-Ponty_2015_|Thinking Technology with Merleau-Ponty]]//: |
| <poem> | <poem> | ||
| - | the target of Merleau-Ponty’s criticism is not so much science in practice but a certain way of thinking about science, | + | "the target of Merleau-Ponty’s criticism is not so much science in practice but a certain way of thinking about science, |
| which he associates with a particular strand of Cartesian thought and refers to as “technicized” and “operational” thought (1993, 137). This is a | which he associates with a particular strand of Cartesian thought and refers to as “technicized” and “operational” thought (1993, 137). This is a | ||
| thinking that relates to phenomena in an external way, or, in a phrase reminiscent of Donna Haraway’s explication of the “god trick” (Haraway, 1988, | thinking that relates to phenomena in an external way, or, in a phrase reminiscent of Donna Haraway’s explication of the “god trick” (Haraway, 1988, | ||
| - | 581), a thinking that “looks on from above” (Merleau-Ponty, 1993, 122). | + | 581), a thinking that “looks on from above” (Merleau-Ponty, 1993, 122)." |
| </poem> | </poem> | ||
| - | * Merleau-Ponty suggests that scientific thought should go back to the embodied experience, through the bodies of us and **others**, interconnected on a united fabric of the world within a sole //Being//. Then, if there is one occupation that represents this experience purely it's painting. The painter is neither expected of metaphysical solutions nor restricted by existing models and social conventions. It portrays the embodied experience as it is. | + | * Merleau-Ponty suggests that scientific thought should go back to the embodied experience as the basis for all. It is only through our experience of //Being// that we open to the world through our body. Our existence is also interconnected with that of **others**, It is through the union with other bodies that learn about ourselves, our place in the world, and how our body is placed in the world. |
| - | * **Page 37** - The painter's vision is an embodied experience, a physical action, because the seer is also visible, it's within the flesh of the world. This is followed by a good summary of Merleau-Ponty's metaphysics. Vision is not a subjective projection on an immanent screen. The experience of vision is always an action upon the external world through the body. Movement is merely a continuation of vision, in the eco-system of body<-->world. The //self// is not discovered through reflection, but through a recognition that //Being// and our body are part of the same flesh, that we are part of the world that we experience. | + | * This experience is purely present in painting. The painter is neither expected of metaphysical solutions nor restricted by existing models and social conventions. It portrays the embodied experience as it is. |
| + | * **Page 37** - The painter's vision is an embodied experience, a physical action, because the seer is also visible, it's within the flesh of the world. This is followed by a good summary of Merleau-Ponty's metaphysics. Vision is not a flat projection on an immanent screen. The experience of vision is always an action upon the external world through the body. Movement is merely a continuation of vision, in the eco-system of body<-->world. The //self// is not discovered through reflection, but through a recognition that //Being// and our body are part of the same flesh, that we are part of the world that we experience. | ||
| //"A human body is present when, between the see-er and the visible, between touching and touched, between one eye and the other, between hand and hand a kind of crossover occurs, when the spark of the sensing/sensible is lit, when the fire starts to burn that will | //"A human body is present when, between the see-er and the visible, between touching and touched, between one eye and the other, between hand and hand a kind of crossover occurs, when the spark of the sensing/sensible is lit, when the fire starts to burn that will | ||
| not cease until some accident befalls the body, undoing what no accident would have sufficed to do."// | not cease until some accident befalls the body, undoing what no accident would have sufficed to do."// | ||
| - | * In the painting we take our inner, invisible impression and bring it back into the external, visible. **Perhaps In a way, it shows how the body of the //Other// is a seer just as we are, interacting in the same flesh of the world**. The painting is trace of the inner world of the body, that is moved by the body's interaction with things. | + | * In the painting we take our inner, invisible impression and bring it back into the external, visible. In a way, a painting by **another**, or perhaps any art, is a sort of proof that the other is also seer, part of the same flesh, and operates by similar principles. The painting is trace of the inner world of the body, that is moved by the body's interaction with things. |
| - | * A painting answers a certain lack that we see in the world and want to fill. **Seeing paintings of others reflects their lacks**. | + | * A painting answers a certain lack that we see in the world and want to fill. **Seeing paintings of others reflects their lacks as well** (Does Merleau-Ponty recognize the fact that the external of a painting reflects the internal world, only to those who share that internal world?) |
| - | * Does Merleau-Ponty recognize the fact that the external of a painting reflects the internal world, only to those who share that internal world? | + | * Painting exemplifies the elements such as shadow and light that make us see things, Things that we normally don't notice in a whole experience. We have to forget them in order to see the things themselves. |
| - | * Painting exemplifies the elements such as shadow and light that make us see things, without noticing them. To see the actual thing, we cannot see the play of light and shadow in itself. | + | |
| {{:thesis:book-journals:night_watch.png?nolink&400|}} | {{:thesis:book-journals:night_watch.png?nolink&400|}} | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| //"we were enabled eventually to find the limits of construction, to understand that space | //"we were enabled eventually to find the limits of construction, to understand that space | ||
| does not have three dimensions or more or fewer, as an animal has either four or two feet, and to understand that the three dimensions are | does not have three dimensions or more or fewer, as an animal has either four or two feet, and to understand that the three dimensions are | ||
| - | taken by different systems of measurement from a single dimension-ality, a polymorphous Being, which justifies all without being fully | + | taken by different systems of measurement from a single dimensionality, a polymorphous Being, which justifies all without being fully |
| expressed by any. Descartes was right in setting space free. His mistake was to erect it into a positive being, outside all points of view, beyond | expressed by any. Descartes was right in setting space free. His mistake was to erect it into a positive being, outside all points of view, beyond | ||
| all latency and all depth, having no true thickness [épaisseur]"// | all latency and all depth, having no true thickness [épaisseur]"// | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| * I will add to that - vision is an action, a fleshy interaction, it's non linear, it's even multi sensory. **No VR experience can mimic the flesh of the world.** | * I will add to that - vision is an action, a fleshy interaction, it's non linear, it's even multi sensory. **No VR experience can mimic the flesh of the world.** | ||
| - | * Descartes' though of perception relies on some our ability to measure space through experience, in relation to our objective body? But how do we conceive this space in the first place? Merleau-Ponty claims that there is a primal intuition that comes from the fact that our thought acts **through** the body and not in relation to it, that allows us to found knowledge of spatial dimensions. However, as opposed to [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_B-OLUVyfc|Princes Elizabeth's pursue]], the nature of this intuition is so primal that it cannot be conceived as a true thought. But that doesn't mean we cannot discuss it and speak of it, as Descartes refused to do. | + | * Descartes' thought of perception relies on our ability to measure space through experience, in relation to our objective body. But how do we conceive this space in the first place? Merleau-Ponty claims that there is a primal intuition that comes from the fact that our thought acts **through** the body and not in relation to it, that allows us to found knowledge of spatial dimensions. However, as opposed to [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_B-OLUVyfc|Princes Elizabeth's pursue]], the nature of this intuition is so primal that it cannot be conceived as a true thought. But that doesn't mean we cannot discuss it and speak of it, as Descartes refused to do so. |
| * Descartes' duality opened up a chasm that sprouted two types of thoughts: Science - that skips the mind problem (or regards it as psychology) and goes straight into the abstract objective models, and an idealistic philosophy that is deep in the passive experience of //Being//. | * Descartes' duality opened up a chasm that sprouted two types of thoughts: Science - that skips the mind problem (or regards it as psychology) and goes straight into the abstract objective models, and an idealistic philosophy that is deep in the passive experience of //Being//. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| //"Space is no longer what it was in the Dioptric, a network of relations between objects such as would be seen by a witness to my vision or by a geometer looking over it and reconstructing it from outside. It is, rather, a space reckoned starting from me as the zero point or degree zero of spatiality. I do not see it according to its exterior envelope; I live in it from the inside; I am immersed in it. After all, the world is all around me, not in front of me."// | //"Space is no longer what it was in the Dioptric, a network of relations between objects such as would be seen by a witness to my vision or by a geometer looking over it and reconstructing it from outside. It is, rather, a space reckoned starting from me as the zero point or degree zero of spatiality. I do not see it according to its exterior envelope; I live in it from the inside; I am immersed in it. After all, the world is all around me, not in front of me."// | ||
| - | * In such a philosophy painting has grave importance. It is a visible manifestation of //Being//, | + | * In such a philosophy painting has grave importance. It is a visible manifestation of //Being// |
| + | |||
| + | * **Page 67**: Instead of linear forms and outlines, Merleau-Ponty finds in paintings 'depth', but not a geometrical depth. It is depth that is intertwined with color, with movement, with the physics of the universe. It can be non-linear, self-organized. It's depth on a painting that has texture, materiality. Color is used to portray these cosmic qualities of experience in Cézanne's portrait of Vallier. | ||
| + | {{:thesis:book-journals:portrait-of-vallier-1906.jpg?nolink&400|}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | * This movement in painting, according to Merleau-Ponty, is more 'real' than a photograph or even a film, which is just a series of frozen photographs separated in time. Painting contains some extra //fleshy// qualities that come straight from experience. Such is the painting "Epsom Derby" by Géricault. | ||
| + | |||
| + | "//Rodin said very wisely, 'It is the artist who is truthful, while the photograph is mendacious; for, in reality time never stops cold.' The photograph keeps open the instants which the onrush of time closes up forthwith; it destroys the overtaking, the overlapping, the "metamorphosis" [Rodin] of time. But this is what painting, in contrast, makes visible, because the horses have in them that "leaving here, going there,"because they have a foot in each instant. Painting searches not for the outside of movement but for its secret ciphers, of which there are some still more subtle than those | ||
| + | of which Rodin spoke. All flesh, and even that of the world, radiates beyond itself. But whether or not one is, depending on the times and the 'school', attached more to manifest movement or to the monumental, the art of painting is never altogether outside time, because it is always within the carnal"// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{:thesis:book-journals:jean_louis_theodore_gericault_001.jpg?nolink&400|}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Vision is a "silent science". We are touching and interacting with anything to which we point our gaze. The painting projects both the "visible" side of things, the strict sense of how they look, but there is also the "invisible" sense, the intrinsic properties of matter, the way it moves, the way we experience it when we move our body, the way it is a part of a united //Being//. This part also penetrates the painter and becomes apparent in the final painting, completing a circle of interaction with the world. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * The painters interrogative process never ends. There is no 'universal' painting, or a painting that has successfully and indefinitely captured an element of //Being//, or of the outside world in-itself for that matter. Since the painting is our constant exchange with the world, //Being// is always changing, and with that, everything that we construct our truth upon changes as well. But that doesn't mean it has no value, it always circles around uncovering the invisible. | ||
| + | |||
| + | //"If creations are not a possession, it is not only that, like all things, they pass away; | ||
| + | it is also that they have almost all their life still before them"// | ||
thesis/book-journals/eye-mind.1535146536.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/08/24 21:35 by avnerus
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
