CLICK ON LINK: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/6a9pas5o669te3x/kojeve2.mp3
KOJEVE’S PHENOMENOLOGY OF AUTHORITY: or “Philosophy of Law”:
Putting this text in its relationship to Kojeve’s other works looks like the following:
Notion of Authority: written 1942, French pub. 2004, Eng. pub. 2014
Outline of a Phil. Of Right: written 1943, French pub. 1980’s, Eng. pub. 2001
Intro to Hegel: French pub. 1947, Eng. Pub 1969
The “notion of authority” was never intended for public availability and publication. Instead Kojeve wrote it to circulate among his “philosophy-of-law” friends in French government.
It essentially is a 100 page policy-paper to stir conversation between his political friends.
Because it is simply a 100 page treatise and not a book-project; a great deal of necessary material has been left out. You will have to have a very in-depth understanding of his position in his book on “introducing Hegel”; almost to the point where you can anticipate his thought. There are many holes here that the reader is supposed to just “understand”.
But he does tells us that it is written as “Phenomenology” first; then moves on to metaphysical consideration; and finally ontological expansion within the context of “Being”.
As an outline; you will have to fill in with what you understand from the “phenomenology of Hegel analysis” that Kojeve brilliantly produced.
But that helps us, in a way; because we know to approach the text from the point-of-view of self-consciousness and its grasp of authority. And we also know that the place of the “notion of the true” cannot alter in this text. We have a common intersecting point that keeps us on track.
“Authority” is a theoretical articulation of the “ideal” for Kojeve that always needs validation as “recognition”. There is no authority without recognition. And in phenomenology, we know that the theoretical self is the “master-self” for Kojeve.
We are taken on a journey of following the inertia of “Centripetal Thought”, headed for the axis of the TUPOS-SELF, and that important flip of priority, igniting the process of the praxis of the “slave-self”.
I will give you the “chronology of selves” that Kojeve creates in this treatise; and then you can use it to supplement your own research. The process evolves in the following manner:
1. NOMINATED-SELF: where the existing collective-authority makes possible our adoption or nomination into the authority-process. (Through the mediation of education).
2. LEADER-SELF: we develop our own individual universal-ethical-project and search for a way to implement it and gain recognition for our contribution.
3. CRITICAL-JUDGE-SELF: on the threshold of dialogue, we sort out the social implications of authority and refine our position by seeking to identify the eternal-authority that is veiled by the temporal-authority.
4. AUTHORITATIVE-SELF: here we construct our theoretical-model, which will include: an all-inclusive total-authority, with its selective sub-system authorities. Creating an ideal as a living-organism.
5. MASTER-SELF: already a central part of Kojeve’s thought-process; always thinking as a Hegelian. This is the “self” ready to take-on the “decisive-project”; through the RISK of positing. Transitioning from master to slave is going to involve existential-risk.
6. TUPOS-SELF: centripetal-thought finally reaches its AXIS-POINT, where the self performs the “axis-flip” of generating the priority of the slave-self entering into praxis.
7. SLAVE-SELF: “efficient cause” is initiated through this awakening of the “slave-self”. Who also carries with it the material cause of existential-memory.
8. CAUSALITY-SELF: realization for Kojeve is equal to a “diversified causality” of complex-authority. Combining efficient-cause; material-cause; final-cause; and contemplative-cause of the JUDGE-SELF.
9. NOMINATING GENESIS-SELF: we travel full-circle and get involved in education on the psychological level, in order to coax other selves into a continuing “nomination” to authority.
A difficult text, indeed. But after the hard work involved in researching it, I must say 5 stars for certain.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Monday, October 13, 2014
ALEXANDER KOJEVE : "Hegel through the Master/ Slave parable"
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/q5ye14ykk0kmvo5/kojeve.mp3
BEFORE THERE WAS “PHENOMENOLOGY”, THERE WAS “KOJEVE”:
This volume on Hegel was first published in 1947, well ahead of the French post-modern movement. But it rose to popularity in the 1960’s, along with that movement. Kojeve was a prophet, well ahead of his time.
Fundamentally, Kojeve interprets Hegel’s entire phenomenology through the parable of the “Master & Slave”. This parable functions for Kojeve as the generic-concept of interpretation. This parable is to be understood as depicting the internal dialectic that takes place internally within a singular self-consciousness. Therefore, we are to understand Hegel as depicting the progressive unveiling of the individual self-consciousness in its journey to develop itself; and then, after this moment, move on to seeking to double itself.
For Kojeve, the key moment in the phenomenology is the “AXIS-FLIP”, where the master-self slips back into latency and the slave-self takes priority (where just prior, the opposite was true). This occurs just prior to the moment of entering into the realm of “praxis”.
I’ll give you the summary moments that might assist you in your own reading.
1. The “assimilating-I” is interrogated by speech
2. The “negating-I” begins to surface but must pass from preservation to historical status.
3. The “historical-I” emerges in dialogue between desiring-selves at the threshold of dialogue
4. The “master-I” dominates in the realm of the notion-of-the-true.
5. The axis-flip, where “master-I” and “slave-I” exchange places of priority
6. Praxis stages of “slave-I” are 6-fold. Resulting in “citizen-I”
7. “slave-of-realization” reaches absolute idea and “idea” & doubling of self-consciousness.
Every serious student of Hegel’s work should read this work. It is the perfect text for any class or seminar. 5 stars.
BEFORE THERE WAS “PHENOMENOLOGY”, THERE WAS “KOJEVE”:
This volume on Hegel was first published in 1947, well ahead of the French post-modern movement. But it rose to popularity in the 1960’s, along with that movement. Kojeve was a prophet, well ahead of his time.
Fundamentally, Kojeve interprets Hegel’s entire phenomenology through the parable of the “Master & Slave”. This parable functions for Kojeve as the generic-concept of interpretation. This parable is to be understood as depicting the internal dialectic that takes place internally within a singular self-consciousness. Therefore, we are to understand Hegel as depicting the progressive unveiling of the individual self-consciousness in its journey to develop itself; and then, after this moment, move on to seeking to double itself.
For Kojeve, the key moment in the phenomenology is the “AXIS-FLIP”, where the master-self slips back into latency and the slave-self takes priority (where just prior, the opposite was true). This occurs just prior to the moment of entering into the realm of “praxis”.
I’ll give you the summary moments that might assist you in your own reading.
1. The “assimilating-I” is interrogated by speech
2. The “negating-I” begins to surface but must pass from preservation to historical status.
3. The “historical-I” emerges in dialogue between desiring-selves at the threshold of dialogue
4. The “master-I” dominates in the realm of the notion-of-the-true.
5. The axis-flip, where “master-I” and “slave-I” exchange places of priority
6. Praxis stages of “slave-I” are 6-fold. Resulting in “citizen-I”
7. “slave-of-realization” reaches absolute idea and “idea” & doubling of self-consciousness.
Every serious student of Hegel’s work should read this work. It is the perfect text for any class or seminar. 5 stars.
Monday, October 6, 2014
FIRST PETER THROUGH THE MIND OF BENEDICT DE SPINOZA - chapter one
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/w69qzbjfl84u2ky/peter01.mp3
GLOSSARY FOR FIRST PETER, CHAPTER ONE: verses 1-25
LOGOS: substance
as whole organism, with innate tendency to suffer through creation.
SARX: diverse
modalities of extension, passive modes where divine attributes are hidden
RHEMA: primary
attributes of substance, Telos-of-Soteria, thought-as-voice, nested within logos
SPOKALUPTO: realm of
unveiling suspended between Sarx & Rhema; where self employs
“Hupakouo”
ANA-GENNAO: realm of
subjective psyche where awakening in “new spiritual birth” takes place.
OURANOS: extended presence of attributes in
creation; usually translated “heaven”. Reveals elements for
formation of our
SHEMATIDZO –world view.
copyright, Barry L. Ballard, October, 2014
copyright, Barry L. Ballard, October, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
SPINOZA: THE "INTELLECTUAL INSTRUMENTS" OF HIS ""LOGIC""
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/ygyhuh9khpkg28y/pollock.mp3
POLLOCK KEYS-IN ON SPINOZA’S “INTELLECTUAL INSTRUMENTS”:
I did not expect much from this manuscript. Pollock was only 35 years old when he wrote it; and I honestly did not think he could be equipped enough to write a sound treatise. I was wrong. He must have started philosophical investigation at a very early age. He is solid throughout the text. It is quite a good commentary. It is more of a commentary than an exposition. Pollock is rendering his “opinion” of the “ETHICS”, and its misinterpretations.
But, more importantly; he addresses Spinoza with the intent of keying- in on the articulated “intellectual-instruments” that really serve as the only foundation to Spinoza’s position anyway. Briefly I will list these for you, as given in the text. THEY ARE:
1. CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS
2. SUFFICIENT ORDER OF GENERALIZATIONS
3. SINGULARITIES OF UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS
4. NOTION OF EXTENSION (RATHER THAN NOTION OF THE TRUE)
5. POSITED FUNCTIONAL SIGNS FOR PRAXIS
6. POSITED INFINITE INTELLECT.
In addition to this organizational work-flow; the material is also presented through the functional modalities of: PERCEPTION; REASON; INTUITION; IMAGINATION; & INTELLECT.
Because of Pollock’s background in contract-law; I found the material very systematically presented, which I liked.
NOTE: this is a scanned public-domain document and therefore there are no page breaks; material is run together and you are responsible for developing a habit as to how you can best read the material. You’ll learn how to skip notes after 30 minutes of reading. Bu don’t get too upset. You’re getting real solid commentary for 99 cents. Just overlook the inconvenience. I did. 5 stars for this surprise in scholarship
POLLOCK KEYS-IN ON SPINOZA’S “INTELLECTUAL INSTRUMENTS”:
I did not expect much from this manuscript. Pollock was only 35 years old when he wrote it; and I honestly did not think he could be equipped enough to write a sound treatise. I was wrong. He must have started philosophical investigation at a very early age. He is solid throughout the text. It is quite a good commentary. It is more of a commentary than an exposition. Pollock is rendering his “opinion” of the “ETHICS”, and its misinterpretations.
But, more importantly; he addresses Spinoza with the intent of keying- in on the articulated “intellectual-instruments” that really serve as the only foundation to Spinoza’s position anyway. Briefly I will list these for you, as given in the text. THEY ARE:
1. CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS
2. SUFFICIENT ORDER OF GENERALIZATIONS
3. SINGULARITIES OF UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS
4. NOTION OF EXTENSION (RATHER THAN NOTION OF THE TRUE)
5. POSITED FUNCTIONAL SIGNS FOR PRAXIS
6. POSITED INFINITE INTELLECT.
In addition to this organizational work-flow; the material is also presented through the functional modalities of: PERCEPTION; REASON; INTUITION; IMAGINATION; & INTELLECT.
Because of Pollock’s background in contract-law; I found the material very systematically presented, which I liked.
NOTE: this is a scanned public-domain document and therefore there are no page breaks; material is run together and you are responsible for developing a habit as to how you can best read the material. You’ll learn how to skip notes after 30 minutes of reading. Bu don’t get too upset. You’re getting real solid commentary for 99 cents. Just overlook the inconvenience. I did. 5 stars for this surprise in scholarship
SPINOZA: THE "TRACTATUS"
click on link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/4qb0oeok758e8nx/spinoza3.mp3
WRITING A "PHRAESEOLOGY-OF-PROVIDENCE", WITHOUT SUPERSTITION:
Spinoza is almost as misunderstood as Hegel; almost. First; where does the "TRACTATUS" lie? And what is its specific role in Spinoza's overall body of work?
Spinoza's body of major works reads in the following order:
1661: the Logic of Man & Well-Being. (Which essentially was written as a pure "logic")
1669: this "Tractatus" appears in Amsterdam (written as a preliminary necessity-of-infinity that would inform the "Ethics")
1677: the "Ethics" appears which is his full system, including its emphasis on Subjective-Spirit.
These three major works were separated by "8" years" in each instance. So we find ourselves, within this manuscript; looking at Spinoza's take on the necessity of all that has been prophesied, the necessity of the "FADE" of "substance" (I'll explain in a bit); and the necessity of the praxis of "human-law" extending out of "divine-law". And, in all of this, how we are to avoid the entrapment of superstition and false metaphysics & ritual; and instead, reach the ultimate goal of "blessedness", consisting of an overwhelming epistemological "love-of-god" that will allow us to minister to the general population in posited phrases, or narrative-phraseologies that articulate "divine-law" as the "NOTION" of the "rule-for-living? This is our ultimate intent!
The best way to approach this manuscript is to correlate the emerging moments of the development of the "law", with the emerging moments of the "intellectual-instruments" in Spinoza's "ethics. I will list these for you and then you can use it as a reference when you investigate the text yourself:
1. INSTRUMENT OF CLEAR & DISTINCT IDEAS: corresponds to the first appearance of the "prophetic-voice" of the "Mind-of-God"
2. INSTRUMENT OF SUFFICIENT ORDER: corresponds to partitioning aspects of "prophetic-voice" into "existential-voice" of "divine-law"
3. INSTRUMENT OF UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS: corresponds to unveiling aspects of FADE: fortune, assistance, direction, & election of infinite substance
4. INSTRUMENT OF NOTION OF EXTENSION: corresponds to notion of "rule-for-living", from definitions gained from our dialogue concerning FADE
5. INSTRUMENT OF POSITED FUNCTIONAL SIGNS: corresponds to "proving-law-through-experience" & the dialectic of writing narrative that reinforces divine and human law.
6. INSTRUMENT OF INFINITE-INTELLECT: corresponds to extracting a phraseology-of-providence from Nature & Scripture, without the distortions of superstition.
There are a total of "6" intellectual instruments in Spinoza's system of thought.
I am a sincere fan of Spinoza because of his influence on so many great thinkers, including Hegel. But I do recommend you read that little "Logic of Man & Well-Being". It will assist you a great deal in understanding Spinoza's system. 5 stars for this well-thought-out treatise.
WRITING A "PHRAESEOLOGY-OF-PROVIDENCE", WITHOUT SUPERSTITION:
Spinoza is almost as misunderstood as Hegel; almost. First; where does the "TRACTATUS" lie? And what is its specific role in Spinoza's overall body of work?
Spinoza's body of major works reads in the following order:
1661: the Logic of Man & Well-Being. (Which essentially was written as a pure "logic")
1669: this "Tractatus" appears in Amsterdam (written as a preliminary necessity-of-infinity that would inform the "Ethics")
1677: the "Ethics" appears which is his full system, including its emphasis on Subjective-Spirit.
These three major works were separated by "8" years" in each instance. So we find ourselves, within this manuscript; looking at Spinoza's take on the necessity of all that has been prophesied, the necessity of the "FADE" of "substance" (I'll explain in a bit); and the necessity of the praxis of "human-law" extending out of "divine-law". And, in all of this, how we are to avoid the entrapment of superstition and false metaphysics & ritual; and instead, reach the ultimate goal of "blessedness", consisting of an overwhelming epistemological "love-of-god" that will allow us to minister to the general population in posited phrases, or narrative-phraseologies that articulate "divine-law" as the "NOTION" of the "rule-for-living? This is our ultimate intent!
The best way to approach this manuscript is to correlate the emerging moments of the development of the "law", with the emerging moments of the "intellectual-instruments" in Spinoza's "ethics. I will list these for you and then you can use it as a reference when you investigate the text yourself:
1. INSTRUMENT OF CLEAR & DISTINCT IDEAS: corresponds to the first appearance of the "prophetic-voice" of the "Mind-of-God"
2. INSTRUMENT OF SUFFICIENT ORDER: corresponds to partitioning aspects of "prophetic-voice" into "existential-voice" of "divine-law"
3. INSTRUMENT OF UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS: corresponds to unveiling aspects of FADE: fortune, assistance, direction, & election of infinite substance
4. INSTRUMENT OF NOTION OF EXTENSION: corresponds to notion of "rule-for-living", from definitions gained from our dialogue concerning FADE
5. INSTRUMENT OF POSITED FUNCTIONAL SIGNS: corresponds to "proving-law-through-experience" & the dialectic of writing narrative that reinforces divine and human law.
6. INSTRUMENT OF INFINITE-INTELLECT: corresponds to extracting a phraseology-of-providence from Nature & Scripture, without the distortions of superstition.
There are a total of "6" intellectual instruments in Spinoza's system of thought.
I am a sincere fan of Spinoza because of his influence on so many great thinkers, including Hegel. But I do recommend you read that little "Logic of Man & Well-Being". It will assist you a great deal in understanding Spinoza's system. 5 stars for this well-thought-out treatise.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
SPINOZA'S "ETHICS"
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/mcepvaavy5yv67u/spinoza2.mp3
BEFORE HEGEL THERE WAS SPINOZA; THE TRUE "MASTER"
1677 was a remarkable year. It was the year that the public was given Spinoza's "ETHICS", which represented his entire scheme of thought; not just "Ethics". In fact, it reads more like an "Epistemology" or even a "Phenomenology. These are also the reason that Spinoza is so appreciated by post-modern thinkers.
He begins his phenomenology with "PERCEPTION", in the realm of the "psyche". He creates the first emergence of the idea of "Positing" when he announces that an idea can be "real" and "true", but not "actual" in reality. It can still exist as a true representation of Absolute-Essence.
Everything, including you and myself are all enclosed within the one "spirit-substance" that has gone out of itself in "EXTENSION". This extension takes the forms of: ACTIVE-ATTRBUTES & PASSIVE-MODALITIES that enclose those attributes.
Because we exist as part of that "extension"; we possess an "innate" understanding of the "GIVEN-TRUE-IDEA" that will enclose our finite attempts at forming our versions of the "true". Our particular-modality of thought participates in the "Absolute-Thought" of the one spirit-substance.
His methodology is simple and feeds post-modernism to a tee. Reductionism or deconstruction will take us to the singularities of meaning that can be grasped as "clear & distinct" "concepts".
After deconstruction, we pass through dialogue in order to acquire a preliminary "FORM" of synchrony for these concepts. There is an "order" to the infinite attributes that have emanated.
Passing through the refinery of reductionism, analogy, and reflective understanding; we can finally formulate a diagram or outline of the notion of the true; that begins with the "PRIMARY-ATTRIBUTES" and builds down from there, developing sub-system concepts as we go.
All of this takes pace in an "UNDERSTANDING-WORKSPACE" in the intellect that is adding & refining constantly.
After the "notion" is diagramed, we are ready to compose our ontology or "PHRASEOLOGY" of essence, in order to persuade existence forward in spirit. He proposes an ethics of "Writing" a narrative. Notion, alone, is not enough. It needs to be formulated into narrative and shared.
"PRAXIS", however, is something else in this deterministic model. We are simply to participate in the process of the "necessary & the impossible". "Substance evolves of its own necessity and things reach essence out of necessity. "Impossibility" only exists if we GET IT WRONG. If we mistakenly articulate contradiction within an essence. "Impossibility" s a subjective-failure, not an objective-weakness.
His final ontology can be labeled as follows: 1. SUBSTANCE "IN-ITSELF"; 2. SUBSTANCE GONE OUT OF ITSELF AS "EXENDED-SUBSTANCE"; & 3. SUBSTANCE RETURNING TO ITSELF AS "CONCEPTUAL-PHRASEOLOGY"
This is the thinker who inspired so many; especially Hegel. 5 stars for this masterpiece.
BEFORE HEGEL THERE WAS SPINOZA; THE TRUE "MASTER"
1677 was a remarkable year. It was the year that the public was given Spinoza's "ETHICS", which represented his entire scheme of thought; not just "Ethics". In fact, it reads more like an "Epistemology" or even a "Phenomenology. These are also the reason that Spinoza is so appreciated by post-modern thinkers.
He begins his phenomenology with "PERCEPTION", in the realm of the "psyche". He creates the first emergence of the idea of "Positing" when he announces that an idea can be "real" and "true", but not "actual" in reality. It can still exist as a true representation of Absolute-Essence.
Everything, including you and myself are all enclosed within the one "spirit-substance" that has gone out of itself in "EXTENSION". This extension takes the forms of: ACTIVE-ATTRBUTES & PASSIVE-MODALITIES that enclose those attributes.
Because we exist as part of that "extension"; we possess an "innate" understanding of the "GIVEN-TRUE-IDEA" that will enclose our finite attempts at forming our versions of the "true". Our particular-modality of thought participates in the "Absolute-Thought" of the one spirit-substance.
His methodology is simple and feeds post-modernism to a tee. Reductionism or deconstruction will take us to the singularities of meaning that can be grasped as "clear & distinct" "concepts".
After deconstruction, we pass through dialogue in order to acquire a preliminary "FORM" of synchrony for these concepts. There is an "order" to the infinite attributes that have emanated.
Passing through the refinery of reductionism, analogy, and reflective understanding; we can finally formulate a diagram or outline of the notion of the true; that begins with the "PRIMARY-ATTRIBUTES" and builds down from there, developing sub-system concepts as we go.
All of this takes pace in an "UNDERSTANDING-WORKSPACE" in the intellect that is adding & refining constantly.
After the "notion" is diagramed, we are ready to compose our ontology or "PHRASEOLOGY" of essence, in order to persuade existence forward in spirit. He proposes an ethics of "Writing" a narrative. Notion, alone, is not enough. It needs to be formulated into narrative and shared.
"PRAXIS", however, is something else in this deterministic model. We are simply to participate in the process of the "necessary & the impossible". "Substance evolves of its own necessity and things reach essence out of necessity. "Impossibility" only exists if we GET IT WRONG. If we mistakenly articulate contradiction within an essence. "Impossibility" s a subjective-failure, not an objective-weakness.
His final ontology can be labeled as follows: 1. SUBSTANCE "IN-ITSELF"; 2. SUBSTANCE GONE OUT OF ITSELF AS "EXENDED-SUBSTANCE"; & 3. SUBSTANCE RETURNING TO ITSELF AS "CONCEPTUAL-PHRASEOLOGY"
This is the thinker who inspired so many; especially Hegel. 5 stars for this masterpiece.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
DERRIDA: PHENOMENOLOGY OF "ANIMOT-VOICE"
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/ac31cbm5xzvimif/derrida3a.mp3
THE ROLE OF “HUPAKOUO” IN AUTO-BIOGRAPHY:
How are we to define the “self” as “subject” if we ignore “spiritual-seeing” and “spiritual-hearing”?
There is more to humanity than the cognitive and the construction of rational propositions. There is a more primitive dimension that also defines us. This dimension speaks to us in an unknown grammar, one that appears to the Hupakouo attribute of the “psyche” who possesses the right perspective or “stance”. Of course, this is the concern of phenomenology in the first place; and the concern of post-modern thought. It is time to re-acquaint ourselves with the “Animot-voice” of the animal-other.
In 10 days at a conference held at the Cerisy Cultural Center in Lasalle, France Derrida did just that. This is his treatise of “awakening”; his plea for a new “auto-biography”, one that will give the animal-monster, that currently exists in the world, a “new name”.
HOW DO WE WRITE THE NEW NAME?
Derrida proposes a triad with regard to his approach. We could call this his “triad-of-Hupakouo”; a new LOGOS. Its parts: 1. the “being-after” of the self as a state of latency with regard to this quest for auto-bio definition. This is the self of shame and impropriety, and under the gaze of the interrogating animal-other. 2. The “being-alongside” marks a transition of the self where self enters the role of “negation” and negating the “monstrous animal”; and positing instead the “theoretical animal-other”. But discernment is still missing here. The self needs dialogue to get past this “lack” with regard to auto-biography. 3. The “being-near” of the self recognizes the role that ”Hupakouo” plays at the level of “presentation” concerning the “other” and “listening” with regard to the transcendentally intuitive “psyche”. Self and animal can co-exist in dialectic.
This is the same Derrida of the “phenomenology-of-writing”; therefore, we should recognize that the “PRAXIS” of all this is the positing of a written “zoo-to-biographical sketch”. This is a sketch of relation between the “I” of the self and the history of the “animal-as-concept”. We will enlist the attestation, argument, and proof of our recalled “auto-bio memory” as the apologetic accompanying proclamation; to help empower this PRAXIS.
The “notion” of this praxis-positing is formed through a process Derrida calls: “Limitophy”; which is a deconstruction of the false-singularity of “animal” currently in existence, coupled with re-interpreting the limit-point of our situation in a way that is “non-linear”. And the “cultivation” of the results of dialogue at the conversation-threshold with other selves involved in the process of forming a new name for animal. Cultivation takes place under the critique of a posited 3rd party called “Universality”.
Give yourself the benefit of reading this manuscript slowly; it is rich in content and addresses Derrida’s fundamental position in a way that centers on ”listening”. We are never so well advanced that we cannot learn new ways to awaken our spiritual listening.
5 stars for this 10-day conference.
THE ROLE OF “HUPAKOUO” IN AUTO-BIOGRAPHY:
How are we to define the “self” as “subject” if we ignore “spiritual-seeing” and “spiritual-hearing”?
There is more to humanity than the cognitive and the construction of rational propositions. There is a more primitive dimension that also defines us. This dimension speaks to us in an unknown grammar, one that appears to the Hupakouo attribute of the “psyche” who possesses the right perspective or “stance”. Of course, this is the concern of phenomenology in the first place; and the concern of post-modern thought. It is time to re-acquaint ourselves with the “Animot-voice” of the animal-other.
In 10 days at a conference held at the Cerisy Cultural Center in Lasalle, France Derrida did just that. This is his treatise of “awakening”; his plea for a new “auto-biography”, one that will give the animal-monster, that currently exists in the world, a “new name”.
HOW DO WE WRITE THE NEW NAME?
Derrida proposes a triad with regard to his approach. We could call this his “triad-of-Hupakouo”; a new LOGOS. Its parts: 1. the “being-after” of the self as a state of latency with regard to this quest for auto-bio definition. This is the self of shame and impropriety, and under the gaze of the interrogating animal-other. 2. The “being-alongside” marks a transition of the self where self enters the role of “negation” and negating the “monstrous animal”; and positing instead the “theoretical animal-other”. But discernment is still missing here. The self needs dialogue to get past this “lack” with regard to auto-biography. 3. The “being-near” of the self recognizes the role that ”Hupakouo” plays at the level of “presentation” concerning the “other” and “listening” with regard to the transcendentally intuitive “psyche”. Self and animal can co-exist in dialectic.
This is the same Derrida of the “phenomenology-of-writing”; therefore, we should recognize that the “PRAXIS” of all this is the positing of a written “zoo-to-biographical sketch”. This is a sketch of relation between the “I” of the self and the history of the “animal-as-concept”. We will enlist the attestation, argument, and proof of our recalled “auto-bio memory” as the apologetic accompanying proclamation; to help empower this PRAXIS.
The “notion” of this praxis-positing is formed through a process Derrida calls: “Limitophy”; which is a deconstruction of the false-singularity of “animal” currently in existence, coupled with re-interpreting the limit-point of our situation in a way that is “non-linear”. And the “cultivation” of the results of dialogue at the conversation-threshold with other selves involved in the process of forming a new name for animal. Cultivation takes place under the critique of a posited 3rd party called “Universality”.
Give yourself the benefit of reading this manuscript slowly; it is rich in content and addresses Derrida’s fundamental position in a way that centers on ”listening”. We are never so well advanced that we cannot learn new ways to awaken our spiritual listening.
5 stars for this 10-day conference.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
BULTMANN: PHENOMENOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/0ytpmri03jyrh5u/bultpm.mp3
A TRUE PHENOMENOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY FROM 1953:
Bultmann; much in the same manner as Levinas (but well ahead of his time), tells us that the self is confronted by both: a historical situation and text of existential importance. For Levinas, the text was the Torah and Talmud. For Bultmann, the text is exclusively the New Testament, and especially the gospel narratives (with a preference for John).
And both Levinas and Bultmann addressed the problem of a “kerygma-of-saying” that was enclosed in an “enclosure-of-said”. Bultmann calls this the “enclosure-of-myth”. Now; Bultmann precedes Levinas by about 8 years, so we should recognize just how ground-breaking Bultmann’s offering was and still remains today.
The “myth-of-the-said” that tries to enclose kerygma is composed primarily of Jewish apocalyptic and Greek Gnosticism. We need to extract the kerygma from this inauthentic enclosure and acquire the existential significance of New Testament narrative in its originary proclamation-state. Our task therefore includes this extraction coupled with the ongoing development of the self’s “self-understanding”.
The “psyche” makes its contribution by passing through the triad of: anxiety – faith – and eschatological-existence. The tension of “security vs anxiety” interrogates the self to open itself to the intangible love of god and openness to the future. This eschatological stance must be repeated again and again for every new situation; a continual negation of “egoism”.
The transition to the notion of the “true” passes through the relational-threshold of the “act-of-god”. For Bultmann, this means working through a triad: first; we internally posit the idea of “self-as-other”, where the love-of-god creates a self-acceptance equal to a self that is “other” than it already “is”; “self” becomes “eschatological-self”. Second; we pass through “dialogue with others where the “gnosis of revelation” is unveiled in the encounter with other selves that are also perceived eschatologically. And thirdly; the content of “kerygma” is articulated, as that within the Christ-event that is hidden under the mythical narrative. This means articulating the cross and resurrection as kerygma.
This threshold moment marks the self’s transition to cognition and the conceptual articulation of the cross and resurrection into an intelligible posited “word-of-reconciliation”. Essentially we are to posit the “saving-efficacy” of the cross as “intelligible” and available for proclamation and differentiation in actuality. For Bultmann, the cross is really all of the content we need. Resurrection simply stands for “faith” in the saving-efficacy of the cross. “Physical resurrection narratives” are later additions to the primitive text according to Bultmann.
“Praxis” means taking up the triad of: 1. taking up the stance of “being-for-another”; plus 2. Uniting that stance with the impelling “question-about-god” to form 3. A realized objectivity of the dialectical involvement of the kerygma in actuality. It will include using the existing lexical content of one’s tradition and its specific philosophy; but critiquing that philosophy with the “right” of an eschatological understanding of human existence.
What we can all learn here is how; after 61 years; a manuscript like this can take on new meaning in light of further offerings by post-moderns like Levinas and Derrida. 5 stars; and truly a transformative document.
A TRUE PHENOMENOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY FROM 1953:
Bultmann; much in the same manner as Levinas (but well ahead of his time), tells us that the self is confronted by both: a historical situation and text of existential importance. For Levinas, the text was the Torah and Talmud. For Bultmann, the text is exclusively the New Testament, and especially the gospel narratives (with a preference for John).
And both Levinas and Bultmann addressed the problem of a “kerygma-of-saying” that was enclosed in an “enclosure-of-said”. Bultmann calls this the “enclosure-of-myth”. Now; Bultmann precedes Levinas by about 8 years, so we should recognize just how ground-breaking Bultmann’s offering was and still remains today.
The “myth-of-the-said” that tries to enclose kerygma is composed primarily of Jewish apocalyptic and Greek Gnosticism. We need to extract the kerygma from this inauthentic enclosure and acquire the existential significance of New Testament narrative in its originary proclamation-state. Our task therefore includes this extraction coupled with the ongoing development of the self’s “self-understanding”.
The “psyche” makes its contribution by passing through the triad of: anxiety – faith – and eschatological-existence. The tension of “security vs anxiety” interrogates the self to open itself to the intangible love of god and openness to the future. This eschatological stance must be repeated again and again for every new situation; a continual negation of “egoism”.
The transition to the notion of the “true” passes through the relational-threshold of the “act-of-god”. For Bultmann, this means working through a triad: first; we internally posit the idea of “self-as-other”, where the love-of-god creates a self-acceptance equal to a self that is “other” than it already “is”; “self” becomes “eschatological-self”. Second; we pass through “dialogue with others where the “gnosis of revelation” is unveiled in the encounter with other selves that are also perceived eschatologically. And thirdly; the content of “kerygma” is articulated, as that within the Christ-event that is hidden under the mythical narrative. This means articulating the cross and resurrection as kerygma.
This threshold moment marks the self’s transition to cognition and the conceptual articulation of the cross and resurrection into an intelligible posited “word-of-reconciliation”. Essentially we are to posit the “saving-efficacy” of the cross as “intelligible” and available for proclamation and differentiation in actuality. For Bultmann, the cross is really all of the content we need. Resurrection simply stands for “faith” in the saving-efficacy of the cross. “Physical resurrection narratives” are later additions to the primitive text according to Bultmann.
“Praxis” means taking up the triad of: 1. taking up the stance of “being-for-another”; plus 2. Uniting that stance with the impelling “question-about-god” to form 3. A realized objectivity of the dialectical involvement of the kerygma in actuality. It will include using the existing lexical content of one’s tradition and its specific philosophy; but critiquing that philosophy with the “right” of an eschatological understanding of human existence.
What we can all learn here is how; after 61 years; a manuscript like this can take on new meaning in light of further offerings by post-moderns like Levinas and Derrida. 5 stars; and truly a transformative document.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
LEVINAS: PHENOMENOLOGY OF "KERYGMA"
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/0aiumzmkvnu88k2/levinaskey.mp3
13 YRS LATER: A PHENOMENOLOGY OF "KERYGMA":
In 1961, Levinas gave us his masterpiece of "Totality and Infinity" where he outlined his basic position on phenomenology. Now, 13 years later, in 1974, he gives us a refinement of his phenomenology that emphasizes the otherness of "being", by designating it "Kerygma"; much in the same way as Bultmann did for Christianity. Levinas wants to emphasize this kerygma, stripped of the contamination of the enclosure of the "said" (or imposed ontologies, etc.). His Judaic-demythologizing would strip or disrupt this "said", in order to create a fragmentation that would free-up the concepts so that the responsible self can engage in the task of re-instating their dynamic life as "signs" of "saying".
The proto-subjectivity takes up the act of the event-of-responsibility and enters the conversation threshold, where the dialogue passes through a triad of: "SUBSTITUTION - SENSIBILITY - SAYING". This dialogue has as its purpose to articulate the "proximity" of a "communal-sign-image" that "inspires" or motivates. This is the middle moment of one self standing-in toward another. But next, the self must articulate a "thematization" which will involve a new stance of the two selves standing together, facing a 3rd party; all within the atmosphere of "justice"
From "thematization", he moves on to "praxis", where he depicts in the triad of: "QUESTIONING - RESPONSE - DIACHRONIC PLOT". The idea of "plot" is interesting because it suggests "narrative", which is important for the Judaic-LevInas. The space between "questioning" and "response" is designated the workspace for articulating this non-ontological expression of "truth". All taking place in the "modality-of-responsibility"
LOGOS, therefore, is centered on the idea of "kerygma", a triad consisting of: "THE SAID-OF-KERYGMA / THE SAYING-OF-KERYGMA / THE DIACHRONOLOGY-OF-KERYGMA". The "diachronic-other" is the other of time that transits through all times; and therefore; usurps the previous autonomy of linear-time. "Time" is eschatological for Levinas.
This is a powerful manuscript that gives the view of a Judaic-Bultmann. Powerful and deep, but accessible if taken in small reasonable bites. 5 stars.
13 YRS LATER: A PHENOMENOLOGY OF "KERYGMA":
In 1961, Levinas gave us his masterpiece of "Totality and Infinity" where he outlined his basic position on phenomenology. Now, 13 years later, in 1974, he gives us a refinement of his phenomenology that emphasizes the otherness of "being", by designating it "Kerygma"; much in the same way as Bultmann did for Christianity. Levinas wants to emphasize this kerygma, stripped of the contamination of the enclosure of the "said" (or imposed ontologies, etc.). His Judaic-demythologizing would strip or disrupt this "said", in order to create a fragmentation that would free-up the concepts so that the responsible self can engage in the task of re-instating their dynamic life as "signs" of "saying".
The proto-subjectivity takes up the act of the event-of-responsibility and enters the conversation threshold, where the dialogue passes through a triad of: "SUBSTITUTION - SENSIBILITY - SAYING". This dialogue has as its purpose to articulate the "proximity" of a "communal-sign-image" that "inspires" or motivates. This is the middle moment of one self standing-in toward another. But next, the self must articulate a "thematization" which will involve a new stance of the two selves standing together, facing a 3rd party; all within the atmosphere of "justice"
From "thematization", he moves on to "praxis", where he depicts in the triad of: "QUESTIONING - RESPONSE - DIACHRONIC PLOT". The idea of "plot" is interesting because it suggests "narrative", which is important for the Judaic-LevInas. The space between "questioning" and "response" is designated the workspace for articulating this non-ontological expression of "truth". All taking place in the "modality-of-responsibility"
LOGOS, therefore, is centered on the idea of "kerygma", a triad consisting of: "THE SAID-OF-KERYGMA / THE SAYING-OF-KERYGMA / THE DIACHRONOLOGY-OF-KERYGMA". The "diachronic-other" is the other of time that transits through all times; and therefore; usurps the previous autonomy of linear-time. "Time" is eschatological for Levinas.
This is a powerful manuscript that gives the view of a Judaic-Bultmann. Powerful and deep, but accessible if taken in small reasonable bites. 5 stars.
Friday, June 6, 2014
LEVINAS': PHENOMENOLOGY OF COVENANT
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/5b53br0wcwmk899/levinasrel.mp3
INDIE DIGITAL PUBLISHING PRODUCES USEFUL MONOGRAPH ON LEVINAS:
Digitally published in 2013; this 90 page monograph addresses Levinas by articulating his phenomenology of “covenant”. I found no information on the author, so I guess she wants anonymity. But I would give her high marks.
Morris takes us through the Judaic symbols in order to define Levinas’ phenomenology. Basically these run as follows: SINAI; BASE OF SINAI TO PLAINS-OF-MOAB; GERIZIN; THE “AMEN-RESPONSE” AT EBAL & GERIZIN; TENT-OF-MEETING; AND THEN THE PRAXIS-OF-INVERSION & THE LOGOS AS “PLOT-OF-BEING”.
I thought she did an excellent job of articulating the symbols, except for shorting us on an articulation of the tent-of-meeting. But you can extrapolate that, based on your own understanding of Levinas: essentially this is the moment of the distribution of the tribes and symbolizes “proximity” which she does talk about.
To get the most from the monograph you should already have the thought-picture of the form and structure of phenomenology already in your mind. If you do; you can integrate this material easily. I would call it accessible, but deep enough to satisfy grad-level work.
For an indie-kindle-manuscript; I was pleasantly surprised and give it 5 stars. Enjoy this manuscript.
INDIE DIGITAL PUBLISHING PRODUCES USEFUL MONOGRAPH ON LEVINAS:
Digitally published in 2013; this 90 page monograph addresses Levinas by articulating his phenomenology of “covenant”. I found no information on the author, so I guess she wants anonymity. But I would give her high marks.
Morris takes us through the Judaic symbols in order to define Levinas’ phenomenology. Basically these run as follows: SINAI; BASE OF SINAI TO PLAINS-OF-MOAB; GERIZIN; THE “AMEN-RESPONSE” AT EBAL & GERIZIN; TENT-OF-MEETING; AND THEN THE PRAXIS-OF-INVERSION & THE LOGOS AS “PLOT-OF-BEING”.
I thought she did an excellent job of articulating the symbols, except for shorting us on an articulation of the tent-of-meeting. But you can extrapolate that, based on your own understanding of Levinas: essentially this is the moment of the distribution of the tribes and symbolizes “proximity” which she does talk about.
To get the most from the monograph you should already have the thought-picture of the form and structure of phenomenology already in your mind. If you do; you can integrate this material easily. I would call it accessible, but deep enough to satisfy grad-level work.
For an indie-kindle-manuscript; I was pleasantly surprised and give it 5 stars. Enjoy this manuscript.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
BUBER: THE FIRST PHENOMENOLOGY
click on link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/hp1ih2j3gl3g2n9/buberext.mp3
IN 1923, the concept of “phenomenology” did not exist. Instead, such positions were called “existentialism”. Such was the label attached to Buber. And phenomenology is equal to “existentialism as relation”.
However, as is the case with “prophetic-voice”; Buber anticipated phenomenology by 40 years. His “I and Thou” presented a phenomenology of “Relation”, long before the science would take birth in the 1960’s.
Roughly we can form a preliminary “Judaic-outline”:
1. RELATION-OF-EXILE: while, at the same time, being conditioned by “grace” and “covenant”. Where the self seeks out “meaning” in this barrenness.
2. RELATION-OF-MEANING: and direction, symbolized in pillar-of-fire. Where self interprets the acquisition of the “units-of-meaning” as gifts of grace in perceiving “meaning”. Self takes on receptive attitude of “stance-of-prayer” for this perceiving.
3. RELATION-OF-WORD: as symbolized as ark-of-covenant. The threshold of dialogue where self encounters three sub-system relations concerning the “speech-act”: a. “BELOW-LANGUAGE” of sensate-percepts. B. “WITHIN-LANGUAGE” of “cogito” relating to other selves. C. “BEYOND-LANGUAGE” of “spiritual-being” and acquiring the traces of the “eternal-you” in the shared experiences of other selves.
4. RELATION-AS-POURED-OUT: symbolized in the “mercy-seat”; where self articulates the form of the “eternal-you” from the compiled “traces” and conceptualizes them into “altar” & “sacrifice”; a sacrifice of risking “whole-being” in the positing.
5. RELATION-AS-ELECTION: symbolized a tabernacle in the desert. The hinge pivot-point of true subjectivity that never quite reaches a fixed home with itself; always no more than a tent for a tabernacle. Never a determinate “it” to define the interrogation for “praxis”. “Praxis” demands more than this.
6. RELATION-OF-PRAXIS: as a “relation-of-incarnation”; incarnating the “you” of SOCIAL-HUMANITY. It INCLUDES “3” sub-system-relations as follows:
a. “Relation-of-aesthetics” in the world of things.
b. “Relation-of-love “in world of other selves.
c. “Relation-of-meditation” in world of mystery and spirit.
AND THE “LOGOS”: for Buber, the “logos” is metaphorically represented as the “Manna-of-nourishment”.
This logos passes through a triad of: 1. the “i-it” of psyche. 2. The “blossoming-i-you” of “cogito”; and 3. The “i-you” as “process-of-event”.
This masterpiece of around 100 pages should be studied by any serious thinker who wants to better understand the current post-modern position. Highly recommended; 5 stars
IN 1923, the concept of “phenomenology” did not exist. Instead, such positions were called “existentialism”. Such was the label attached to Buber. And phenomenology is equal to “existentialism as relation”.
However, as is the case with “prophetic-voice”; Buber anticipated phenomenology by 40 years. His “I and Thou” presented a phenomenology of “Relation”, long before the science would take birth in the 1960’s.
Roughly we can form a preliminary “Judaic-outline”:
1. RELATION-OF-EXILE: while, at the same time, being conditioned by “grace” and “covenant”. Where the self seeks out “meaning” in this barrenness.
2. RELATION-OF-MEANING: and direction, symbolized in pillar-of-fire. Where self interprets the acquisition of the “units-of-meaning” as gifts of grace in perceiving “meaning”. Self takes on receptive attitude of “stance-of-prayer” for this perceiving.
3. RELATION-OF-WORD: as symbolized as ark-of-covenant. The threshold of dialogue where self encounters three sub-system relations concerning the “speech-act”: a. “BELOW-LANGUAGE” of sensate-percepts. B. “WITHIN-LANGUAGE” of “cogito” relating to other selves. C. “BEYOND-LANGUAGE” of “spiritual-being” and acquiring the traces of the “eternal-you” in the shared experiences of other selves.
4. RELATION-AS-POURED-OUT: symbolized in the “mercy-seat”; where self articulates the form of the “eternal-you” from the compiled “traces” and conceptualizes them into “altar” & “sacrifice”; a sacrifice of risking “whole-being” in the positing.
5. RELATION-AS-ELECTION: symbolized a tabernacle in the desert. The hinge pivot-point of true subjectivity that never quite reaches a fixed home with itself; always no more than a tent for a tabernacle. Never a determinate “it” to define the interrogation for “praxis”. “Praxis” demands more than this.
6. RELATION-OF-PRAXIS: as a “relation-of-incarnation”; incarnating the “you” of SOCIAL-HUMANITY. It INCLUDES “3” sub-system-relations as follows:
a. “Relation-of-aesthetics” in the world of things.
b. “Relation-of-love “in world of other selves.
c. “Relation-of-meditation” in world of mystery and spirit.
AND THE “LOGOS”: for Buber, the “logos” is metaphorically represented as the “Manna-of-nourishment”.
This logos passes through a triad of: 1. the “i-it” of psyche. 2. The “blossoming-i-you” of “cogito”; and 3. The “i-you” as “process-of-event”.
This masterpiece of around 100 pages should be studied by any serious thinker who wants to better understand the current post-modern position. Highly recommended; 5 stars
Saturday, May 24, 2014
LEVINAS: GOD IS RELATIONAL, NOT METAPHYSICAL, FROM 1995
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pphn9epytxlplqs/levinastra.mp3
LEVINAS’ CONCEPT OF “GOD” ARTICULATED THROUGH TWO MODALITIES:
This manuscript appears 30 years after Levinas’ masterpiece of “Totality and Infinity”, where he depicted his Phenomenology. Now he gives us the detailed articulation of what he meant in that essay by “transcendence”; understanding it within sociology. The following outline represents his position in this 121 page essay:
LEVINAS’ JUDAIC CONCEPT OF “GOD”; UNDERSTOOD WITHIN TWO MODALITIES:“TRANSCENDENCE” AND “ALTERITY”:
TRANSCENDENCE: “3” moments:
1. The “psyche” describes the “space-of-transcendence”
a. Found in the face of the fellow-self.
b. Ethical-awakening takes place and quest for “logos”
c. Logos = the space of the “social-ideal-vigor”
d. Transcendent space = this “social-ideal-vigor”
2. The “conversation-threshold” describes the “time-of-transcendence”
a. “Psyche” breaks from spatial thinking.
b. Self seeks “originary-I” of the “other” behind the articulated “ideal-vigor”
c. Concept of “being” is posited.
d. The “originary-I” is the companion of the “logos-I”.
e. “originary-I” is posited as “prophecy”, which is anterior to “logos”
f. It is expressed as “motivation”
3. The “cogito” describes the “panoramic-notion-of-transcendence”
a. Formed through the following equation: psyche’s articulated “ideal-vigor-logos” (Greek philosophy) – plus: the “prophetic-motivational-base” (Jewish spirituality) = the logos-proper; or “transcendence”.
ALTERITY: “3” moments:
1. “transcendental-cogito” is awakened.
2. Buber’s moments of “ethical-alterity” are taken-up by the transcendental-self.
a. “morphological-desire” is expressed toward exteriority.
b. Negation of any “i-it” relation in sociology
c. Categorical-imperative of “justice” toward the “other” in an “i-thou” relation is posited.
3. The “originary-I” discovered through dialogue is coupled with the “originary-I” discovered through “ethics”.
a. Speech: beginning with speech-act at the DT. Conversation-threshold.
b. Inscribing: of the self’s “psyche” and “cogito” with the trace of “transcendence”.
c. Suffering: through the “decay-of-human-relation” which is present today.
d. Articulation of FACE: in reciprocal-understanding between dialogue and ethics; transcendence and alterity; Greek philosophy and Jewish spirituality.
Postscript: this work, of course, is done by the exiled self of “Exodus”. Wandering in the desert and constantly disturbed by the memory of genocide by the Nazi regime during WWII. Levinas believes there is the possibility of reconciliation, even after this horror. Absolutely worth 5 stars!!
LEVINAS’ CONCEPT OF “GOD” ARTICULATED THROUGH TWO MODALITIES:
This manuscript appears 30 years after Levinas’ masterpiece of “Totality and Infinity”, where he depicted his Phenomenology. Now he gives us the detailed articulation of what he meant in that essay by “transcendence”; understanding it within sociology. The following outline represents his position in this 121 page essay:
LEVINAS’ JUDAIC CONCEPT OF “GOD”; UNDERSTOOD WITHIN TWO MODALITIES:“TRANSCENDENCE” AND “ALTERITY”:
TRANSCENDENCE: “3” moments:
1. The “psyche” describes the “space-of-transcendence”
a. Found in the face of the fellow-self.
b. Ethical-awakening takes place and quest for “logos”
c. Logos = the space of the “social-ideal-vigor”
d. Transcendent space = this “social-ideal-vigor”
2. The “conversation-threshold” describes the “time-of-transcendence”
a. “Psyche” breaks from spatial thinking.
b. Self seeks “originary-I” of the “other” behind the articulated “ideal-vigor”
c. Concept of “being” is posited.
d. The “originary-I” is the companion of the “logos-I”.
e. “originary-I” is posited as “prophecy”, which is anterior to “logos”
f. It is expressed as “motivation”
3. The “cogito” describes the “panoramic-notion-of-transcendence”
a. Formed through the following equation: psyche’s articulated “ideal-vigor-logos” (Greek philosophy) – plus: the “prophetic-motivational-base” (Jewish spirituality) = the logos-proper; or “transcendence”.
ALTERITY: “3” moments:
1. “transcendental-cogito” is awakened.
2. Buber’s moments of “ethical-alterity” are taken-up by the transcendental-self.
a. “morphological-desire” is expressed toward exteriority.
b. Negation of any “i-it” relation in sociology
c. Categorical-imperative of “justice” toward the “other” in an “i-thou” relation is posited.
3. The “originary-I” discovered through dialogue is coupled with the “originary-I” discovered through “ethics”.
a. Speech: beginning with speech-act at the DT. Conversation-threshold.
b. Inscribing: of the self’s “psyche” and “cogito” with the trace of “transcendence”.
c. Suffering: through the “decay-of-human-relation” which is present today.
d. Articulation of FACE: in reciprocal-understanding between dialogue and ethics; transcendence and alterity; Greek philosophy and Jewish spirituality.
Postscript: this work, of course, is done by the exiled self of “Exodus”. Wandering in the desert and constantly disturbed by the memory of genocide by the Nazi regime during WWII. Levinas believes there is the possibility of reconciliation, even after this horror. Absolutely worth 5 stars!!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
LEVINAS: JUDAIC FAITH AS POST-MODERN:
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/r0bsl6f4u6929f9/judaicpm.mp3
FOR LEVINAS: the Judaic intellectual: “freedom” passes through these “8” steps:
1. “Masculine” individualistic violence of the unconscious of forming ecstatic intuitive units of meaning.
2. “Feminine” conjugal bond of being for “psyche”, through figuration based on uniting Epekeina-horizon with units of meaning in a pre-cognitive thought-picture.
3. Reaching “Understanding” through dialogue and interpretation, relying on prophetic-traces of promised messianic-era; and finding the “Epekeina-other” defined as the irreducible identity of “being” or “I AM”.
4. Articulated notion of “Investiture” (his version of “incarnation”); through a negation of the numinous concept of the sacred as revealed in the theatro-logical presentation of Moses on Sinai.
5. Then a taking-up of the name “ISRAEL”, as the exiled-self, relating to “humanity” before any “landscape” or geographical place.
6. Then taking up the modality and designation of “PHARISEE”; as the “writer-of-praxis”; who couples epistemology with speech and differentiation; in dialectical relationship.
7. Finally, the act of writing as “breathing-through-literature”. Similar to Derrida here. Writing can change history. Get literary and poetic work out there in the world where it can create alterity.
8. Lest we forget; now we inscribe our psyche-tablet in the “return” from “free-act”.
For Levinas the “Talmud” itself is an expression of Judaic-philosophy. Synthesizing Jewish Revelation with Greek thought. (p. 15). Therefore the “self” begins with the “traces-of-meaning” within this historical text and returns to it, after working through the “8” moments of “freedom” for new “inscribing”. He is doing that with this treatise. 60 pages are dedicated to structure, then he gives us 40 pages of commentary.
The Talmud has two parts: “Mishnah”- oral instruction & “Gemara”- elucidation and commentary. The “Gemara” includes “Aggadic-statements that address “interpretation”. This interpretive work is reawakened for Levinas. Thus the evolution of this treatise. The Pharisees favored the Talmud, but the Sadducees rejected it. That is why Levinas states that “Pharisee” is the name to be taken-up by the “writer-of-praxis”.
FOR LEVINAS: the Judaic intellectual: “freedom” passes through these “8” steps:
1. “Masculine” individualistic violence of the unconscious of forming ecstatic intuitive units of meaning.
2. “Feminine” conjugal bond of being for “psyche”, through figuration based on uniting Epekeina-horizon with units of meaning in a pre-cognitive thought-picture.
3. Reaching “Understanding” through dialogue and interpretation, relying on prophetic-traces of promised messianic-era; and finding the “Epekeina-other” defined as the irreducible identity of “being” or “I AM”.
4. Articulated notion of “Investiture” (his version of “incarnation”); through a negation of the numinous concept of the sacred as revealed in the theatro-logical presentation of Moses on Sinai.
5. Then a taking-up of the name “ISRAEL”, as the exiled-self, relating to “humanity” before any “landscape” or geographical place.
6. Then taking up the modality and designation of “PHARISEE”; as the “writer-of-praxis”; who couples epistemology with speech and differentiation; in dialectical relationship.
7. Finally, the act of writing as “breathing-through-literature”. Similar to Derrida here. Writing can change history. Get literary and poetic work out there in the world where it can create alterity.
8. Lest we forget; now we inscribe our psyche-tablet in the “return” from “free-act”.
For Levinas the “Talmud” itself is an expression of Judaic-philosophy. Synthesizing Jewish Revelation with Greek thought. (p. 15). Therefore the “self” begins with the “traces-of-meaning” within this historical text and returns to it, after working through the “8” moments of “freedom” for new “inscribing”. He is doing that with this treatise. 60 pages are dedicated to structure, then he gives us 40 pages of commentary.
The Talmud has two parts: “Mishnah”- oral instruction & “Gemara”- elucidation and commentary. The “Gemara” includes “Aggadic-statements that address “interpretation”. This interpretive work is reawakened for Levinas. Thus the evolution of this treatise. The Pharisees favored the Talmud, but the Sadducees rejected it. That is why Levinas states that “Pharisee” is the name to be taken-up by the “writer-of-praxis”.
Friday, May 9, 2014
LEVINAS' PHENOMENOLOGY FROM "TOTALITY & INFINITY"
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/4jkdsu5desy7550/levinaspm.mp3
NEW METAPHYSICS OF "UNIVERSAL INCARNATION":
MASTERPIECE: this manuscript is considered essential reading for anyone researching phenomenology or post-modern thought. Derrida found it so significant that he wrote a separate commentary for it that later appeared in his collection of essays. The manuscript is 304 pages and is divided into "4" sections as follows: 1-109: "phenomenology"; 109-187: "auto-affecting interiority"; 187-254: "dokounta threshold of conversation and seeking of FACE; 254-304: "ethics and ambiguity". The first 109 pages are the declarative-phenomenology, and the heart of the essay. The remaining sections are elaborations for the reader, if needed. Depending on your experience with the structure and function of phenomenology and its sub-sections; it is possible to read the primary first section and get all of the necessary content for Levinas' position.
THE UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION: fundamental to Levinas' position is his "logic-of-incarnation", which he articulates in "6" moments: IRREVERSIBILITY; RECOVERY OF IDENTITY; PRIMORDIAL RELATION; SOJOURNING; TRANSCENDENCE; & AUTO-CHTHONOUS.
THE CENTRAL IMPORTANCE OF "FACE": "Face", for Levinas, is the metaphorical expression for the "Epekeina-otherness" that lies behind any concrete-form or articulation of "otherness". It is "essence" of the "other. This essence is debated and refined at the conversation-threshold of gathered like-minded individuals who also seek the "site-of-dwelling" that eludes us. This conversation-dialogue leads to an uplifting-epiphany of FACE, a rupture-event.
THE JEWISH TEACHER WHO SAID "ATHEISM": the axis threshold for Levinas' true subjectivity consists of a self who holds in tension "2" fundamental relational concepts: "separation" & "enjoining". Atheist-separation is required by the notion-of-infinity that is absolute transcendence. And the imperative of the quest-for-truth guides the self toward rejoining the "other", in the reciprocal project.
THE TRIAD OF THE LOGOS: Levinas presents the over-arching metaphysic of LOGOS as: INTERIORITY; EXTERIORITY; & COINCIDENCE. "Interiority" is the self-expression of "otherness" as "living-presence". "Exteriority" is the conversation-dialogue of exchanging "behaviors-of-the-other". And finally; "coincidence" is the "language-of-the-eye" that sees the "gesture-of-FACE as "revealed-content" coinciding with "revealer-essence".
ENJOY YOUR RESEARCH: this manuscript is packed with content, logically presented, fully accessible (if read ten pages at a time in small bites), and will create epiphanies of its own. I loved this 5-star manuscript.
NEW METAPHYSICS OF "UNIVERSAL INCARNATION":
MASTERPIECE: this manuscript is considered essential reading for anyone researching phenomenology or post-modern thought. Derrida found it so significant that he wrote a separate commentary for it that later appeared in his collection of essays. The manuscript is 304 pages and is divided into "4" sections as follows: 1-109: "phenomenology"; 109-187: "auto-affecting interiority"; 187-254: "dokounta threshold of conversation and seeking of FACE; 254-304: "ethics and ambiguity". The first 109 pages are the declarative-phenomenology, and the heart of the essay. The remaining sections are elaborations for the reader, if needed. Depending on your experience with the structure and function of phenomenology and its sub-sections; it is possible to read the primary first section and get all of the necessary content for Levinas' position.
THE UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION: fundamental to Levinas' position is his "logic-of-incarnation", which he articulates in "6" moments: IRREVERSIBILITY; RECOVERY OF IDENTITY; PRIMORDIAL RELATION; SOJOURNING; TRANSCENDENCE; & AUTO-CHTHONOUS.
THE CENTRAL IMPORTANCE OF "FACE": "Face", for Levinas, is the metaphorical expression for the "Epekeina-otherness" that lies behind any concrete-form or articulation of "otherness". It is "essence" of the "other. This essence is debated and refined at the conversation-threshold of gathered like-minded individuals who also seek the "site-of-dwelling" that eludes us. This conversation-dialogue leads to an uplifting-epiphany of FACE, a rupture-event.
THE JEWISH TEACHER WHO SAID "ATHEISM": the axis threshold for Levinas' true subjectivity consists of a self who holds in tension "2" fundamental relational concepts: "separation" & "enjoining". Atheist-separation is required by the notion-of-infinity that is absolute transcendence. And the imperative of the quest-for-truth guides the self toward rejoining the "other", in the reciprocal project.
THE TRIAD OF THE LOGOS: Levinas presents the over-arching metaphysic of LOGOS as: INTERIORITY; EXTERIORITY; & COINCIDENCE. "Interiority" is the self-expression of "otherness" as "living-presence". "Exteriority" is the conversation-dialogue of exchanging "behaviors-of-the-other". And finally; "coincidence" is the "language-of-the-eye" that sees the "gesture-of-FACE as "revealed-content" coinciding with "revealer-essence".
ENJOY YOUR RESEARCH: this manuscript is packed with content, logically presented, fully accessible (if read ten pages at a time in small bites), and will create epiphanies of its own. I loved this 5-star manuscript.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
TWARDOWSKI: A LOGIC OF PHENOMENOLOGY
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/cfyl14hv20i46jc/twardowski.mp3
AN ACCOMPLISHED TWARDOWSKI “READER” FOR 1897-1933 :
BRADL & WOLENSKI have done an excellent job of editing and preparing a valuable reader of “original work from Twardowski. Twardowski played an important role in the development of phenomenology and post-modern thought; but acquiring his work is near- impossible. This volume solves that problem.
Between Brentano’s empirical-psychology and Husserl’s phenomenology, we have the significant contribution of Twardowski’s LOGIC-OF-PHENOMENOLOGY. His field of interest was logic, so be prepared for reading in small bites (my recommendation).
His project is “writing”; which is very similar to Derrida. And he concludes his phenomenology with the writing of the “praxis-document”. His moments can be roughly understood as: 1. Forming the substrate-image-of-representation. 2. Applying the “representations-of-judgments” to images in order to reach “dispositional-sense” of enduring quality. 3. Formation of “psycho-physical-product” of signs-of-meaning. 4. 6 moments for forming the enduring sign-model. 5. And finally; the 10 aspects of writing a praxis-document and its engendering of a mental artifact of universality.
The book is approximately 300 pages and is divided into three parts: phenomenology, epistemology, and philosophy-proper. But; the phenomenology is what he is known for and it is presented in pages 1-147. You will get more than enough content in these 147 pages.
In praise to the editors; they did understand the structure of phenomenology, so the material is presented in proper order. This is extremely important because this “reader” reads like a single manuscript. Great accomplishment for these editors.
Twardowski is very important to the legacy of post-modern thought. To ignore him would be foolish. Now we have “one” volume that gives us all the resource material we need for his position. This is probably grad-level at least, but easily accessible if taken in small bites. 5 stars easily.
AN ACCOMPLISHED TWARDOWSKI “READER” FOR 1897-1933 :
BRADL & WOLENSKI have done an excellent job of editing and preparing a valuable reader of “original work from Twardowski. Twardowski played an important role in the development of phenomenology and post-modern thought; but acquiring his work is near- impossible. This volume solves that problem.
Between Brentano’s empirical-psychology and Husserl’s phenomenology, we have the significant contribution of Twardowski’s LOGIC-OF-PHENOMENOLOGY. His field of interest was logic, so be prepared for reading in small bites (my recommendation).
His project is “writing”; which is very similar to Derrida. And he concludes his phenomenology with the writing of the “praxis-document”. His moments can be roughly understood as: 1. Forming the substrate-image-of-representation. 2. Applying the “representations-of-judgments” to images in order to reach “dispositional-sense” of enduring quality. 3. Formation of “psycho-physical-product” of signs-of-meaning. 4. 6 moments for forming the enduring sign-model. 5. And finally; the 10 aspects of writing a praxis-document and its engendering of a mental artifact of universality.
The book is approximately 300 pages and is divided into three parts: phenomenology, epistemology, and philosophy-proper. But; the phenomenology is what he is known for and it is presented in pages 1-147. You will get more than enough content in these 147 pages.
In praise to the editors; they did understand the structure of phenomenology, so the material is presented in proper order. This is extremely important because this “reader” reads like a single manuscript. Great accomplishment for these editors.
Twardowski is very important to the legacy of post-modern thought. To ignore him would be foolish. Now we have “one” volume that gives us all the resource material we need for his position. This is probably grad-level at least, but easily accessible if taken in small bites. 5 stars easily.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
LEVINAS: JEWISH POST-MODERN THOUGHT, STRONGLY INFLUENCED DERRIDA
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/4brx0rz56jn2gh5/levinas.mp3
A BONUS MONOGRAPH ON LEVINAS: this 75 page monograph deserves the highest recommendation. Derrida, in his humility, says it will just be a brief overview. Instead; it is a precise, distinguished commentary on Levinas. Derrida articulates Levinas "empirical-metaphysics" as an important contribution to properly understanding LOGOS within a post-modern context. And the final 11 pages of this monograph give us a precise logical articulation of the "metaphysic". This is very significant material to be enclosed in this collection.
A BONUS MONOGRAPH ON LEVINAS: this 75 page monograph deserves the highest recommendation. Derrida, in his humility, says it will just be a brief overview. Instead; it is a precise, distinguished commentary on Levinas. Derrida articulates Levinas "empirical-metaphysics" as an important contribution to properly understanding LOGOS within a post-modern context. And the final 11 pages of this monograph give us a precise logical articulation of the "metaphysic". This is very significant material to be enclosed in this collection.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
FOUCAULT'S CONCEPT OF "MADNESS"
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/ekykredzzmv90mt/foucaultpm.mp3
A FOUNDATIONAL TEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING DERRIDA:
This manuscript by Foucault will either complicate or simplify your comprehension of Derrida; but it should be understood that the two thinkers are closely related in their approach to phenomenology.
"Madness" appeared in France in 1964. Derrida's "Grammatology" appeared in France in 1967 (just three years later). Although they differed in their appropriation of Descartes; Derrida professed a considerable appreciation for Foucault's work on "Madness".
FOUCAULT INTRODUCED THE IDEA OF NEGATING THE CLASSICAL NOTION OF LOGOS that Derrida adapted. It is a first moment to be articulated in this text. From there, the self engages passage on the "ship-of-fools" in search of entering the City-of-Reason"; or "Notion" of the true. The "figuration-of-image" takes place as the self dis-embarks the ship of fools at an inlet river of figuration. It is here where the mast of the ship bears the transplanted "tree-of-knowledge", and the madmen gather around it to form the figuration of possible entrance into "Reason".
From here, the self transitions to the "haunted-workhouses" of the 17th century; metaphorically representing the dokounta threshold of the necessary transition point to "Reason". Here the self learns the "rhythm-of-collective-life" and prepares for transition.
"Notion" is unique for Foucault and is metaphorically represented by the absurd practice of putting the madmen on exhibition, as a presentation of their "nature". These exhibitions were ordered and supervised by attendants; but eventually the madmen practiced self-exhibition; a self-actualizing presentation of their "natures".
From here, Foucault transitions through the "HINGE-OF-ANIMALITY"; which is the madman reduced to animal status; and stripped of all content. This is justified as a "kindness-of-Nature".
From this point on; madness enters the cognitive domain. But there is a need here for some form of metamorphosis of the idea of madness itself. Thus emerges the concept of the Christ-Event.
The Christ-Event for Foucault takes up "madness" within the godhead itself through the suffering and representation of madness by Christ during the passion experiences. This, alone defines our essential "Praxis" as a quest for forming an authentic disposition of "body-state" or motivational base.
"Logos-proper", therefore gets an interesting articulation: PASSION leads to dispersed imprinting of the bodily members; which in turn leads to a concentration of this somatic-imprinting into an image for "inscribing" into the "psyche". Logos is this "reciprocal-pulsation".
This all leads to DELIRIUM, which is articulated madness in language. While including the element of "otherness" or transcendence that the collateral axons of the brain afford (Foucault uses neuro-psychology throughout his text).
There are numerous correlations with Derrida here; and it helps underscore Derrida's trajectory of thought. I found the manuscript informative and a clarification of Derrida, and an insight to early interpretations of madness and insanity. 5 stars; and, I am sure you will enjoy this manuscript.
A FOUNDATIONAL TEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING DERRIDA:
This manuscript by Foucault will either complicate or simplify your comprehension of Derrida; but it should be understood that the two thinkers are closely related in their approach to phenomenology.
"Madness" appeared in France in 1964. Derrida's "Grammatology" appeared in France in 1967 (just three years later). Although they differed in their appropriation of Descartes; Derrida professed a considerable appreciation for Foucault's work on "Madness".
FOUCAULT INTRODUCED THE IDEA OF NEGATING THE CLASSICAL NOTION OF LOGOS that Derrida adapted. It is a first moment to be articulated in this text. From there, the self engages passage on the "ship-of-fools" in search of entering the City-of-Reason"; or "Notion" of the true. The "figuration-of-image" takes place as the self dis-embarks the ship of fools at an inlet river of figuration. It is here where the mast of the ship bears the transplanted "tree-of-knowledge", and the madmen gather around it to form the figuration of possible entrance into "Reason".
From here, the self transitions to the "haunted-workhouses" of the 17th century; metaphorically representing the dokounta threshold of the necessary transition point to "Reason". Here the self learns the "rhythm-of-collective-life" and prepares for transition.
"Notion" is unique for Foucault and is metaphorically represented by the absurd practice of putting the madmen on exhibition, as a presentation of their "nature". These exhibitions were ordered and supervised by attendants; but eventually the madmen practiced self-exhibition; a self-actualizing presentation of their "natures".
From here, Foucault transitions through the "HINGE-OF-ANIMALITY"; which is the madman reduced to animal status; and stripped of all content. This is justified as a "kindness-of-Nature".
From this point on; madness enters the cognitive domain. But there is a need here for some form of metamorphosis of the idea of madness itself. Thus emerges the concept of the Christ-Event.
The Christ-Event for Foucault takes up "madness" within the godhead itself through the suffering and representation of madness by Christ during the passion experiences. This, alone defines our essential "Praxis" as a quest for forming an authentic disposition of "body-state" or motivational base.
"Logos-proper", therefore gets an interesting articulation: PASSION leads to dispersed imprinting of the bodily members; which in turn leads to a concentration of this somatic-imprinting into an image for "inscribing" into the "psyche". Logos is this "reciprocal-pulsation".
This all leads to DELIRIUM, which is articulated madness in language. While including the element of "otherness" or transcendence that the collateral axons of the brain afford (Foucault uses neuro-psychology throughout his text).
There are numerous correlations with Derrida here; and it helps underscore Derrida's trajectory of thought. I found the manuscript informative and a clarification of Derrida, and an insight to early interpretations of madness and insanity. 5 stars; and, I am sure you will enjoy this manuscript.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
DERRIDA'S CONCEPT OF "LOGOS":
click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/cazuwchtzwe4cac/derrida2b.mp3
DERRIDA'S DOCTRINE OF THE "LOGOS" DEFINED:
I had already conquered Derrida's "Grammatlogy"; and that is the best reference for the totality of his position. So I only acquired this volume to get a better understanding of his take on "LOGOS". He does this in a very precise way in the first three essays, pages 1-85. I felt the price of the book was well worth the value of acquiring these three essays. I may read the others at a later date, but right now they do not interest me. My attention was solely on "logos".
Obviously, having an understanding of the "Grammatology" will help the reader; or some prior understanding of Derrida's position. He is not easy reading. But, having said that; he is fully accessible to any reader with some foundational work already internalized.
Basically Derrida gives the reader a triad to consider:
We actually pass through a triad of "logos":
A. LOGOS-COGITO: "logismos" (reasoning") + "huperbole" (madness, in the positive sense of "otherness")
LOGOS = ARCHAIC-REASON
B. LOGOS-CLASSICAL: "logismos" + "hubris" (otherness as derangement and excessiveness; in order to establish a hard duality)
LOGOS = OMNIPOTENT-DETERMINATE-REASON
C. LOGOS-POST-MODERN: "logismos" + "subjective-huperbole"
LOGOS = LESSER-DETERMINED-REASON
DERRIDA'S DOCTRINE OF THE "LOGOS" DEFINED:
I had already conquered Derrida's "Grammatlogy"; and that is the best reference for the totality of his position. So I only acquired this volume to get a better understanding of his take on "LOGOS". He does this in a very precise way in the first three essays, pages 1-85. I felt the price of the book was well worth the value of acquiring these three essays. I may read the others at a later date, but right now they do not interest me. My attention was solely on "logos".
Obviously, having an understanding of the "Grammatology" will help the reader; or some prior understanding of Derrida's position. He is not easy reading. But, having said that; he is fully accessible to any reader with some foundational work already internalized.
Basically Derrida gives the reader a triad to consider:
We actually pass through a triad of "logos":
A. LOGOS-COGITO: "logismos" (reasoning") + "huperbole" (madness, in the positive sense of "otherness")
LOGOS = ARCHAIC-REASON
B. LOGOS-CLASSICAL: "logismos" + "hubris" (otherness as derangement and excessiveness; in order to establish a hard duality)
LOGOS = OMNIPOTENT-DETERMINATE-REASON
C. LOGOS-POST-MODERN: "logismos" + "subjective-huperbole"
LOGOS = LESSER-DETERMINED-REASON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)