Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Riffing on a la mode

See this prior post. Balder commented at IPS: I may be missing a subtle point that has caught Bryant's attention, but in Adam Robbert's explication of Chapter 3 of AIME, I do not detect the 'object-erasing correlationism' that Bryant criticizes.  It appears Latour is associating the object-in-itself with the (autopoietic) mode of reproduction, of self-maintenance.  What do you think? I note also that the theme of this chapter (mediation) has strong resonance with Layman Pascal's metaphysics of adjacency, Morrison's interface philosophy, and aspects of Sloterdijk as well (all of which I would identify as prepositional approaches).

I replied: Reading Robbert's translation reminds me of course of image schema (IS) and/or basic categories, which arise 'in the middle of things.' Recall this post on how they relate and integrate the metaphysical extremes of the general and particular. This relates to Latour's 'gaps' or 'discontinuities' between the map and the territory, IS being closer to the Real and prepositions being closer to the map (Symbolic) and its interpretation (Imaginary). The IS and prepositions are thus the mediators that allow access to the Real and the other domains respectively, for they are both in and of this gap or bridge. No mediation, no access as he says.

Robbert also deals with Latour's so-called lack of the thing-itself according to Bryant in that he is accounting for how a suobject maintains itself via another gap. The mode of Repetition sounds a lot like Derrida's iteration of always already and not yet. Reference as a mode then applies to the other gap discussed above. Together they allow for autonomous maintenance and communication (translation) with another(s). It seems IS bridge the first gap and prepositions the second?

Also recall my criticism of Bryant on his too strict division between in/outside with the withdrawn and the actual. And how I came to see that IS-prepositions can maintain this divide between the autonomy of a suobject and its communions because its boundary not only separates but connects a la mutual entailment instead of dichotomous and metaphysical dualism or representationalism. And of which I even accused Bryant in its more subtle form.

1 comment:

  1. Also recall this post* and following, where Knox recontextualized archetypes via image schema. And I provided an example of how the Lingam sees archetypes as metaphysical whereas IS are actual prototypes more akin to Jung. This was followed by the neuroscientific explanation for nondual attention, that pre-rational state that seems to dissolve our separate self sense but only dissolves our rational self. There is still pre-rational ipseity involved, i.e., autonomy and communion, via our friends the basic categories of IS, providing the embodied and mediated access to this nondual state.

    Hmm, Museque says that perhaps there is a meditative praxis to be had invoking prepositions to activate primordial IS and thus induce nondual states. The prepositions then could bridge back up to egoic rationality and thus integrate such states. This would be the methodology or practice part (how) in addition to the phenomenological (who) and neurological (what) aspects.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.