Captain Kierkegaard (leafofgrass) wrote in the_book_nook,
Captain Kierkegaard

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Update on pages 3-27

These two first two sections are devote to the deconstruction (yes, I will venture that term even though it had not yet evolved...) of the subjective/objective binary. This is dealt with through the guise of "perceptual faith," i.e. the idea that through our perceptions we intuit that the world exists as a real world and not a Cartesian illusion. [as an interesting note, this ties in oddly with Berkeley's creation of the concept of the "notion" vs an "idea."]

Here are some of the questions I found interesting:

Is 'monocular vision' really distinct from 'binocular' vision?
Personally, I'm not so sure that it differs other than the fact that we usually experience the world through two eyes. The one-eyed world is much the same with the exception that the perception of depth is altered (although not destroyed).

Is the reason we are interested in the existence of the other's consciousness strictly that we must exist within that gaze?
This is a truly important question given where Maurice is taking us (i.e. the intertwining). I'm not completely sold on this issue either. Of course, M-P's idea is much more nuanced than this question alludes, but I think we should keep the idea in mind as we proceed.

Merleau-Ponty mentions the noetic???
Check out pg 13. Inside his discussion of truth he mentions a "noetic place", which is my rough translation of the greek phrase. Whatever could this mean? He is obviously in the context of explaining how it is we consider truth and try to create a grounding for such, and then immediately after proposing this noetic place, he asserts that he is not speaking via the analogy, but it is the "same world that contains our bodies and our minds." We are seemingly heading back towards monism, but of an entirely different variety...

Are we in need of a 'new science?'
Merleau-Ponty mercilessly dissects the science of his [our?] time to show how the scientific claims of objectivity are founded upon rocky foundations, at best. The assault upon the so-called subjective sciences (I'm taking this to mean what we would consider the social sciences which utilize a significant portion of what he is describing as "social psychology") is no less relentless. He is obviously attacking western metaphysics at its very core here, I'll allow discussion to go without my commentary at this point.

An awesome quote
"There is--and this is something quite different [from introspection], which retains its value--a life present to itself (pres de soi), an openness upon oneself, which does not look out upon any other world other than the common world--and which is not necessarily a closedness to the others."
As they would say in a chess magazine: (!) What is this "openness upon oneself" that "is not necessarily a closedness to the others?" Here is something that need be unfolded!

Well, that's all I have time to post right now. I'll jump into the conversation as it unfolds...
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded