Philip Seymour Hoffman talks happiness with Critchley

thanks to

Whether through showings or sayings (making it explicit as it’s been called) we can certainly have intense moments of re-cognition/identification, but than how to use these sparks and spurs when that moment passes and our habitualized ways inevitably gear back in, how to incorporate them to make a difference that makes a difference in how we live?

7 responses to “Philip Seymour Hoffman talks happiness with Critchley

    • I wish that the academic discipline of doing philosophy (and not just the history of ideas) was more about sticking with the problems (as i think Donna Haraway calls for it) as something akin to the research/practices that actors and their studios undertake, more about know-how than knowing about but since that’s most unlikely to happen in the ivorytowers we are trying here, in our own halting ways (hard to kick old habits and foster new ways) to think about how we all could do such work out and about in our daily lives.

      • philosophers could learn a lot from athletes, actors, and other process oriented types of disciplines that acquire knowledge through subjective experiences and experimentation.

      • in some broad sense certainly, except that such fields tend not be working much reflexivity into their practices, but folks like Alva Noe and Erin Manning (you can find talks by both of them here) are doing some very interesting work along these lines with choreographers and painters and such, and our own michael is doing some research/practice relating to martial-arts-combat, so there are some steps being taken along these lines. I think that really any craft/discipline could be a site for fruitful exploration (as many previous phenomenologists have of course noted).

  1. I’m a little worried about the strong distinction between knowing and doing… Knowing and communicating are also embodied actions – activities with worldly consequences. Our values and ontologies do influence our perception and our intentions/motivations. And without the critical distance afforded by explicit speculation ‘know-how’ can remain unreflexive and brutally utilitarian. I think the trick is to ‘integrate’ bodily non-conceptual awareness and skill with the reflexive deployment of reason. There is room for philosophy and world-engineering in our collective attempts at living.

    • I still don’t know what it would literally mean to have an “ontology?” or how such a thing(?) would actually work in/to our actual doings/projects (can someone give me a thickish example of what they mean by this, i.e. where/how would I find an ontology and how would I track its effects?)
      but certainly we need to try and grasp what the people involved are doing(and perhaps what they are trying to do if this is different and accessible?) and how this effects what others involved may or may not do,
      and we need some way to actively/consciously keep renegotiating our modes/exchanges to see how they do or do not fit in with what we would like to do next, as to what behaviors/stances/expressions we will need to attend to or not I don’t know if we can predict such things ahead of time in any binding/author-itative or even useful way but we could and should experiment with how such practices play out.

  2. Pingback: Ontology as Embodied Cognitive Action? | synthetic_zero·

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s