Relationships intellectualized to such an extreme that it is ridiculous.
This in reply to Jackie's "Does absence really make the heart grow fonder?", which is posted on the Sayelixir LJ.
You will say that I am blinded by my own Structuralist/Post-Structuralist ideas and I will certainly agree with you.
We have come across many who are consumed by their own metaphors. While it is obvious that there are not really any "holes" of this type... the metaphor still prevails and the abstract context attempts (perhaps successfully, perhaps not) to define the life-world social space, producing not only concrete goals but also concrete relationships.
The metaphor is perhaps the greatest cause of confusion. Symbiosis, unlike the theory of holes, has physical properties that exist outside of semantics. Yet physical properties themselves require semantics to the extent that they only exist through their juxtaposition with other properties. There are thus holes in which symbiosis can occur, and the antecedent requires the consequent. Syntax, related to symbiosis in both edimological origin as well as in meaning (a necessary relation), therefore supposes semantics while being equally supposed and hence presupposed by its own presupposition, which is hardly a proposition, as it must necessarily supercede the antecedent in this case, and thus must pre-date the proposition. As discussion of syntax always requires both symbiosis and pre-prepositional analysis/synthesis, we cannot produce meaning outside of our playing-space, and hence must open ourselves up to others insofar as they fit nicely and neatly into our holes. Without a decryption location, that is to say, without a hole, there can be no accepted semantics, and hence no relationship qua subjectivity.
Feder has argued that to be porous is to be receptive, and hence equates holiness with godliness, and rightly so. Victor on the other hand rejects holiness out of a fear of liminal disintegration and incompleteness. Yet it is simple enough to point out that the only difference between them is the side of the mind-body dialectic from which they view the problem. Victor values completeness as she values her physical completeness, while Feder values consistency in thought and hence receptivity of information. Yet the symbiotic/homeostatic goal cannot be attained through selfish hoarding nor through self annihilation through the gift. It is precisely these imbalances which have produced the most difficulty in the analysis of friendship and have characterized the failures of the philosophers from which they came.
"The True is the Total" -Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit
Meaning that to exist one must remain in both flux and stasis, impossible without feedback, interaction, give and take. To hoard is as dead as is to waste. It is only when death has become impossible in the eyes of spirit that it may be overcome in body and mind. To both lose and gain in equal proportion is to remain and hence flourish.
You will say that I am blinded by my own Structuralist/Post-Structuralist ideas and I will certainly agree with you.
We have come across many who are consumed by their own metaphors. While it is obvious that there are not really any "holes" of this type... the metaphor still prevails and the abstract context attempts (perhaps successfully, perhaps not) to define the life-world social space, producing not only concrete goals but also concrete relationships.
The metaphor is perhaps the greatest cause of confusion. Symbiosis, unlike the theory of holes, has physical properties that exist outside of semantics. Yet physical properties themselves require semantics to the extent that they only exist through their juxtaposition with other properties. There are thus holes in which symbiosis can occur, and the antecedent requires the consequent. Syntax, related to symbiosis in both edimological origin as well as in meaning (a necessary relation), therefore supposes semantics while being equally supposed and hence presupposed by its own presupposition, which is hardly a proposition, as it must necessarily supercede the antecedent in this case, and thus must pre-date the proposition. As discussion of syntax always requires both symbiosis and pre-prepositional analysis/synthesis, we cannot produce meaning outside of our playing-space, and hence must open ourselves up to others insofar as they fit nicely and neatly into our holes. Without a decryption location, that is to say, without a hole, there can be no accepted semantics, and hence no relationship qua subjectivity.
Feder has argued that to be porous is to be receptive, and hence equates holiness with godliness, and rightly so. Victor on the other hand rejects holiness out of a fear of liminal disintegration and incompleteness. Yet it is simple enough to point out that the only difference between them is the side of the mind-body dialectic from which they view the problem. Victor values completeness as she values her physical completeness, while Feder values consistency in thought and hence receptivity of information. Yet the symbiotic/homeostatic goal cannot be attained through selfish hoarding nor through self annihilation through the gift. It is precisely these imbalances which have produced the most difficulty in the analysis of friendship and have characterized the failures of the philosophers from which they came.
"The True is the Total" -Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit
Meaning that to exist one must remain in both flux and stasis, impossible without feedback, interaction, give and take. To hoard is as dead as is to waste. It is only when death has become impossible in the eyes of spirit that it may be overcome in body and mind. To both lose and gain in equal proportion is to remain and hence flourish.