Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(348)
-
▼
September
(30)
- In all its various forms suffering, as disti...
- The scientific idea is that knowledge is val...
- The distinction between what you call the ob...
- The traffic paradigm for emergence puts paid...
- Watching the traffic on an arterial road in ...
- Is it really so easy to explain this desire ...
- Perhaps the biggest difference in the use of...
- Purposive action is a general term, it's rea...
- It's quite simple, what you seek is the prin...
- What you think with words, what you get hold...
- What you take as consciousness, as your cons...
- It was of another order of truth quite beyon...
- According to one theory there are three main...
- The widespread domestication of certain tech...
- Those components of experience that depend u...
- For the most part they are soulless, but sou...
- Where there are two of you the overlap of hi...
- Schubert's Die Schöne Mullerin was performed...
- No matter how carefully you think about it, ...
- Any animal that needs to sleep seems likely ...
- There is experience and there is the experie...
- An ethical directive is addressed to you as ...
- How do you get the notion of the particulari...
- Say that there is a phenomenal field in...
- Your phenomenal field is centred, which mean...
- Experience in present time, the Dasein, can...
- Walking through the streets you glance into ...
- The prejudice of the 'now' is as foolish as...
- A term like 'seeing through the illusion of ...
- Noticing, as if there were a body of knowle...
-
▼
September
(30)
Friday, 8 September 2017
How do you get the notion of the particularity of the particular? In most of your dealings in the world it is not needed. The objects of interest are indexed by their meanings, and meanings are always generalities, or the refined cross-referencing of generalities which are still generalities. If such cross-referencing was drawn out to its ultimate point then presumably it would achieve the unique meaning of individuals. The possibility of reaching such a limit might be part of your idea of the reality of 'real' things but it cannot constitute their uniqueness. For you, objects are individualised by a choice, which may be your own active selection of the object or else passively, the selection of you by the object. Is this then like checking into a large hotel? You chose the city and selected this one hotel out of several possibilities. You arrive and present your credentials. The impenetrably polite and perfectly groomed clerk stares attentively at a screen in which you are to be identified, a tiny ripple of concordance flickers across their face to show that you are in the system, they press a few buttons, clickety-click, and smile and hand you an invisibly coded card. And then after riding an elevator, and reading off room numbers in a corridor lined with identical doors, you find yourself in a particular room in which everything is satisfactory (for the sake of argument). It is familiar and functional and fit for purpose but utterly generic. You can rest but not really relax, or maybe it's the other way around, you can relax but not really rest. If you stay in the same room for more than a week then all its contents will perhaps acquire an individual character, some of the quality of home, but this too is generic, is merely homeness. You can stare for a long time at an object, say a glass you have filled from a little bottle selected from the mini-bar, you can taste the familiar brand of whisky. Is this particular? Does it have haecceitas, quiddity? Are you enough to make the moment, is the moment enough to make you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.