I agree with you here. What is the difference between Bergson's virtual, though, and the future?
- Alan On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Curt Cloninger wrote: >> For me, all these terms, including 'virtual' and 'real' are rife with >> problems based on categoricity and ideology - for example following >> someone like Lingis, I think we're inscribed, that inscription and culture >> goes all the way up and down, we're permeated, we construct (local) >> meaning the best we can, we find our way the best we can (sloughing into >> Wittgenstein or some such). > > Hi Alan, > > Bergson's "virtual" seems less problematic ideologically, because it > literally, historically hasn't happened. Once it happens (if it ever > does), it then gets codified, historicized, analyzed, categorized, > etc. Until then, who knows how it will fit in ideologically (or what > it even is)? This could be one argument for letting practice lead. An > art practice finds its way in dialogue with materials that are > themselves in dialogue with the world -- a different kind of dialogue > than philosophy's dialogue with the world. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > == email archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ webpage http://www.alansondheim.org music archive: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ == _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
