Any writing instructor could provide you with a long list of common student mistakes involving the confusion of one word with another. One of the earliest I noted, and always one of my favorites, was “interoperate” for “interpret,” which I begin seeing before I had ever seen “interoperate” in other contexts, but which eventually came to seem to me prescient and now prophetic—to “interpret” a text is, in fact, to make it “interoperable” with some other discourse which recodes it, and we have passed the point where we should transition from asking students to interpret to asking them to interoperate (or render interoperable), which includes the former while being far more expansive in its implications. This holds for all learners in all fields, who will flourish by rendering themselves as interoperable with as many centers, users and interfaces as possible. Of course, interoperability can take on many forms, and this is something we should start exploring.
"But if there's no internal, there's no external - there is just a scene comprised of the number of levels of self-referentiality needed by us as inquirers"
-where does this leave the centre? Won't that be experienced as an externality. or are you saying not yet?
And what do you make of the conclusion to Gans' latest: "it is one thing to talk of "love of God," and another to *situate* this love as the transcendence of resentment in a specific orginary context. Classical phenomenology attempts to find such configurations within the researcher's own mind through introspection, but there is no substitute for positing them in the first place as objective external realities, which they must have been at some point in order for the human universe to get started."
Yes, the center is a somewhat different question--it's both inside and outside the scene. Someone can be inside or outside of a scene--there are a lot of interiors and exteriors. Here, I'm just interested in the "internal scene of representation." I want to transfer that directly onto the social.
I agree with that conclusion, except, perhaps for "in the first place," which seems to assume some subsequent interiorization.
"But if there's no internal, there's no external - there is just a scene comprised of the number of levels of self-referentiality needed by us as inquirers"
-where does this leave the centre? Won't that be experienced as an externality. or are you saying not yet?
And what do you make of the conclusion to Gans' latest: "it is one thing to talk of "love of God," and another to *situate* this love as the transcendence of resentment in a specific orginary context. Classical phenomenology attempts to find such configurations within the researcher's own mind through introspection, but there is no substitute for positing them in the first place as objective external realities, which they must have been at some point in order for the human universe to get started."
Yes, the center is a somewhat different question--it's both inside and outside the scene. Someone can be inside or outside of a scene--there are a lot of interiors and exteriors. Here, I'm just interested in the "internal scene of representation." I want to transfer that directly onto the social.
I agree with that conclusion, except, perhaps for "in the first place," which seems to assume some subsequent interiorization.