Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

was

Expand Messages
  • Siobhan
    Trinidad, I m reading William Faulkner s Light in August , and one of its major themes is recollection. If I ve followed rightly, he thought that what a
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Trinidad,

      I'm reading William Faulkner's "Light in August", and one of its
      major themes is recollection. If I've followed rightly, he thought
      that what a person 'believes' is really more important or 'real' to
      that person than what he 'knows'; that feelings cause a belief that a
      particular incident happened before any cognitive memory surfaces;
      and that how we feel and believe overcomes the facts of the actual
      incidents. Also, present incidents triggers past situations-feelings
      that 'seem' identical though they might not actually be so, they only
      seem so. Faulkner was considered an existential because of many his
      themes and his reliance of the new field of psychiatry. He often
      presented the dilemma of the individual against his society viz.
      religion, sexuality and racism.

      Siobhan

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
      wrote:
      >
      > We may not easily deconstruct or simplify the process of human
      > thought. The theorist on the subject is necessarily forced into an
      > epistemology inviting by its very nature deconstruction and
      obviation.
      > Criticism of such exposition is really an expression of a
      fundamental
      > tension in every human mind between the "naked ape" or primordial
      > animal, and the recollecting existence organizer dependent on, as
      > George aptly puts it ,"logocentric" organization. Intuitively,
      though
      > in most cases buried at a much lower sensory threshold than ordinary
      > empirical observation, human beings are aware that argument and
      > conclusion directly affect their personal past. The personal past
      of a
      > human being is the source of his/her mental stability, and generally
      > speaking, is personally emotionally defended at any cost when
      > approached with a threat of change. Though the theoretician makes
      > every effort to avoid any iconic effect in generating an utilitarian
      > terminology for written expostion, such accidental effect is
      > unavoidable, and he/she can only hope to minimalize such effect, or
      > avoid contradictory iconic influence to his/her purposed argument.
      > This in itself is ethical, while purposing to directly utilize
      iconic
      > effect is not, i/e kerygmatic theology, soteriologistic symbology,
      > Madison Ave., politics, etc. Unfortunately iconic effect is more
      > acceptable to the average human being, as such a threat to personal
      > past is normally not perceived at a high enough sensory threshold to
      > engage the emotions.
      >
      > Modern existentialism, though brilliant in evolution in the case of
      > Sartre, has spawned a general distrust of written argument. Any
      > presenting ethical theoretician immediately encounters a brooding
      > overwhelmingly uneducated body of written criticism armed with
      > post-modernist linguistic theory generally condemning the utility,
      > necessity, and even efficaciousness of language for the human
      > condition. Vocabulary becomes the object of ridicule. Post-modernist
      > poetic exposition strives for paradox, meaninglessness, and
      > unreadableness. This sense of meaninglessness stirred by Sartre has
      > evloved its own iconic methodology, and an angst of robust
      bitterness
      > thrown proudly at all comers by what amounts to no more than wounded
      > displaced children. Into this critical atmosphere scientific
      > exposition falls like a broken-winged bird to be torn to pieces and
      > feasted upon. Sadly, the rare example of unabashed materialistic
      > exposition it is all that is left of humanly valid written discourse
      > not purposely involved with iconic effect. Existentialism in the
      west
      > has failed to engage atheism in signifigant numbers because of this
      > angst over meaninglessness. The result is a President who spits on
      the
      > White House lawn on television.
      >
      > We are not meaningless or we would not be able to engage the idea
      that
      > we are meaningless. Language is not meaningless or we would not be
      > able to argue in language that it is. We may not childishly
      > characterize human life as a dream or hallucination, because we have
      > no evidence of anyone waking up from it. The issue confusing most of
      > us is time framing. We cannot actively change the future, and we can
      > only experience the past evidence of the present. We are
      recollectors.
      > We observe, experience, and participate in our own recollection, our
      > own past. A public misperception of the general theory of relativity
      > spawned the science fiction of time travel. Because we recollect
      > evidence of phenomenon and do not observe phenomenon in synchronous
      > time frames we only view evidence of what has already happened.
      > Anything stationary cannot be time framed. Some suggest that the
      > present may be stationary, this cannot be because we are
      recollectors,
      > and our capacity to recollect can only be caused by some form of
      > detachment from the presence of existence, which can only be the
      > ending of existence. No two objects regardless of theoretical
      essence
      > are ever in a relative position to one another where one or the
      other
      > is stationary, nor would evidence of such an occurrence be
      recollectable.
      >
      > From our personal recollections of our past we draw our sense of
      > identity. Change that threatens to overthrow our personal past
      > threatens our identity. The primordial animal intrinsic to our whole
      > being is actually synchronized to iconic influence and arguably
      > incapable of, or at least possessed of a substantially lesser
      capacity
      > for time framing than our organized recollecting capacity. The
      purpose
      > of argument in written discourse is to overcome primordial
      animalistic
      > fear prone to emotional conclusion based on a resonation to iconic
      > influence.
      >
      > Trinidad Cruz
      >
      > "I think it is clear, that didactic expositions of arguments with
      > their conclusions and their premisses, of abstract ideas, of
      > equations, etc., belong to the stage after arrival and not to any of
      > the stages of traveling thither. The theorist can impart his lessons
      > because he has finished learning them."
      >
      > Gilbert Ryle from "The Concept of Mind"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.