first Life-world as "the unity of society and memory"
second The body as a body model of all demarcations
third Addendum: circulation of meaning and mass production
After I identified in my last post, the life world with the communicative memory, now all of course in a way, the question of whether we that concept at all and need not speak of communicative memory can do what of course, vice versa, why still talk of communicative memory, when we associated phenomena may simply call it a living world. First, it must be said that we are dealing with here is a transition area between a philosophical consciousness and culture-scientific approach to human. From antiquity scientific point of view we are dealing primarily with cultural forms of life from which you are approaching working on the individual consciousness. From a philosophical perspective, we have consciously doing it primarily with subjective world conditions, from which you are approaching working on social structures.
One could hold both views for each other equally, in the sense that - regardless of approach from any direction from us along with it life-world 'or' communicative memory 'phenomena described - you ultimately with different terms over the same speaks. I see two reasons not so. First of science for political reasons: the philosophy of consciousness has long been on the part of philosophy, and currently it dismissed by biologistic approaches (Neurobiology) from you as an old, long since proved inadequate description of the human being. Even science policy that is conscious philosophy has failed in the social sciences.
Secondly, I am convinced that it's actually just the opposite: not only the social sciences, but also the cultural and scientific descriptions of the people are founded on one side in the individual consciousness of man, - I trace back to the border with Plessner particular provision of the body body. , Founded on one side 'means that there is no dialectic of equiprimordiality between individual body and the whole body of social and cultural complex. Rather, we must establish this complex in its possibilities and limitations of the body until her body before it can go the opposite way and determine reasons for the individual consciousness from the social and forth.
Since I intended to be understood primarily as the life-world phenomenon of consciousness, I would like to hold on to this concept because the concept of communicative memory refers less to the individual consciousness rather than its social determinism and functionality. Live in a world thinks of labeling people as eccentric positionality its positioning in the middle of a world that is its naive directness that makes it impossible for him to make this world into question. This central position has its eccentric position as a periphery of his world-faced-being, balanced. This is what I call attitude and what I call in case the autonomy of our Judgement as a change ratio of naivety and criticism. Communicative memory is neither this Drin being in the middle of the living nor the outside world-being of the world compared to the expression. It describes a network structure and does not include an individual location (as a person) or a common horizon determination (as a living world).
would
In this post I go again on the similarities in the concepts of lifeworld and memory. I am referring to Assmann's "The cultural memory. Scripture Memory and political identity "(1992).
Assmann describes the difference between oral and written poets: "For the oral poet is not the tradition of 'outside': it goes through him and fills him from within. The writing poet by contrast, sees the tradition over from the outside and comfortable on his innermost self reliant to be able to assert themselves against it "(Cultural Memory (1992), p.99) -. Here we have exactly two different positions corresponding to the eccentricity : the oral poet is in the middle of the living world, ie a culture that has produced no written memory while writing the poet sees his written culture faced, so it is positioned eccentrically. Because: "Only by writing a character wins the tradition, the opposite could support their critical behavior ()." (Cultural Memory (1992), p. 100) is
The life-world as a "cultural formation" presented with the "house of their own (n) tends to the conventionality and contingency, that is, the also-otherwise, their conceivability constructions of reality, the veil of oblivion to width ". . Is explained by the natural growing dependence of man "(See Cultural Memory (1992), p.136) This tendency (ibid.) The animal that is" is by his instincts to a (species-specific) environment adapted "; man needs instead a "symbolically mediated (s) and thus habitable" made "World", just a life world, as "(second) nature." (See Cultural Memory (1992), S.136f.)
regard to the temporality of the life world, it strikes me as particularly interesting, as Assmann assigns the communicative memory to collective memory. He speaks of the latter as a "reference": "True, 'have no collective memory - a memory , only the individual man -" but they determine the memory of their limbs. Memories, the most personal nature is only through communication and interaction in social groups. ... Subject of memory and Memory is always the individual, but as a function of the 'framework' that organize his memory. "(See Cultural Memory (1992), p. 36)
This social" framework "in which and on the down the individual memory, communicatively formed 'would, if I understand correctly, like the shifting baselines work and join us with the boundaries of what we can observe in environmental and cultural changes in individual and intergenerational (three to four generations). The shifting baselines indicate subtle changes taking place so slowly that they are outside the 80 to 100 years extensive period of three to four generations are, to report within which still witnesses of past times. Anything that falls outside this period, in oral traditions left to either the final or forget part of the repertoire of legends and myths, ancestors', which are known only from songs and stories.
The social framework that formed the individual memory is so congruent with the living world in which we move. Your time is the mitwandernden and therefore timeless simultaneity 'of the said three or four generations. The frame changes never, because there is never a generation, and no single man ever outside this framework. This is precisely the reason why global encountered disasters' such as climate change and over again with skepticism. The changes associated with them are not only spatially but also temporally so far apart that they are not for the individual memory, are communicated '. This requires a cultural memory that extends beyond the life-world limitations of the Framework.
on the historical moment of cultural anthropology in the body release the body part of individual discernment as the following passage: "In Connection with the writing of traditions are taking place, a gradual transition from the dominance of repetition to the dominance of mindfulness, of, ritual 'to textual coherence'. In order for a new connective structure is formed. Their binding force does not mean imitation and preservation, but interpretation and memory. In place of the liturgy does hermeneutics "(Cultural Memory (1992), S.17f.) - By such a" deal with founding texts. Expository, imitation, learning and criticizing "possible product (see Cultural Memory (1992) , p.102), the individual discernment comes into its own. The Man begins to use his mind, within the life-world, framework ', but increasingly in an individual way. They not that we did not escape, is the decisive factor, but whether and how we know about him.
0 comments:
Post a Comment