A gnat's whatever I see

"If you can interact with the thing you are investigating in such a way that you can determine . . . that it is questioning you back, then you have something real." Don Ihde in a November 14, 2000 interview (http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/dihde/articles/ihde_interview.html).

Comments

Aside

"Lauren Silbert uses brain scans to try to zero in on what happens when two people click." (http://www.radiolab.org/2011/apr/18/soul-mates-and-brain-doubles/) Ms. Silbert read a story and had her brain activity mapped (scanned). Then she told the story to others and their brain activities were mapped. One listener's brain activity matched that of the storyteller, exactly. Thesis? The matching points represent the same experiences of the words-images that comprise the story. And if they match entirely, both storyteller and listener have had the same experience that the words create (evoke?). Is this the fundamental phenomenology of writing--the intentionality--to create in your experience that which I intend and had when I wrote what I did?

Be me

If the post before this is in the main accurate and true and the one titled " Aside " depicts the universal(?) hoped-for outcome of writing, then the hypothesis of writing as phenomenology and phenomenology as writing appears essentially supported. It also appears that writing as phenomenology reverberates up, down, and all around all utterances. Each, even this sample, is what-I-have-in-my-mind-I-want-replicated-in-yours. Next, the subversiveness of this notion, plus differing intentions of writing?

Noematics 101, an inquiry into writing as phenomenology

Search This Blog