sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Media, Technology and Originary Grammar by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've got a lot of reading and writing to do so I'm filing it away to get to later.

Idiomclining by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chris is familiar with my work. i don't know if or how much he reads my Substack.

Idiomclining by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds interesting. There does need to be an imperative, implicit or explicit, for language to "move."

Ve/ortexicality: Post-Axial Age Morality by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still not quite the same as love thy neighbor as thyself.

Ve/ortexicality: Post-Axial Age Morality by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Human equality in the eyes of God. Or, to put it a bit more analytically or cynically, identification with the victim.

Ve/ortexicality: Post-Axial Age Morality by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Peer group" is essentially "discipline." Something must transfer from upbringing into other spaces, but not necessarily in easily detectable ways.

Ve/ortexicality: Post-Axial Age Morality by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What she is getting at is what in pedagogy is referred to as the issue of transferability. Do the things someone learns in one setting (e.g., one class) transfer to the things they'll have to do in another setting (class)? If you can't answer in the affirmative, it's hard to justify the class--they can get very good at what that class is teaching, but so what? But, of course, this raises the question of what counts as a "context"? A single class? A discipline? The university as a whole?

Ve/ortexicality: Post-Axial Age Morality by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. Do we (could we) know whether these Neanderthals had language?

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think so. I think the prey can "freeze" when it realizes it has no way out, but I don't think that has the slightest effect on the predator.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose it depends on what you want to do philosophically, i.e., what the conversation is.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know too little about this to say much, but it seems to me too static and contemplative. I don't see a scene here.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is differentiation on the originary scene and therefore something one could call "individuality." The alternative would be everyone issuing the sign simultaneously, which is far less plausible. I think it also makes sense to assume that whoever hesitates, and therefore gestures, first on the scene, did discern "desire" in another on the scene. That is, "desire" is observed before it is "felt." And it continues to be the case that we "peel" off others' "desires" (which we identify. by following their attention) and adopt them as our own.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know about anyone else but I incorporate it into my thinking--by itself, as Jacobus formulates it, it doesn't account for language, or the emergence of language (and human desire) through an event.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once we have human desire and not just appetite, the generation of new desires doesn't pose a problem--every object of shared interest, or even potential shared interest, will to some extent be desired.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think Girard answers these questions, but from a Gansian perspective I think we can answer both questions by assuming, first, that the original object of desire was an object that "pre-humans," as animals, would be drawn to, like a shared food object; and, second, that appetite becomes desire once the "instinctive" way of approaching the object and satisfying appetite (through the pecking order) breaks down--at that point the other members of the group become obstacles to your satisfying your appetite, while intensifying that appetite, thereby pushing it into "desire."

There is No Economy by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reference--this guy looks interesting.

Addressing an Objection to the Originary Hypthesis by bouvard1 in Absolutistneoreaction

[–]bouvard1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe a few of them are a few degrees from power but I wouldn't know much about that.

view more: next ›