25 de agosto de 2014
11 de agosto de 2014
You might think of Tarkovsky as a Realist… I was thinking of Free Cinema in Britain and how it was classified as realism for portraying reality "as it was". It would be interesting to map Realism in the realms of politics and art, but I am no academic.
The idea that Reality is a given is very accomplice of the idea of Nature, both as Given…but by who? This is to me the evidence that what we are discussing here is religion, because all of these concepts rely on an external shaper, or force that shapes this reality of nature.
It is difficult not to think of Nature as predefined and therefore extraneous to human nature..or as the cocoon where we are born, and I might argue an impenetrable cocoon. For so it seems difficult to challenge that something else didn't precede us and consequently that there is something else apart from us or our individual existence.
Reality conversely is a more complex idea and to me it has a set of implications that correlate to the idea of Nature. Reality as lived might be challenged as a psychological exercise that changes continuously as much as the looking glass changes, or that of our own very psychological state. Divorcing these elements: the looking subject (with its physical support), the looking glass (or its subjectivity) and the matter or contemplation (nature), seems to given rise again to a at least tripartite reality. Te difference between what is mentioned as preexisting Nature, now the body inhabits this environment and as far as its agency goes, it has the ability of changing its surroundings with fewer or greater, known or unknown, consequences. Reality, unlike Nature, becomes more elastic, and engages in a feedbackarian relationship, not necessarily of action/reaction, but of action=effect/affect.
It seems inevitable therefore, to feel a sense of responsibility when the ecosystem suffers due to a pilling up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…and equally, to feel a sense of contingency and uncontrollability when natural disaster strikes. They show respectably and respectively traces both of a fervent humanism (man/woman to its own will and figure) and of a fervent religious devotion (man to God's will). Obviously the first attitude stems from Science and the idea of Logic, and the second one from the idea of Nature, as clearly divided from human will or action (artificial).
I have always argued that we shouldn't argue for one or the other, but that we should always embrace complexity (Venturi and Brown). Meaning that we can delve on this tripartite nature but still, understand its implications. First is that we can definitely acknowledge human substance as substantial and therefore with agency and the capacity to alter. On the same level we need to understand that as humans we are product of Nature (whether you wish to distinguish between God and Nature is up to you…) and we are independent as much as dependent (the woman who gave us birth). For so if we are willing to change the surfaces we dwell, we need to understand them… so that we produce change with the wisdom of nature (talking here on a societal change level or playing field). The problem here though is that we are presupposing the existence of a social contract (a political consensus or moralistic technocracy) and that humans have the ability and potential of comprehending Nature. All of this also rely on our ability to perceive and conceive (Lefebvre) Reality, not only objectively but on a subjective-objective combo, which also relies on a humanist conception (Reality for Us) and a homogeneity in this very own mode of perception (say all men and woman perceive the same way).
It is obvious to see, and not spotless, but rather stainfull, that this argument is as idealist and abstract as it is flawed, but I believe it has some ideas of relevance in relation to the tripartite nature of our environment, which is always perceptual instead of only-objective.
To close I am hoping to say that Reality cannot be conceived in those terms, those of upper-middle class conformism or security, but that they have to bee seek on a truly genuine level, which defies a classist reading of reality per se. This is a critical mind. It is the job of this mind to understand and to act in a plane of contingency, disruption and imperfection, as well as the abundance of oppositions and even contradictions…these should be seen as part of Nature and inherent to the structure of God. I am hoping that you yourself, grapples with the potency of a holistic inter-subjectivity, and that sees its everyday as an expansive practice, which constantly acknowledges and learns about its very own set of boundaries.
With no further delay, xoxo.
4 de agosto de 2014
Sometimes you don't know what you don't know. As if we could recognize what is off-limits of our own perception of the world. An is therefore scary just for that, for our inability to recognize that which we can't conceive or comprehend.
I know. I am a misery...And it is relieving to see that someone has put into words that which you feel, as if you could recognize them, a shadow that becomes familiar...with its own face.
I have been tired of thinking of otherness and all this terms that apparently stem from feminist theory, but I had some moments of surprise when going deeper into Marxist concepts, specially relating to labor.
Running is this act which relieves you, when you expel yourself mentally and physically, diminishing your very own substance, whilst giving it psychological weight, that of awareness. Reading, conversely, is an act of addition instead of relief, it adds all that is timely into an isolating moment, which allows you to penetrate the page onto something otherworldly, say an abstract order, or a world of ideas, something pure. This practice of addition, an this is where I have been hoping to get to, is a practice that furthers the feeling of self-estrangement and isolation. I feel very ambivalent towards any mention of alienation, since it feels way to walled to communicate the image I am hoping to.
Needless to say that anyone reading (hi robot audience) should note that my academic rigor goes as far as taking philosophical concepts from Wikipedia and recontextualising them into my texts as long as they make sense with their accompanying description. Tough world.
Virno says we need to find a new vocabulary for the multitude, and that this very nomenclature already has a certain set of implications. Surprisingly dense and light at the same time, I feel I would like to gain a better understanding of his arguments. Its a very cacophonic discourse, since it slaps you from every side, as his scheme of references its huge, all over the place; the conceptual purity allows for a discursive logic to run along the book, but here and there they get contextualized, which helps in gaining a better understanding. I do obviously think this is no serious review please.
I am finalizing with the idea of self-estrangement again, which is difficult to replanteate, I mean I am lonely on a projective plane, and feel that the direction I had when younger can't be recovered. Hopelesnnesssss