My understanding of this thread is slight. Which won't shut me up of
course.
Douglas' idea of relations between an eidetic vision and form is
interesting. It could descend into a realer than thou hierarchy of forms,
which comes back to Peter's point concerning the dismissal of constructs as
if their originators lacked something precious which we happen to have in
our back pocket. Not sure what is meant by eidetic here in any case. Is it
a kind of
faithful impression, an unprocessed yet somehow internalised slice of the
real and true world? My own thinking has got progressively messier in this
regard. On the one hand, even at the level of retinal ganglions, sensory
data is extremely codified. If we are wax on which the world presses then
we are hot and runny wax. There seems to be a gap, and a sizeable one. On
the other hand, we are in the world, and it is in us. Otherwise it becomes
difficult to see how any communication is possible between two beings so
awash in d.i.y. data. And being of and in nature it becomes just as
difficult to
see a sonnet or any formal device as being any more artificial that a
wasp's paper
nest. There being, then, no such things as unnatural acts.
I welcome Douglas' statement that he is not attacking Che Quianzi's
remarks. One of the things I like about this edition of Boundary 2 is the
distance of some of the contributions from my normal concerns.
Not so sure about the higher and lower levels of things. One generation's
peak is another's trough.
Quote:
If "higher", what does that mean and where does "higher" stop if
not in gods or infinities? Admittedly, a grand problem which has to be
addressed within the whole complicated question of infinities and I confess
I
just don't understand the answer. But if not "higher", how does the great
swim across the ocean surfaces of meaning acquire its passions and
desperations? Fear of drowning in meaninglessness? Well, precisely.
Then
why fear, if it is not fear of sinking? And if sinking, why not fear of
"higher" too? Unquote Douglas Oliver
If the gaps between the different highers get smaller and smaller then one
does not need to appeal to the infinite as a limiting condition. And what
is this fear of drowning in meaninglessness? If there's enough
meaninglessness then any pattern can emerge. I'm more inclined to see it as
the source of diversity and open endedness. In a meaningless world we are
neither the crown of creation nor the end point of evolution. We are not
going to stay the same. So we might take care in basing essences on our
present selves.
Another little thing about the eidetic. Can one assume that it does not
refer to the visual only, since I am as likely to explore form with gut or
ear as well as eye.
Best
Randolph Healy
Visit the Sound Eye website at:
http://indigo.ie/~tjac/sound_eye_hme.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|