Erik (eriktrips) wrote,
Erik
eriktrips

  • Mood:

this thing I write over and over and over

it seems like the idea of mind is much like the idea of a pure exteriority or of an indistinction between the self and the other which still takes place outside of any possible recognition because it is outside of any possible cognizable categorical thought which is what recognition requires. this also puts it outside of language but if Levinas is right then it also occurs as signification itself insofar as the approach of the other is the horizon of significance.

the paradox comes when one tries to then categorize this exteriority as Sameness, for the Same can only be defined in distinction to difference, which differentiation is a mechanism of cognition; exteriority itself can't be recognized as a category either in this sense, making that or any other term for it untenable. but one has to say something. what one gets is some sort of consistency that is at one time wholly other to thought and that upon which thought depends: a kind of vulnerability to cognition without any sort of native categorical presence. or absence. no "presence in absence" but an impossibility of either: the scrambling of proximity and distance.

the same thing happens when you try to name this moment/region/event as universal truth, because it must be thought outside of the distinction between true and false as well; rather it is something like the question which asks "true or false?": the possibility of there being either.

I do not know if one could say this quality is irreparable, in the way Agamben means it, because it is unthinkable, but there is something poignant in its impotence when it comes to language and conceptual presence, its absolute vulnerability to erasure underneath categorical thought itself.

and furthermore.

is "attachment" another word for propriety and subjective acquisitiveness? I read of hints of ownership and possessiveness and when I think of that which shatters this possessiveness, it turns out to be something other to the subject's ability to cognize itself and its borders, and somthing that calls into question whether or not the subject can distinguish itself from that which appears to be exterior to it. this "something" would not be a thing but this very consistency wherein cognitive categories become indistinguishable but not identical, not "the same."

anyway I'm wondering what the zen people will say if I start talking about this stuff at one of their workshops. don't mind me. I'm just trying to get it straight. tomorrow I'm going to try to say the same thing using more verbs.
Subscribe

  • chapter one is finished!

    The end of chapter one of UndiaGnosed is near. So near you could click and be right there. This entry was composed @Dreamwidth. Feel free to…

  • That took a long time

    So it took a little longer than I meant for it to but here is another section of the autobiography that will never end:…

  • Why the sky is blue is a political question.

    Why it is important to examine our own ideas before we can change the world around us. This entry was composed @Dreamwidth. Feel free to comment…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments