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.

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 "GRAMMATOLOGY":

click on link:  http://www.mediafire.com/listen/d3k65fl7d3vsv8x/derridapm.mp3

HATED, DESPISED, TOLERATED; MASTERPIECE BY DERRIDA:
This manuscript shares a place in history with Hegel's "Phenomenology", as one of the most despised manuscripts of philosophy. And they are both despised for similar reasons; their inaccessibility.
Hegel assumed his readers were already familiar with his entire system, prior to even approaching his "Phenomenology". Derrida does the same. They both wrote for their colleagues. In Derrida's case; he assumes the reader has passed through the following presuppositions: 1. they already understand the structure of phenomenology. 2. They have an understanding of Hegel through the eyes of Heidegger. 3. They already have an understanding of his mentor Paul Ricoeur and even Jean Luc Nancy, who also offered him the "singular-plural". He assumes too much.

Therefore, I strongly recommend reading a prefatory commentary on Derrida first; but then, of course, attacking this original work. My current recommendation is to offer Dr. Christina Howells' book on Derrida. It is extremely well done.
Having said his; I can tell you that the reviews of this manuscript of "Grammatology" will probably reflect "5-stars" or "1-star"; with very few in the middle. This is the writer who gathers the love-hate relationships unto himself. He does gather in 5-star ratings because, as Ricoeur once said, "This is a seminal work" of great importance. No individual can go around Hegel today in the field of philosophy (even if only to disagree); and the same will hold true for "Grammatology" in a few years. No individual will be able to go around this presentation of post-modern "deconstruction & re-elaboration".

This a review and not a commentary, but I will give you the "10" moments of Derrida's deconstruction process. But please consider Howells' book. The "10" moments are:
1. Phonological voice. 2. Deconstruction. 3. Psychic-turn-inward. 4. Auto-affection. 5. Dokounta threshold of "refinery". 6. Transcendental "arche". 7. Hinge pivot-point of true subjectivity. 8. Ecriture. 9. Logos- redefined. 10. Composition threshold and return to mystic body-state.

It took "9 "years for this manuscript to make to America. It will be a few years before Derrida becomes essential reading for American philosophy; but it will happen. I am one of those who "loved" the work done by Derrida, and I give it 5-stars, with a recommendation to enjoin the reading with the help of Howells. Good luck on your research.

RICOEUR: AND THE WORK OF "FORGETTING"

click link:  http://www.mediafire.com/listen/ayyw7mgh99348ik/ricoeur4b.mp3

VOLUME THREE:  “FORGETTING”

The over-arching intent of Ricoeur’s phenomenology is to outline the significance and demand for each individual to be involved in writing the “truth” of the intentionality of history.  Therefore he posits “forgetting” as the third moment in his triad because it designates the moment of “return” and the demand to revise our discriminations, in order to write a better posited model that specifically addresses the need to overcome human guilt; which Ricoeur perceives as the fundamental problem facing humanity.

Therefore, in this volume, Ricoeur first takes us through the moment of “reflexive-return”, which wants to correct a “LACUNA”, a “gap” in the collective of traces that has been grasped.  But before we return to re-evaluating “traces “and revising our model; we must first pass through the unconscious “body-state” that is undergoing its own “odyssey of development”. (Yes; we must continually tune our hearts). 

Within the “explored” or “active” unconsciousness, we can evaluate this motivational body-state, and its desire for reaching “FORGIVENESS”; which means our on-going “mournful-struggle” of the work of writing history in a way that will transform other selves into overcoming their guilt and loss-of-self against the uncertainties of living today. 

This “forgiveness” has content and an absolute referent:  Ricoeur is a Christian.  Therefore the absolute referent is the kerygma-of-Christ; but without the necessity of formal church or religion.  And is crystallized in the categorical imperative “to love”. 

When the self takes-up this motivational-base of “LOVE”, it is ready to enter the “reserve-of-forgetting”.  That’s right:  previous culling and filtering has been retained in memory.  Nothing has been permanently discarded.  We can still re-evaluate previous motivational-work.  We do so through three layers of traces:  the material, the structural, and the psychical trace. 

We end up with a new assortment of revised “images”, and can then re-engage ourselves with the semantic work of writing the trajectory of the truth of history.  The cycle continues; because history always interrogates us; and human-guilt always confronts us as the key existential problem. 

In a way, volume three was the most enjoyable for me.  Volume two probably gave the reader the most “content”, but volume three and its centeredness on “motivation” is a challenging treat. 

This book is a challenging venture for graduate-level or post-graduate level interest.  But, it should not be ignored.  Ricoeur died in 2005.  These were his dying-words and his legacy.    5 stars for certain.  Good luck on your reading.

RICOEUR: "HISTORY"; OR WRITING THE TRAJECTORY OF HISTORY

click link:  http://www.mediafire.com/listen/qfcvsyt03c4ullg/ricoeur3.mp3

A GLOSSARY FOR PART “TWO”  OF RICOEUR’S PHENOMENOLOGY:  “WRITING PHILOSOPHY FROM AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ; OR “HISTORICAL-GAZE:  “8” concepts:

1.  "KOROS-KATOIKEO":                "inhabited-space" of verbal testimony is defined as an atomic unit of meaning.

2.  "OIKOUMENE":                           "inhabited-world" of verbal testimony is defined as a compound unit that combines "inhabited-space" and “cosmic-time”; and then enlisting the motivation "EIKON" of the self to form a "historiographical thought-picture of the truth of verbal testimony.

3.  "METREO":                                    "being measured by one-another at the dokounta communal threshold.  Where intersubjective critical questioning results in labeling the proposed content as

"Accredited" and then “thought-materials" are ready for shaping into the "atomic-archival-document".

4.  "ISORIKOS-BIBLIZION":            "historical-document" as written document. 

5.  "PHARMAKON":                         "pharmacy-mixture" of a "remedy".  Intentionality of document is copied to consciousness with its praxis possibilities.

6.  "ATENIDZO-PRAXIS:  "GAZE".  Very important for Ricoeur and all post-modern phenomenologists.  The GAZE is the self's point of view while “standing-in” at the "composition-threshold" where the proposed written "book" will be written.  Atomic-documents assembled into compound-unit-book.

7.  ATENIDZO-SYLLOGIKE':            "INTERSUBJECTIVE-GAZE".  This is what shapes the configuration of "logos" at the historical level.  Everyone has their own "scale" that is applied to their evaluation of events of history.  Borrowed from cartography or map-making.  These various "scales" or modalities and points-of-view can contribute to a "collective" of traces (as in his discussion of memory.  He is remaining consistent here).

8.  BIBLION - BOOK:                         the final representation is to be critiqued by the categorical imperative of "JUSTICE"; and the criterion to define the "being-of-identity".  But we are not finished.  Because the self has raised the structure of history to scholarly written discourse.  And it needs to run through the process again and again.  So we never really finalize the process.  History continues to be interrogated for its meaning.  The end!

RICOEUR'S SYSTEMATIC PHENOMENOLOGY, VOLUME ONE

click link:  http://www.mediafire.com/listen/gsd6d8bhk44yi8w/ricoeur2.mp3

RICOEUR'S SYSTEMATIC PHENOMENOLOGY: IN 3 VOLUMES:
This singular book is actually an inclusive three-volume set of Ricoeur's entire phenomenology. I will review the volumes in order:
VOLUME ONE: MEMORY:
In this volume Ricoeur takes the reader through a second journey through his phenomenology, after its first presentation in the 1976 volume by TCU PRESS on "interpretation theory". Therefore we are dealing with the "remembered" on this second journey. And that is why volume three addresses "forgetting".
Beginning in the unconscious, Ricoeur tells us that we are initially engaged in "PATHEMA", OR ENDURING THE SENSATE LIFE AND ITS PRESENTATIONS. Our goal is to eventually form a tupos-model of ideation that can be imprinted within the self and actualized through praxis-based positing. We get a little assistance from counter-blow (Hegel's term) of returning influence from previous phenomenological and semantic experience. Ricoeur calls this the body-state "iconicity". The "EIKON" is rarely let loose of by Ricoeur; and as a body-state, that is experientially the case.
We next move on to "GRAPHE", which is the inscribing of the self with the "pathe-enduring" as a "thought-picture", as a "PHANTASMA" founded on the influence of "EIKON". But it represents a singular kinetic-event.

Up we go to the communal influence next, to the "dokounta-threshold", where the encounter of a succession of kinetic-events is considered. There is the "arising" of a deeper encoded descriptive-model as a result.

Entering into the realm of "volition" and true-subjectivity; we first reach the actual "imprinting of the "TUPOS", as "virtual-ideal-notion". In other words, signs have been named. From here, we "copy" the ideal, while at the same time acquiring the praxis-based possibilities for a "practical-tupos".

From here we enter the cognitive consciousness and the work of semantics. The key moment to realize here is Ricoeur's invention of the concept of "logos-of-indebtedness". We owe those who have gone before us. This underlies all semantic positing and return. The second key aspect of the semantic work is the concept of "collective-consciousness", which constitutes the "surpassing-moment" of transcendence. This is our stepping-up to the "composition-threshold", where we acquire the collection-of-traces" from shared "witnessing-of-truth". Propositional-content & illocutionary-form are exchanged; the "self" is refined to a greater level of understanding. We are ready to return to the unconscious-EIKON and begin again.

Ricoeur's 8 Greek moments of Memory are: 0. [ EIKON ] 1. PATHEMA. 2. GRAPHE. 3. PHANTASMA. 4. TUPOS-TECHNE. 5. TUPOS-PRAXIS. 6. ORTHOS-LOGOS. 7. OPHEILOS-LOGOS. 8. SULLEGO-ICKNE'.

MAX SCHELER: EMPIRICAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR HEIDEGGER'S POSITION

click link:  http://www.mediafire.com/listen/c1ryipm3ndbxbfo/schelerpm.mp3

SCHELER’S “GESTALT-PSYCHOLOGY” TRANSFORMED HEIDEGGER:
We all know that Husserl radically mentored Heidegger’s thought and caused Heidegger’s radical reading of Hegel. But for Heidegger, the overwhelming drive to stay centered in the unconscious and sensate existence, goes to Scheler. Scheler proposed that the existential hermeneutical range of “exchange, transformation, and metamorphosis” all can be understood by examining “lower-being” as it, itself climbs up through “higher-being”. And not the other way around where higher-teleology influences lower-being. There is no teleology for Scheler. Heidegger adopted this in full force.
Therefore, since Heidegger has almost been universally adopted by post-modern thinkers (especially in France); it is imperative to understand Heidegger’s own emergence. That means understanding SCHELER.
EXCHANGE:
Scheler moves through the unconscious in moments of “ecstatic-impulsion” that display “force-centers” like expression, instinct, and association. This leads to an evolving “world-open-self” as a proto-subjectivity. “Spirit” makes its first appearance here. The existential-self engages in transforming environment for the first time; by forming a spirit-centered thought=picture where feeling-percepts are arranged in a first-value-order.
Scheler next moves to the dokounta-threshold of “a-priori-insight” and “turning”. We turn away from the sensate world and toward intersubjectivity. “essential-aspects” of the first thought-picture” are refined, by referring to a-priori essential ideas that we already carry, in our being “human”.
TRANSFORMATION:
When Scheler copies the dokounta-image to the axis-threshold, he announces the triad of negation, conversion, and ingathering. In “negation”, the existential- self unveils the essential categories of value in the current model which seeks conceptualization and positing. In conversion, the partitioned concepts are constrained and concentrated to create the “ascetic-ideal”. In “ingathering”, spirit becomes “manifest”; the “notion-of-the-true” is ingathered within the self’s realm of ideation; ready for positing. But this “notion” is a “subjective-steering”, not an “objective-teleology”.
METAMORPHOSIS
Welcome to the self’s work of cognition:
“Positing” is “posited-steering”; where value-structure is posited in front of the sensate “life-of-drives”
“logos” is equated with “sublimation”; a temporal “gestalt-pattern” of emerging spirit makes itself known in subjective phantasmic-vision. Vision is coupled with “steering” and positing is directed toward this entrance-node in the emerging-event. The result is the presence of an “idea-conditioned” drive-driven-tendency”. Or LOGOS
“absolute-turn of metamorphosis” is the spirit-centeredness when drive-driven-tendencies are enchained into a greater whole. Sensate-world “turns” to service of “structure-of-life”.
HEIDEGGER LOVED IT; AND OPENLY PRAISED IT.
This was written in 1928, toward the end of Scheler’s life. A Brief departing monograph of “brilliance”.