Date: 22 Jun 97 16:03:57 EDT
From: "Jennifer  M. de Coste" <76171.535-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Soul and Body Two


Very enlightening discussion of late.  Thank you all.  A couple of thoughts
regarding most recent dialogue:

We can acknowledge, as Edward illuminated, the inevitability of an 'ideal.'  Our
very discourse regarding surrealism is a testament of this phenomena, and we
thankfully, continue the tradition of cherishing the objective hazard manifested
where the individual meets the collective, freedom meets necessity.  Yet if we
are to sympathize with Derrida - specifically his differance and inescapability
of the signifier - could we thus acknowledge a constant state of becoming?  I
talked about surrealism v. Surrealism; Edward clarified the mention of god over
that of God.  I believe this to be an analogous problem.  To be perfectly
nagging, might we talk of Ideal and ideal separately?  I allude throughout some
of my references to some of the postmoderns - specifically where their concerns
fall in line with surrealism.  Modern philosophy exposed the problem of the idea
- and we may extend and revise its irreducibility of Self as well as Ideas.
perhaps we have ideas, then ideals(?).  Re: god/God - in short, it is God that
refers to organized 'faith'(which is almost an oxymoron), and god that is
essentially philosophical.  In contrast to a comment made by Edward (I think), I
believe god is a human creation - as far back as Hume can we see this phenomena.
As an aside, I am recently familiarizing myself with some of the valuable
writings of the pragmatists, specifically James.  It is thus even more of a
surprise when James insists on god.  Perhaps he think along the same line as
Edward.  I am certainly in agreement that we began to usher in 'function' when
we talk about ideas and ideals.  This function or the 'functionality' said thing
serves could be 'religious.'  Ideas of progress touted by science are, indeed,
more appropriately hailed as 'arbitrary' - I allude here to Thomas Kuhn.  The
soul is something of an idea, but even so, it does not take hold of experience
until put in the context of something - soul as completely subjective(?)....I'm
not sure (and this is a recent develpment in my philosophical thinking) that we
should acknowledge a Cartesian framework, if we are to talk of immanent
experience.  Intersubjectivity is the more inclusive, profound concept, which
acknowledges, as the kdern missed, the social situatedness of the life
experience.  I'm hazy on the comment re: metaphor starting with religion.  Is
religion here to mean hope?(and I believe this to be a legitimate source of
'religion' (despair - function(?) = religion = hope).  If so, wasn't it metaphor
that gave us hope?  Can we experience the inexperienceable?  A great paradox,
but if we talk of experience 'in the moment,' can we acknowledge an
'inexperienceable?'  I present in defense of experience Luke's metaphor and
oblivion - we can say that, at times, our experience sublimates the
inexperienceable, but this is lightly Cartesian (subj/ob, mind/body, etc.), but
we, as surrealists, talk of surreality and the reconciliation of
'contradictions.'  Freud's gift was not the reign of the Unconscious (maybe this
was his proposal but surrealism sought not to give this reign) but the
exploitation/exploration of it as it relates to our conscious state - and let's
not forget the profundity of a notion of preconsciousness.  So Experience is
experience and inexperienceable.  My, do I have a pension for theory!

Thoughts?

Thanks again.

Michael