Yesterday I finally got to see Melissa for a bit. We had sushi, and then went and saw some her friends work up at CCAD. She was the subject of two of the pieces her raven tattoo showing boldly in the painting. The other had her in a hamlet pose, contemplating a skull. Then we went back to the Waiting Room, which is more or less where I live in Columbus. In reading the artist statement, I read how the painter saw Melissa as a kind of Celtic queen. She certainly has a contemplative beauty about her that is seductive in its movement. However, her smile is delightful, though not always indicative of comfort or pleasure; indeed sometimes it reflexs the opposite. Melissa is a constant artist; by that I mean it seems to be what she does, that is to Melissa (she is a verb, not a noun) is to live an aesthetic life (that is to say an ethical life), in such a way that more creativity flows from yourself. She is in touch with a certain kind of sovereignty that cannot be grasped by mere commodity makers I am happy to have made her acquaintance in Columbus.
She raised some concerns about my entry in which I rant on about the knowing that comes form intuition. I understand the critique, and it is becoming more evident where this communicative problem emerges as I read Science and Sanity. It seems that the only logic (and by association reason) that most Anglo-American speakers in their common sense realize is that of Aristotle. The project of the Enlightenment was in part to precisely address this Aristotelian system. The body of Aristotelian thought is aimed at through Hume, shot dead by Kant, and Hegel lays it to rest. Coming at these thinkers (Kant and indeed any Continental thinker following) through lenses of Aristotle alone, (or a thinking in line with Locke or Mill), leads to all kinds of confusion, misunderstandings, and unbound temperaments. Badness. This is why Foucault considered his critiques part of the enlightenment.
The problem seems at first to be communicative, but also it is indicative of the reason I think that Philosophical counseling, and public philosophies are so important today. If we are to enter the 21st century, with a way of thinking about the world that is rooted in the 18th century how are we to address our collective concerns without being anachronistic or religious. I dont think that we can.
In any case, it was wonderful to see Melissa. I went to the Cunninghams to watch Kill Bill, and then home to bed. Looks like NY is off, the money didnt come through on time.
-Ammonius
She raised some concerns about my entry in which I rant on about the knowing that comes form intuition. I understand the critique, and it is becoming more evident where this communicative problem emerges as I read Science and Sanity. It seems that the only logic (and by association reason) that most Anglo-American speakers in their common sense realize is that of Aristotle. The project of the Enlightenment was in part to precisely address this Aristotelian system. The body of Aristotelian thought is aimed at through Hume, shot dead by Kant, and Hegel lays it to rest. Coming at these thinkers (Kant and indeed any Continental thinker following) through lenses of Aristotle alone, (or a thinking in line with Locke or Mill), leads to all kinds of confusion, misunderstandings, and unbound temperaments. Badness. This is why Foucault considered his critiques part of the enlightenment.
The problem seems at first to be communicative, but also it is indicative of the reason I think that Philosophical counseling, and public philosophies are so important today. If we are to enter the 21st century, with a way of thinking about the world that is rooted in the 18th century how are we to address our collective concerns without being anachronistic or religious. I dont think that we can.
In any case, it was wonderful to see Melissa. I went to the Cunninghams to watch Kill Bill, and then home to bed. Looks like NY is off, the money didnt come through on time.
-Ammonius