#individuation — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #individuation, aggregated by home.social.
-
https://www.donna-anna.org/de/identitaet.html Darf man die sogenannte Jungianische Individuation als sinnvole Methode zur Identitätsbildung betrachten? #Identität #Individuation #Psychologie #Dämonologie #Metaphysik #Lexikon
-
De l’autonomie illusoire à l’autonomie en devenir : co‑individuation et puissance d’agir collective
Contre la fiction d’un sujet autonome et autosuffisant, Jean‑Marie Bergère propose une autonomie en devenir : relationnelle, collective et ouverte. Loin du « je pense donc je suis », elle se tisse dans l’action partagée et l’individuation réciproque.#Philosophie #Autonomie #Collectif #Individuation #Emancipation Jean‑Marie Bergère critique la vision figée de l’autonomie…
-
Most pop #psychology I skim, but this is a surprisingly good article on #individuation or #integration . It has an unmentioned philosophical connection to killing the Buddha.
After almost 50 years, I did that late last year. It wasn't easy. As I told my psychologist, it had felt like an occasional pebble in the shoe that disappeared and came back as a boulder.
-
"How time and example may alter a man: he being now acquainted with all sorts of pleasures and vanities which heretofore he never thought of or loved, nor has allowed."
Samuel, you are a good man. You gladly share with us (*) how you take childlike pride in new posessions, and how you love indulging your interests; but you also know the importance of steering the ship, not letting it drift.
You understand the dangers and your aim is to manage them, not to taboo them. You are the pleasure-allowing Puritan, the pre-modern modern.
(*) Your diary entries are of course toots for us.
-
Ich trage mich mit dem Gedanken in Zukunft auf WhatsApp aus meiner digitalen Welt zu verbannen. Objektiv erst mal keine besonders große Entscheidung. Ich habe mich in den letzten Jahren von vielen weit verbreiteten Diensten getrennt, FOMO gab es nur ein paar Tage, Entspannung und Vergessen des Bedürfnisses setzten erstaunlich schnell ein. Kommuniziert man jedoch die Absicht vorsichtig nach […]
-
Journey Through the Human Mind: Philosophy, Psychology, and the Quest for Self-Knowledge
#HumanMind #Philosophy #Psychology #SelfDiscovery #Jung #Descartes #Freud #Individuation #SelfKnowledge #Mindfulness #Wisdom #Existence #Introspection #InnerJourney #KnowledgeIsA_Mosaic
-
The Dance of Mind and Spirit: Unveiling the Psyche's Journey
#Psychology #SpiritualJourney #CarlJung #EmotionalIntelligence #EnergyHealing #Archetypes #CollectiveUnconscious #SelfDiscovery #Empathy #MentalHealth #PsychosocialHealing #Individuation #ActiveImagination #SocialRepair #PsychologicalTransformation #MindBodySpirit #EsotericWisdom #HumanExperience
-
Frisch gebloggt:
🎓 Individuation: Was wir heute von Carl Gustav Jung lernen können
1933 schrieb Carl Gustav Jung in einem Brief an einen seiner Patienten: „Man lebt, wie man leben kann. Es gibt keinen einzigen bestimmten Weg für den einzelnen, der ihm vorgeschrieben oder der passend wäre.“
Doch was kann Jung uns heute noch über Selbsterkenntnis und persönliche Entwicklung lehren? Dieser Artikel untersucht die Relevanz von Jungs Theorien, ihre praktische Anwendbarkeit – ohne dabei die berechtigte Kritik an Jungs Psychologie ausser Acht zu lassen. Und ja, Journaling gehört auch dazu 🖋️
Hier der ganze Beitrag ⬇️
https://text.tchncs.de/gisiger/individuation-was-wir-heute-von-carl-gustav-jung-lernen-konnen
#ProductivityPorn #Selbsterkenntnis #CGJung #Individuation #Journaling
-
Therefore, I do not view the self as an improvement project that begins with incompletion and evolves towards completion. The chaos does not need to be ordered. The entropy does not need to be reduced. The demons do not need to be tamed. The jagged edges don’t need to be smoothed out.
-
@Hudson today I learnt about #individuation thank you 😊 #jung
-
@Krautreporter
Warum machen sich manche Menschen auf den Weg der #Individuation und beschreiten ihn erfolgreich, während andere scheitern? Welche Rolle spielen eigene Entscheidungen und der "freie Wille"? Gibt es ein Geheimrezept?
Darüber ist schon viel geforscht und geschrieben worden. Wenn "think positive" wirklich hülfe, müssten alle Amerikaner glücklich und erfolgreich sein.
C.G. Jung hat seine Erkenntnisse so zusammengefasst: "Am Ende ist es ein Mysterium, wer es schafft und wer nicht." -
Inspirations of Love and Hope @richardsilverman108.wordpress.com@richardsilverman108.wordpress.com ·
This is the beginning of our glossary
Pure Awareness (Atman): The true essence of the self, often referred to as Atman in Advaita Vedanta. It is the unchanging witness of all experiences, untouched by the fluctuations of the mind. In nondual teachings, pure awareness is recognized as the core of our being, the aspect of ourselves that is ever-present and eternal.
Pure Consciousness (Brahman): The ultimate, infinite reality that underlies everything, often referred to as Brahman in Advaita Vedanta. Pure consciousness is the vast, all-encompassing reality that transcends all dualities. Pure consciousness is the source and essence of all that exists. Realizing this truth is the goal of many spiritual paths, leading to liberation and peace.
Ego: The aspect of the self that provides a sense of individuality and self-preservation, shaping our identities and interactions with the world. While the ego is a necessary part of human experience, overly identifying with it can limit our awareness and lead to suffering. The balance of the ego with pure awareness (Atman) leads to a more peaceful and fulfilled life.
Mind: The collection of thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and memories that constitute our mental experience. The mind is active and constantly changing. In spiritual teachings, the mind is often seen as external to pure awareness. It is the activity that arises within consciousness but does not define the true self.
Nonduality: A spiritual perspective that emphasizes the oneness of all existence, transcending the dualistic view of separation between self and other, mind and body, or individual and universal. Nonduality teaches that pure awareness (Atman) and pure consciousness (Brahman) are not separate but one and the same, leading to the realization of the interconnectedness of all things.
Lila (The Play of Life): A concept in Hindu philosophy that describes life as a divine play or sport, where all experiences, including challenges and suffering, are seen as part of the cosmic dance. Recognizing life as Lila helps to cultivate acceptance and reduces resistance to life’s challenges, leading to a more graceful navigation through difficulties.
Maya (Illusion): The illusion or appearance of the material world, which veils the true nature of reality. Maya creates the perception of separation and individuality. In Advaita Vedanta, overcoming the illusion of Maya is essential to realizing the oneness of Atman and Brahman, and seeing the world as it truly is.
Heart Sutra: A key text in Mahayana Buddhism that emphasizes the emptiness of all phenomena and the transcendent nature of reality. The Heart Sutra teaches that by going “beyond, beyond, beyond,” one transcends all dualistic notions and realizes the ultimate truth.
Individuation: A concept from Carl Jung’s psychology, referring to the process of integrating the various parts of the self into a harmonious whole. Individuation resonates with the idea of balancing the ego with pure awareness, leading to a more complete and authentic experience of self.
Unconscious: The vast, all-encompassing reservoir of the mind that includes all mental processes, memories, instincts, and potentialities that lie outside of our conscious awareness. The unconscious contains both positive and negative aspects, known and unknown, including latent talents, creativity, and profound wisdom.
Shadow: A specific part of the unconscious, primarily consisting of the aspects of ourselves that we have repressed or rejected—traits, emotions, and impulses that we find uncomfortable or unacceptable. The shadow can also include disowned positive qualities. It represents the darker, hidden aspects of the unconscious but is not limited to negative content.
https://richardsilverman108.wordpress.com/2024/08/11/glossary-of-terms/
#AdvaitaVedanta #Atman #Brahman #CarlJung #consciousness #egoAndSelf #glossaryOfSpiritualTerms #heartSutra #holisticSelf #individuation #Lila #Maya #meditation #meditationTerms #mindAndConsciousness #Mindfulness #nonduality #pureAwareness #pureConsciousness #SelfRealization #spiritualGlossary #spiritualGrowth #SpiritualTeachings #spirituality #yoga
-
The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in #flux, in perpetual #progress or #process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘#individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘#individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, #over·human, #über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).
Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.
When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).
* [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)
-
The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in #flux, in perpetual #progress or #process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘#individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘#individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, #over·human, #über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).
Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.
When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).
* [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)
-
The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in #flux, in perpetual #progress or #process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘#individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘#individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, #over·human, #über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).
Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.
When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).
* [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)
-
Happy to have arrived at Schießl-Haus in Kollnburg for an artist residency with the wonderful Mariia Mytrofanova & Zayse.
Currently getting the library sorted for my project focusing on ideals of the broken.
Starting point is the book ‘The Ideal of the Broken’ by the philosopher Alfred Sohn-Rethel, in which he emphasized that the phase in which we start to modify things is the time when technology becomes interesting. He even goes so far as to say that this is where the technology actually starts to work. In his book, he focuses on the technology of the Neapolitans, whom he encounters using a car engine to make coffee or starting their car with a piece of wood. One of the conclusions he draws is that “the essence of Technology [lies] in the functioning of the broken” (Sohn-Rethel, 1990, p.33). Thus the meaning of a device is (also) failure, damage, repair, reuse.
The aim of my residency project is to consider failure as form of resistance to the artefacts' function in the global cycle of production and economic relations. Apparent in obsolete, defective or broken everyday objects and people's stories going along with them, potentially revealing them as emotional and intellectual companions that can preserve memories, sustain relationships and provoking various forms of usage.
#Kaputt #Broken #Artifacts #Objects #TechnologicalObjects #Relationships #Individuation #RelationalOntology #Artistresidency #Kollnburg #Schiesslhaus #BayrischerWald
-
CW: The "empty triangle" in go, Deleuze & Guattari, individuation
Nice old Larval Subjects (Levi Bryant) blog post on Deleuze and Guattari's nod to go and chess in the "Treatise on Nomadology", and on individuation more broadly:
The "empty triangle" illustrates how in go, each stone "has only a milieu of exteriority"—whichever stone completes the triangle, all three may then be weakened
