(Introduction: What is the "cultural memory", p.11-44; Invisible Religion and Cultural Memory, p.45-61, monotheism, memory and trauma Reflections on Freud's Moses-book, p.62?. -80, five stages on the way to the canon. Tradition and culture of writing in ancient Israel and early Judaism, p.81-100; Remember to belong. Writing, memory and identity, p.101-123; cultural texts in the tension between orality and literacy, p.124-147, text and ritual. The importance of the media in the history of religion, p.148-166, Officium memoriae: ritual as a medium of thought, p.167-184; of quotation life. Thomas Mann and the phenomenology of cultural memory, p.185-207, Egypt in the Memorial History of the West, p.210-222)
first Surface and depth
second Attitude and "vertical anchoring"
third Lifeworld and memory
In Günther Anders I thought his breaking the generational relationship made necessary reaffirmation of the humanity to come upon a mind-body limit for the individual analog eccentric positionality. (See my post from 28/01/2011 to homo excentricus) is missing, this related to the human eccentric positionality, however, the material basis, that is comparable to the body body ratio determination. Not so the new definition of humanity as an act subject relates to the fact of the atomic bomb at any time threatening extinction of all life on this earth. All knowledge and actions of man must from now on with regard to this global challenge, Humanity as a whole inclusive dangerous situation warrant. The atomic bomb is therefore the ultimate legitimizing background against which stand out the shape of the future, nor the only possible survival of humanity as a subject.
But this legitimacy film is in no way comparable to the individual body body, and therefore one can not really, not even in the analog sense, eccentric from a positionality, or speak of humanity or any individual generations, however much their actions on the survival of future generations vorentscheidet. Therefore, I tried to get me to a theorist of cultural memory, clarity, and I'm with Jan Assmann find anything. There are some parallels to other Assmann and Plessner, which are very revealing. The parallel with Anders is mainly to highlight a particular historical date, which is provided by Assmann as a humanity boundary marking the center of all future scientific research, that is similar to the atomic bomb in Anders. While different, however, worried as technology critics of the atomic bomb looks into the future, Jan Assmann sees as classical scholars (which it incidentally, by the way, if only for professional reasons, oppose any form of nihilism immune does) with the reference, Auschwitz 'particularly anxious to the past - of course a past with her own future reference, that they are not repeated is to: "Auschwitz, the darkest chapter of German history, has long been the dimensions of a normative past accepted 'that can come under any circumstances be forgotten and must not, because it has become widely over the memories of perpetrators and victims of such a thing also universalized bonding memory and founding member of a global civil religion ... "(Cultural Memory 2000 S.36f.)
important here is the notion of" universalized bond memory ", that refers to a human subject, his future Action of a memory binding '. It is this historical in nature, which makes up the difference this subject humanity to that which describes Günther Anders. Fatal but when that is that Assmann of memory a material basis, namely the writing, a basis, those who think like me, well is analogous to the individual body and limb to beyond even as one of the eccentric positionality of the body abdomen equitable extension of human consciousness work. The bonding memory or the cultural memory corresponds to what Plessner calls "spirit", that is the aspect of the contemporary world in human consciousness, which of course here raises the same question, how do we differentiate in this and the following posts between consciousness and memory.
include consciousness and memory, one for each different double aspect, which is in turn in a different relationship to the world. The double aspect of human consciousness is that it is either the world is facing, as a peripheral, or in the middle of it is, as its center. Both mean a difference to the world, sometimes eccentric, that is specifically human difference, sometimes a center, so specific animal difference. Time we are dealing with a self-conscious and sometimes with an immediate consciousness. But always we are dealing with a to do consciousness, the world is the totality of all possible objects of perception of current and recent activity. Never is the consciousness of the world itself
The memory can now have a world consciousness as the reference, as the totality of all possible objects of past observations and past actions, and as such it forms an integral moment of consciousness. At the same time it is but a world apart, an inner world, the opposite is the consciousness as well as eccentrically positioned to the outside world. Consciousness is thus his memory equally with respect to the center as peripherals.
are consciousness and memory - Unlike consciousness and the world - intertwined. Since memory is no external world, but an inner world. Therefore, the cultural memory, even though it involves primarily a cultural objectification in the Scriptures as laid down outside the horizon, form a separate field of consciousness: the biography as a form of individual consciousness preformation collective unconscious. (. See Cultural Memory 2000, p. 38, 118f, 189, 191, 196 and elsewhere)
Assmann describes consciousness as "surface" and the memory as "depth": "surface: This is the room of consciousness. ... , Depth "means the consciousness of the latent space has withdrawn ..." (See Cultural Memory 2000, p.119) - This is a very nice description of the difference between consciousness and memory. For consciousness is always surface, that perception, whether it's turning the world as the outside world or the world as a reminder. Meet him the objects of the external world from the outside, reflected, 'it is just as in perception, as when they emerge from the depths of memory. Consciousness is always consciousness, namely surface, but the world is sometimes outside and sometimes inner world, ie memory, and its dimension is not the room, but the depth.
In summary, one can therefore say that consciousness means the connection to the world as the totality of objects of possible perception and possible action. Memory means the connection to the world as a whole realized perceptions and realized actions. At the same time form a consciousness and memory, the biographical form of consciousness-shaping inner relationship to the world.
0 comments:
Post a Comment