File spoon-archives/french-feminism.archive/french-feminism_2001/french-feminism.0111, message 23


Subject: Beryl Chalk Re: irigaray & colour
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:54:22 +0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Re: irigaray & colour
  I'm not sure wether Hilary or Simone wrote the piece below. But it strikes a chord.  I have been attempting to 'think thinking' and 'think language' and 'think identity' otherwise, ie., challenge the dominant paradigm which is based on the Cartesian body mind spilt. I had to figure how I could think a subject always in relation, belonging and connected. I found that Christine Battersby puts forward an abstract philosophical concept but because I'm researching drama as embodied expression I needed to ground it more. I found the cognition, subjectivity and language of the Yolgnu people of Arnhemland, Northern Australia provided me with a living culture that thinks very differently. I then read Capra and a few others and found that quantum theory is getting close to the Yolngu way which may have existed for 50,000 years. I've also found that many philosphers and scientists turn to Eastern mysticism in an attempt to explain their thinking. I've been reading around this for quite a few years and its ok to talk mysticism in theology but not in science. I really grapple with a world view which can't acknowledge that 'we know more than we will ever know we know' as we are influenced and connected by 'the unseen real'.
  I don't understand either, but maybe I do, its about keeping control of knowledge. Sigh! I presented a paper on this recently at a local conference.
  I'd like to dsicuss this more and as I know others may not be interested then I suggest any replies be sent to my own email address bchalk-AT-hotmix.com.au
    I have been warned that I shall be branded a mystic.  As if I have a probelm with that.  I don't think that academics in the Humanities can long afford to ignore the mystic elements in poets and artists and philosophers.  We must confront that element of the human.  Without it, the whole endeavor is incomplete, crippled in some way. Neitzsche had Ekhardt, Derrida had the Kabbalah, and Irigaray has Buddha and the Tantrists. What is so dangerous about exploring these influences and connections?  Why not simply own up to it?  I don't understand.  At least we are no longer isolated.  This is wonderful.  As far as I know, unfortunately, there is none or precious little critical work on her that addresses these elements and influences in her work.  Though now,  I think it will be unavoidable after Two Be Two.  W! e had better hurry up and get our work out there to publish.

HTML VERSION:

Re: irigaray & colour
 
I'm not sure wether Hilary or Simone wrote the piece below. But it strikes a chord.  I have been attempting to 'think thinking' and 'think language' and 'think identity' otherwise, ie., challenge the dominant paradigm which is based on the Cartesian body mind spilt. I had to figure how I could think a subject always in relation, belonging and connected. I found that Christine Battersby puts forward an abstract philosophical concept but because I'm researching drama as embodied expression I needed to ground it more. I found the cognition, subjectivity and language of the Yolgnu people of Arnhemland, Northern Australia provided me with a living culture that thinks very differently. I then read Capra and a few others and found that quantum theory is getting close to the Yolngu way which may have existed for 50,000 years. I've also found that many philosphers and scientists turn to Eastern mysticism in an attempt to explain their thinking. I've been reading around this for quite a few years and its ok to talk mysticism in theology but not in science. I really grapple with a world view which can't acknowledge that 'we know more than we will ever know we know' as we are influenced and connected by 'the unseen real'.
I don't understand either, but maybe I do, its about keeping control of knowledge. Sigh! I presented a paper on this recently at a local conference.
I'd like to dsicuss this more and as I know others may not be interested then I suggest any replies be sent to my own email address bchalk-AT-hotmix.com.au
I have been warned that I shall be branded a mystic.  As if I have a probelm with that.  I don't think that academics in the Humanities can long afford to ignore the mystic elements in poets and artists and philosophers.  We must confront that element of the human.  Without it, the whole endeavor is incomplete, crippled in some way. Neitzsche had Ekhardt, Derrida had the Kabbalah, and Irigaray has Buddha and the Tantrists. What is so dangerous about exploring these influences and connections?  Why not simply own up to it?  I don't understand.  At least we are no longer isolated.  This is wonderful.  As far as I know, unfortunately, there is none or precious little critical work on her that addresses these elements and influences in her work.  Though now,  I think it will be unavoidable after Two Be Two.  W! e had better hurry up and get our work out there to publish.
--- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005