300 is far less impressive on a laptop screen. Disappointing. Friday night has been utterly calm.
Which is not a bad thing, seeing as I woke up with no voice. And did an a capella group audition with said lack of voice. Interesting....
Only had one class, so I woke up late-ish and just ate the apple and cheese I liberated from the cafeteria earlier this week. In the afternoon I took a nap, went to the audition, and fished in the library for a bit. Took out a psychology book on beauty/aestheics to see if I could get some experimental stuff on it. I've skimmed it, but I continue to be disgusted by anything psychological to do with creativity/beauty/anything really subjective. Also picked up a philosophy book on possible worlds, which looks to be interesting and also talks about identity, which we are currently talking about in terms not quite to my taste in class. If anyone has recommendations for reading that denies the existence of the human consciousness or reality of the world independent to it, or the idea of identity as a social construct, I would be greatful. Or just something interesting and not so mind-body oriented a definition.
So, bed. Ahhhhh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
300 is a stupid movie. It is historically and socially a complete and utter lie.
if I read this aright, You're looking for stuff that affirms identity and consciousness as social constructs. This was all the fashion in the 70's. Gee - I wonder where you got that from.....??
Personally, I think it's a conumdrum. Because I think that there are elements of consciousness and identity that are COMPLETELY bound up with their social and cultural milieu. And, I think that there are elements of both that are UTTERLY independent of milieu. For the first extreme, dig out your dad's yellowing paperbacks on Marxist Humanism particularly a guy named Robert Tucker. For the second extreme, read Buddha and all their associated hangers on.
What are some fo the titles you're reading?
I am also confused. Karl Popper is the name most often used as a philosopher of science who says that there is a real world out there independent of the observer. On the other side, see Harold Garfinkel who is the father of ethnomethodology, which borders on all reality is a fiction of the mind. Also Peter Berger's books. I'm not sure which side you're looking for!
Glad to see you're making use of the library. I'm sure Art would agree, his recent experiences notwithstanding. I'm assuming you got enough partying in last week to enjoy a quiet Friday night. Or was it you wanted to think thoughts that sent both your dad and Art scrambling to their bookshelves? As you know, there's nothing on mine to help you out. I guess I might have a copy of Descartes somewhere, but other than that...
I've wrestled with the nature of consciousness stuff my entire life. And I can make arguments in completely contradictory directions depending on the lens I look through. The very fact that we can do that - stand back and observe -makes me think that there is something independent of milieu. (Ye Gads! - that sounds suspiciously like Descartes..!!!....)
Who models the modeler? Ask yourself that long enough and it's like being lost in a hall of mirrors.......
Time to go stand on my head....the only thing that really puts this all into perspective!
Post a Comment