Robotarium, I'll try to elaborate a bit on the Supplement... if that's what you're asking...One of most prevalent concepts in Alice in Wonderland, for instance, is the idea of "Nonsense." We can fit this nicely into traditional binary structures, like so:This culminates in a broad thematic opposition: Thus, we can arrive at a working thesis:In Alice in Wonderland, "nonsense" acts as a "supplement" to sense...Nonsense replaces sense, seems inferior to it, and yet also completes it...Nonsense says things about existence that can't be said through sense.Nonsense, as a supplement, shows us how nonsensical sense can be.
Buddhism's philosophy of interdependence lets us see our differences as a vast interconnected web. In fact, the image Buddhists use to illustrate this is that of Indra's net. At each intersection of the strands of this net, which is the universe of different selves, is a jewel -- a "self" -- which reflects all the other jewels in the net. No single jewel, then, is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon, and reflects, all the others. And so, in Buddhist lingo, each jewel is Empty of self-existence!
In the same way as modernists, we are trying to fill in the post-Nietzschean Void by inventing our own images and grand narratives. Although the grand narratives of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have a difficult time dealing with differences, there are two major traditions -- Buddhism and Hinduism -- that can and do embrace the differences in our increasingly pluralistic world. Buddhism is democratic, cool, practical, inexpensive and politically correct with the liberation of Tibet from China becoming a hip cause. Postmodern peoples and cultures live in a world of differences. Buddhism's philosophy of interdependence lets us see our differences as a vast interconnected web. In fact, the image Buddhists use to illustrate this is that of Indra's net. At each intersection of the strands of this net, which is the universe of different selves, is a jewel -- a "self" -- which reflects all the other jewels in the net. No single jewel, then, is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon, and reflects, all the others. And so, in Buddhist lingo, each jewel is Empty of self-existence!
Quote from: zizzi on January 12, 2009, 03:47:57 PMTheuth is the father's other, the father, and himself. [...] Is this pretty much the same notion/concept elaborated here? Quote from: revolve on February 04, 2009, 07:45:16 PMQuote from: one hot summer night on August 27, 2007, 03:16:55 AMOuroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY. [...]
Theuth is the father's other, the father, and himself. [...]
Quote from: one hot summer night on August 27, 2007, 03:16:55 AMOuroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY. [...]
Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.
Derrida is very interesting indeed - If his writing has no extractable concepts or method, we can still loo at WHAT it does: what EFFETCS it has. Derrida offers a way of thinking these effects. By his own account, his writing has a matrix. Its two strands are DERAILED COMMUNICATION and UNDECIDABILITY. Derrida finds both of these in the figure of the VIRUS. "Everything I have done is dominated by the thought of a virus, the virus being many things. Follow two threads. One, the virus introduces disorder into communication, even in the biological sphere -- a derail of coding and decoding. Two, a virus is not a microbe, it is neither living nor non-living, neither alive nor dead. Follow these threads and you have the matrix of all I have done since I started writing."
Jung emphasized the importance of balance and harmony. He cautioned that modern humans rely too heavily on science and logic and would benefit from integrating spirituality and appreciation of the unconscious realm. Jungian psychology is typically missing from the curriculum of most major universities' psychology departments. Jung's ideas are occasionally explored in humanities departments, particularly in the study of mythography.
"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."
Quote from: that-which-is-not on January 28, 2009, 03:20:34 PMQuote from: caracosta on January 25, 2009, 04:46:54 PMThis appeared to me kinda complex - however, after I read this other post,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3004490.msg5274268.htmlI think I know what Derrida might have had in mind when introducing the metaphor.caracost, think about Sartre's famous conception of being and nothingness Sartre tries to improve on Heidegger's famous, or infamous, dictum in "What is Metaphysics?" that 'nothingness nihilates' by saying 'Nothing does not nihilate itself. Nothingness "is nihilated"'. Heidegger too is trying to avoid the charge of holding that nothing in some sense exists, but Sartre thinks Heidegger makes a mistake in his formulation. By saying 'nothing nihilates' Heidegger imparts an agency to nothing; the power to nihilate, but this agency could hardly be efficacious unless it or that which exercises it existed. Sartre's 'Nothingness is nihilated' does not carry the logical or grammatical connotation of accomplishment. It is a putative affirmation of nothing's non-being logically consistent with that of Eleatic pre-socratic philosopher Parmenides. Sartre fails to observe that his passive rendering of Heidegger's active voice may have equally incoherently construed nothing as a subject of anihilation, and hence, something that exists. Nonetheless, it is true acording to Sartre that there are absences. There are refusals and denials, acts of imagining that things could be otherwise. For example, in the celebrated passage from "Being and Nothingness" Sartre is expecting his friend Pierre to be in a cafe, but Pierre is not there. Sartre encounters nothingness. Sartre wonders whether this is a judgement or thought that Pierre is absent or whether there is an experience of Pierre's absence, an intuition of nothingness. Sartre knows there is a prima facie absurdity in speaking of the experience of nothing. Nothing is not anything, so an experience of nothing would not be an experince of anything. Nevertheless, Sartre decides that it is by sight that the absence of Pierre was detected. There was at least the phenomenon of seeing that Pierre is absent, even if not a seeing of Pierre's absence. It is as if nothingness existed. Non-being is a component of the real. Nothingness is real even though nothingness is not. We may speak of absent friends, holes in the ground, negative and false propositions, purely imaginary states of affairs, fictitional characters as though they existed because nothingness possesses an appearance of being, a being it borrows from being. I would appreciate a little bit more clarification.
Quote from: caracosta on January 25, 2009, 04:46:54 PMThis appeared to me kinda complex - however, after I read this other post,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3004490.msg5274268.htmlI think I know what Derrida might have had in mind when introducing the metaphor.caracost, think about Sartre's famous conception of being and nothingness Sartre tries to improve on Heidegger's famous, or infamous, dictum in "What is Metaphysics?" that 'nothingness nihilates' by saying 'Nothing does not nihilate itself. Nothingness "is nihilated"'. Heidegger too is trying to avoid the charge of holding that nothing in some sense exists, but Sartre thinks Heidegger makes a mistake in his formulation. By saying 'nothing nihilates' Heidegger imparts an agency to nothing; the power to nihilate, but this agency could hardly be efficacious unless it or that which exercises it existed. Sartre's 'Nothingness is nihilated' does not carry the logical or grammatical connotation of accomplishment. It is a putative affirmation of nothing's non-being logically consistent with that of Eleatic pre-socratic philosopher Parmenides. Sartre fails to observe that his passive rendering of Heidegger's active voice may have equally incoherently construed nothing as a subject of anihilation, and hence, something that exists. Nonetheless, it is true acording to Sartre that there are absences. There are refusals and denials, acts of imagining that things could be otherwise. For example, in the celebrated passage from "Being and Nothingness" Sartre is expecting his friend Pierre to be in a cafe, but Pierre is not there. Sartre encounters nothingness. Sartre wonders whether this is a judgement or thought that Pierre is absent or whether there is an experience of Pierre's absence, an intuition of nothingness. Sartre knows there is a prima facie absurdity in speaking of the experience of nothing. Nothing is not anything, so an experience of nothing would not be an experince of anything. Nevertheless, Sartre decides that it is by sight that the absence of Pierre was detected. There was at least the phenomenon of seeing that Pierre is absent, even if not a seeing of Pierre's absence. It is as if nothingness existed. Non-being is a component of the real. Nothingness is real even though nothingness is not. We may speak of absent friends, holes in the ground, negative and false propositions, purely imaginary states of affairs, fictitional characters as though they existed because nothingness possesses an appearance of being, a being it borrows from being.
This appeared to me kinda complex - however, after I read this other post,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3004490.msg5274268.htmlI think I know what Derrida might have had in mind when introducing the metaphor.
[...] Dissemination is NEITHER just polyseme, semantic richness, nor multiple meanings. It is not just ambiguity. Dissemination is about an indefinite number of meanings that the author does NOT intend.
Quote"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."The visual figure that Glassman and Fields use as their central metaphor for 'realization' - the dimensionless central point that spawns an all-encompassing circle - is none other than the figure of the mandala! Plotinus used this metaphor to describe God. English poet and clergyman Thomas Traherne also spoke of a 'center' that 'surrounds': 'A Strange Extended Orb of Joy, Proceeding from within,Which did on evry side convey It self, and being nigh of Kin To God did evry Way, Dilate it self even in an Instant, and Like an Indivisible Centre StandAt once Surrounding All Eternitie.' So did astronomer Johannes Kepler: "The natural soul of man is not larger in size than a single point, and on this point the form and character of the entire sky is potentially engraved, as if it were a hundred times larger."
Quote from: Spotting_Trains on February 05, 2009, 07:32:32 PMQuote from: zizzi on January 12, 2009, 03:47:57 PMTheuth is the father's other, the father, and himself. [...] Is this pretty much the same notion/concept elaborated here? Quote from: revolve on February 04, 2009, 07:45:16 PMQuote from: one hot summer night on August 27, 2007, 03:16:55 AMOuroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY. [...]I would not put it that way, Spotting - but there's a parallel to it.
Quote from: Chrysanthi on February 21, 2009, 08:02:09 PM Quote"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."The visual figure that Glassman and Fields use as their central metaphor for 'realization' - the dimensionless central point that spawns an all-encompassing circle - is none other than the figure of the mandala! Plotinus used this metaphor to describe God. English poet and clergyman Thomas Traherne also spoke of a 'center' that 'surrounds': 'A Strange Extended Orb of Joy, Proceeding from within,Which did on evry side convey It self, and being nigh of Kin To God did evry Way, Dilate it self even in an Instant, and Like an Indivisible Centre StandAt once Surrounding All Eternitie.' So did astronomer Johannes Kepler: "The natural soul of man is not larger in size than a single point, and on this point the form and character of the entire sky is potentially engraved, as if it were a hundred times larger."Is this similar to what you'd come to realize were you to hold a mirror up to a mirror?
Discussion
Resources
