Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- thesis:book-journals:visible-invisible [2018/06/26 12:55]
avnerus
+++ thesis:book-journals:visible-invisible [2018/08/27 15:41] (current)
avnerus
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== The Visible and the Invisible / Maurice Merleau-Ponty ======
+ ====== The Visible and the Invisible / Maurice Merleau-Ponty ======
   * **Page 9**: The example of the left hand touching the right hand - illustrates the coexisting duality of the subject-object in the body, phase shifting between subject and object in a 'gestalt' like effect.
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Each 'being' is a 'displacement' of other past or future 'beings', not the negation of them, so in reality the fissure is deeper than what fills it.
 * Sartre quote that I don't understand. (54) - But should refer to Sartr'e definitions:
-Being-in-itself: refers to objects in the external world — a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, who Sartre says must always make a choice
+  - Being-in-itself: refers to objects in the external world — a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, who Sartre says must always make a choice
-Being-for-itself (être-pour-soi): The nihilation of Being-in-itself; consciousness conceived as a lack of Being, a desire for Being, a relation of Being. The For-itself brings Nothingness into the world and therefore can stand out from Being and form attitudes towards other beings by seeing what it is not.
+  - Being-for-itself (être-pour-soi): The nihilation of Being-in-itself; consciousness conceived as a lack of Being, a desire for Being, a relation of Being. The For-itself brings Nothingness into the world and therefore can stand out from Being and form attitudes towards other beings by seeing what it is not.
 Back to Merleau-Ponty, there's no pre-reflective cogito, there's no subject - What am I? I am the negation of this consciousn experience of 'things'. I am nothing. My identtiy that is my thoughts, my body - those are only at a close distance to the nihalted self. Exterior being.
 The world being is a prelongation of the body. Coextensive with consciousness.
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
   * Hmm what does that say about free will? Some video about answers from the previous book [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOU0VnocKw|here]]
   * **Pages 65-68** Speaking of how we can infer //Nothing// from //Being// and //Being// from //Nothing//. In a pure manner, being is flat. no densities, or ranges of being. Nothingness is absolute. but eventually we discover that it is only in principle and "For itself is encumbered with a body, which is not outside if it is not inside, which intervenes between the For Itself and itself." - But these are all higher level speculations and significations that do not contradict the initial truth of absolute positivity and negativity - //Being and Nothingness//.
-  * **Page 71** - About //The Other//, - There is a criticism of Sartre's view of the other as some transcendent thought or concept. This is a solipsistic view of alterity. I am a 'thought', a 'consciousness' (A subject), this is my only access to the world, and the others are my double that I have no access to. In fact - This is an //"Ambivalent or labile relationship with the other -- in which, moreover, analysis would rediscover the normal, canonical form, subjected in the particular case to a distortion that makes of the an anonymous, faceless obsession, an other in general.//" ** This sounds like Stranger Fetishism. **
+  * **Page 71** - About //The Other//, - There is a criticism of Sartre's view of the other as some transcendent thought or concept. This is a solipsistic view of alterity. I am a 'thought', a 'consciousness' (A subject), this is my only access to the world, and the others are my double that I have no access to. In fact - This is an //"the ammbivalent or labile relationship with the other - in which, moreover, analysis would rediscover the normal, canonical form, subjected in the particular case to a distortion that makes of the other an anonymous, faceless obsession, an other in general.//" ** This sounds like Stranger Fetishism. **
   * There is an explanation of this in the book //Understanding Existentialism//:
   *
@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
   * The experience is not a fusion but //"a sort of dehiscence opens my body in two, and because between my body looked at and my body looking, my body touched and my body touching, there is overlapping or encroachment, so that we must say that the things pass into us as well we into the things."//
   * **So here (Page 123) starts the basis of intercorporeality** - Is it the look of the other that reminds us that we are not nothing, not fused into the world, but an interplay? How would that fair when it is the look of a thing, of a machine, even if controlled by a human. An extended look that we must reflect on. Merleau-Ponty does talk about how things pass into us, not just other humans. animals?
+  * We always maintain a //strange distance//, a //divergence// from the thing itself. A //coinciding from afar//. We return back to the things themselves using **language (page 125)** -  A manifestation our being and living within the things.  The book //Circulating Being// refers to this as a Diacritical Opposition type of hermeneutics:
+<poem>
+Meaningful experience itself depends upon a "deflection," a difference. Noncoincidence is not an alienation,
+but a condition for meaning and the appearance of anything at all. The body and language are not, he tells us, "screens" over Being, preventing us from grasping the real goods, but are the differences which are productive of meaningful experience. In fact, body and language are not transcendental or anthropocentric conditions foisted upon being, but rather the very differentiations of experienced being itself, its own conditions of appearance, its own "syntax".
+</poem>
+  * Language is the most valuable witness to being, it's not a pure representation or, if there was coincidence, it would be completely false since it is distanced from the raw experience. The raw spoken word, the action, is the style of Being and how we interact with the world. Not just philosophy but also poetry and theater.
+  * So how do we gather this //distance// between Being and the thing itself? Between experience and our knowing of Being? Without being //nothing// and without being fused or by assuming some knowledge of reflection. This requires a discussion regarding raw experience. // Qualia //
+  * **The intertwining  - The Chiasm **
+  * First we must acknowledge that the qualia itself is an interaction of the seer with the flesh / pregnancy of things. //as though it knew them before knowing them//. Because context changes the raw experience of the thing. This shows as well how much our experience, is also of the world, and we are too. //two systems are applied upon one another//.
+  * Visibility of the visible, just like the touch of the tangible is a bodily interaction. embodied. Anything visible is also tangible, belongs to the same world. //Every vision takes place somewhere in the tactile space//. //vision is a palpation with a look//. Just as when touching I can shift my attention to my body being touched, when looking I can shift my attention to my body being seen. **Interesting thought experiment **
+  * The true nature of things is hidden behind the //thickness of the flesh//, but is that thickness that constitutes our interaction with the world.
+  * sensing and being sensed is //"one sole movement in its two phases"//
+  * **thought:** I am still wondering about how we can physically define that qualia. Perhaps as an intrinsic physical state, just like any matter has its own physical style, but our style is also made of qualia. But it's important to note that there is no delimiter, there is no inside movement and outside movement, only one movement of a body in the world.
+  * **Page 139** - Because of this intertwining of the seer and the visible, //"there is a fundamental narcissism of all vision. And thus, for the same reason, the vision he exercises also undergoes from the things, such that, as many painters have said, I feel myself looked at by the things, my activity is equally passivity -- which is the second and more profound sense of the narcissism: not to see in the outside, as the others see it, the contour of a body one inhabits, but especially to be seen by the outside, to exist within it, to emigrate to it, to be seduced, captivated, alienated by the phantom, so that the seer and the visible reciprocate one another and we no longer know which sees and which is seen"//.
+  * This thing called 'flesh' is not 'matter' as we know it nor a factual 'mind', it is in fact an element of being. It's the time and space localized mode of the world, which includes the act and substance of seeing and also of matter.
+  * **Page 140 - Important regarding VR and virtual interaction** - Because the other things have this same //element// of Being, their interaction with out experience is the same as our bodily interaction with the world and that's how we determine their //facticity//! The difference between the virtual and the real is distinguished because our vision is a physical fleshy/elemental interaction with the world that we recognize in the things. We see that the things are real because our body is real while seeing them.
+  * //"The visible which is yonder is ultimately my landscape"// - Noting this use of the word //landscape//, it reminds of Walter Freeman's brain landscape of attractors.
+  * **Page 140 - Intercorporeality (Finally)**
+  * Starts with the discussion about the unity of consciousness over the entire body, the unity of experience (not divided according to sensing organs). This relates to the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem|Binding Problem]]
+  * Then, other bodies could be opened into the world as much as we are. **But how do we recognize that**?
+  * //"Their landscape interweave, their actions and their passions fit together exactly", Our carnal relation with the visible "brings to birth a ray of light that illuminates all flesh and not only my own". "it suffices that I look at a landscape, that I speak of it with someone. Then, through the concordant operation of his body and my own, what I see passes into him", "I recognize in my green his green", "an anonymous visibility inhabits both of us, a vision in general, in virtue of that primordial property that belongs to flesh, being here and now, of radiating everywhere and forever"//
+  * So it is our fleshy, physical, bodily interaction with the world, and the way we grasp the world physically interacting back at us, we are able to recognize the same style of being in another body.
+  * //**"What is open to us, therefore, with the reversibility of the visible and the tangible, is -- if not yet the incorporeal -- at least an intercorporeal being, a presumptive domain of the visible and the tangible, which extends further than the things I touch and see at present"**//
+  * //**"There is a circle of the touched and the touching, the touched takes hold of the touching; there is a circle of the visible and the seeing, the seeing is not without visible existence; there is even an inscription of the touching in the visible, of the seeing in the tangible -- and the converse; there is finally a propagation if these exchanges to all the bodies of the same type and of the same style which I see and touch -- and this by virtue of the fundamental fission or segregation of the sentient and the sensible which, laterally makes the organs of my body communicate and founds transitivity from one body to another"**//
+  * This recognition, of ourselves as visible and the other seer, emphasizes the fact that we are actually visible by another, that we interact through this flesh with another. This gives meaning to our movement, our action. //"henceforth movement, touch, vision, applying themselves to the other and to themselves, return toward their source and, in the patient and silent labor of desire, begin the paradox of expression"//
+  * The //paradox of expression//, according to [[https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/tracing-expression-in-merleau-ponty-aesthetics-philosophy-of-biology-and-ontology/|this book]] is the fact that //"that which the work seeks to express (the expressed) does not preexist the act of expression"//  - Maybe he means that the expression is a result of our fleshy interaction with the other, saying something about us, but triggers something different once expressed.
+  * There is also a felshy vocal interaction , even if the voice is different or even the language, we recognize the physicality of the voice, the breath, the throat - it also expresses.
+  * **Page 145** - Starts the discussion of the relation between the //flesh// and the //idea//.
+  * First regarding the development of the body as a seer - //"the seer is being premeditated in counterpoint in the embryonic"// - if I understand correctly, the body becomes a seer because it is of the fleshy element, it develops (evolution?) this ability because it is of the world. There is [[https://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia24/parrhesia24_lymer.pdf|criticism]] about this neglecting the role of the carrying mother in inter-corporeal development.
+  * Merleau-Ponty speaks of our power to shift attention, the gestalt, pivoting the flesh, that is the mode of the thought and the idea. //The little phrase// in the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinteuil_Sonata|Sonata]] in Proust's //In search of Lost Time// that is associated with love. That is the invisible that is founded on the visible, intersects with the flesh. They owe their authority to the sensible. The idea is //"not an absolute invisible, which would have nothing to do with the visible. Rather it is the invisible of this world, that which inhabits this world, sustains it, renders it visible, its own and interior possibility, the Being of this being.
+  * Perhaps the idea is our intrinsic state of a fleshy interaction with the world, not the interaction itself, but the change of our intrinsic state.
+  * In any how, what is the experience of VR?  Is it between the visible and the invisible? The experience of music is a carnal experience that triggers the invisible. VR is an embodied experience. What about playing a game? This is about the **techno-flesh**.
+  * In my theory, there is a difference in our capacity for transformation that is dependent on the corporeality of the situation, of our interaction and participation. And social transformation depends on inter-corporeality.

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools