It takes a while for the data to get settled in, and I'm in no particular hurry. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center September sea ice extent over the arctic pole was 5.36 million square kilometers. That's more ice than last year, but less ice than average. There are many efforts to intepret the data. In my view the skeptics seem more reasonable in light of this data point than they would had sea ice extent declined from the previous year. I remain concerned about the polar bear's habitat, and the possibility of extinction.
Labels: habitat, polar bears, sea ice
7 Comments:
I'm vaguely concerned about extinction 'in general'.
Look out for the kiwi directed film 'The age of stupid'. And of course the new 'Flight of the Conchords' cd. (music from the 2nd tv series).
I've been rereading Stanley Rosen's 'The Question of Being: a revearsal of Heidegger' and there are some interesting comments on Husserl(and of course Heidegger) in the final chapter, 'The history of being.
The point of ph. description is not at all to distinguish the worse from the better, but to bring to full presence before 'the eye of the soul' (Aristotle) the structures by which residents of the lifeworld fulfill their intentions. -
"Intention' is understood as the object of sense perception. This arises from the bracketing of validities by which we detach ourselves from interested participation in the lifeworld and so 'take no position' with respect to anything that transpires therein. (Crisis).
But without participation in the lifeworld one cannot 'perceive' the genealogy of human signification..Without such participation, there is no inner grasping of what becomes instead a sequence of pictures.
"Phenomenology is the attempt to describe fully the structure of the object of perception as presented fully to the intentionality that generates it. It is thus a species of historicist positivism masking itself as the pursuit of apodictic certainty.' (Rosen, p.299).
I kind of like this sentence. If one could understand it one would have a good grasp of the stakes of philosophy!
I am interested in the Polar bear not a picture of it.
of course, I didn't mean fido was only interested in pics! I thought Rosen's discussion of Husserl and Heidegger might interest - I don't know why. Maybe cos you used to blog about a lot of phenomenological type books.
'Heideggerianism is reversed Husserlianism: thinking remains orientated toward the open and visible, of which the audible canly on be derivative [esp. if it's not greek or german]. It remains 'theoretical' in the literal sense of disregarding or bracketing all considerations other than the meditating on Being' - which requires humankind to manifest itself. (Rosen).
Oh, I'm way interested in Rosen and your reading.
What'd you take away from the chapter on mimesis?
Does humankind manifest itself as mimetic, or might that be (at best, if you will) merely its picture of itself? What sense would it make to say "mimetic organism"? (Already a mimetic operation, and doubly so (and so on...).) Say there's a mimetic aspect to any description of the structures of appearance, just my thoughts being tacked on here, don't we also thereby live with these mimed things, these objects of "perception"?
What is the connection if any between adumbration as a characteristic movement of perception and mimesis?
Does positivism precisely unfold its truths, or could it be quite the contrary? (I don't know about the stakes of philosophy. You could expand?)
The problem of mimesis appears to be the same problem as the problem of repetition--only in reverse! To think repetition free of mimesis, it has been on my mind. To think mimesis free of mimesis! And why not? What is reversal for, anyway?
Nonsense! Absurdity! Paradox! Fido is himself an imitation, Spot's double, a remarkable species of yak. This is where I discovered mimesis free of mimesis, which also happened to be mimesis for what it is, mimesis as such.
Now a thought critical of Heideggerianism. Do we want humanity to manifest itself in the light of being or some such? Stated more charitably, do we want our encounter with the human to occur as it pertains to ontology? Cause I feel that would be a limitation, and that it would distort the manifestation of humanity. (Easy for me to say it would be a limitation, me who asks for mimesis free of mimesis. Should I make a phronetic case for the value of limitations?)
Just feeling gabby today. Thanks for coming by!
sorry, but which is the mimesis chapter. " the stakes of philosophy" was just a throwaway line. The sentence I quoted just has a lot of concepts in it.
mimesis chapter? I don't know for sure. I just saw somebody said Rosen took a closer look at mimesis in this book, figured it deserved a chapter. Heh. Amazing how my mind remembers things that never occurred, cause I coulda sworn with near apodictic certainty that I read about a mimesis chapter, but I really didn't.
you may have done - I'll have another look - soon. So are you camping now? I heard all the L.A. campsites are full with mortgagee repossessions. In old french mortgage is death wish. hasta la vista
Not camping yet. I'll be able to live in an apartment for a while, just got to find one and soon.
Post a Comment
Fido the Yak front page