Funny Post Wedding Invitation Wording Examples

intercorporeality and myself have

Plessner's flat against the "modern Anticartesianismus" directed accused to face the "mind-body problem 'not by' them ', ie the Anticartesianisten, a supposedly more" problem-free, original layer of existence and of existence " go back, not only could, I suppose, be directed against the life-world theorists - it could also, regardless of original Plessner Intention that it be against the "intercorporeality" by Bernhard Waldenfels. (See ders, the physical self. Lectures on the phenomenology of the body, Frankfurt aM 2000, S.284ff., S.292ff. S.302f.) Intercorporeality Also this seems to me the concept of excentric positionality circumscribed Leib/Körper- problem to be withdrawn and to a certain extent by, Intersubjektivierung obscure ': no longer "habeas corpus", but "habeamus intercorporalitas. Subjective individuality is Waldenfels no longer a problem - only one of Cartesianism against whom he is addressing. (For example, in his review of Hermann Schmitz: Waldenfels 2000, p.278-284)

intercorporeality is described as a sphere of Waldenfels between "own body" and "foreign body". (See Waldenfels 2000, p.287) In order directs Waldenfels attention from the subject and the individual path to social processes faced by the subject only becomes visible as a party, which is associated with forest rock with a devaluation of its (ie the subject) position . This is reflected among others in Waldenfels' - from the difference of body / mind / spirit reminiscent - Classification of "strictly private" as subjective, the objective lenses as "trans subjective" and the Inter-subjectivity as the "sphere the intermediate, "so as intercorporeality. (See Waldenfels 2000 S.292f.) Subjectivity, the subjective consciousness, the subjective individual, the 'person', as will always be assigned to subjectivity in Waldenfels no responsibility for themselves and their own initiative, but only by Otherwise her: "A decision is not the result of individuals ...". Decision processes occur only "in the group" now and are "marked through it." (See Waldenfels 2000, p.303)

Waldenfels himself admits that "after mixing, looks like a confusion, so that you can not say clearly what one does and what the other, and the responsibilities threaten to blur. "(Waldenfels 2000, p.304) But he turns objected that the" question of who ... no clear-cut answer admits "(Waldenfels 2000, p.304) -. against this lax use of subjective responsibility, I have some objections.

My main objection is to the top even as a "mind / body problem" mentioned eccentric positionality of human nature. This provides a physical limit of the physical-world relevance of human action. We know as individuals to our well-being and vulnerability. We as individuals all the risk of existence. We are never only social decision-making indirectly involved, but it always directly affected. Because we have a body and can not escape him as the consequences of our decisions or the decisions of others. We are here and now present, following from the inside to the outside of our needs, such as from the outside in the forward-us needs the other suspended.

Plessner So far, the forest rock in "The bodily self," although occasionally, referring to him, quoted, with which he deals but not really. This is particularly annoying because Waldenfels the difference between inside and outside, that is the body of Doppelaspektivität Do- and body-being, the central moment described by Plessner eccentric positionality just as useless "dichotomy" dismiss ("We have ... from the beginning nothing of this dichotomy ..." (cf. Waldenfels 2000 S.221f.)) but at the same time has no problem with it, to refer to Plessner's "duality as" eccentric position 'of the people "(cf. Waldenfels 2000, p.254), without this term, to which exactly one of these Doppelaspektivität inside and outside, also to differentiate in the least.

Waldenfels' approach is a priori a language-related phenomenology, all preverbal states only as a linguistic Descriptions take note, so there can of course not "pure introspection," just because "it shall be a description always in a language that is not only my own." (See Waldenfels 2000, p.221) Since, a "Noli me tangere", as formulated as Plessner identification of mental states to come, not even in sight.

To my concept of self-effects from Waldenfels' to distinguish language oriented phenomenology, I could perhaps try as hard as' call and Waldenfels' concept of intercorporeality as' soft '. , Soft 'is his concept, because it the subject added is due to its limited perspective (see Waldenfels 2000 S.292f.) do not own position. Restricting consideration includes also the site of my very subject approach - apart from the fact that in principle, each location is limited in perspective. But he also includes a restriction Gegenüberstelltsein: an eccentric position. Waldenfels does not understand this eccentric positionality of man, this simultaneity of in-being and comparison-being, and can therefore start with a position that is justified "from nowhere", nothing. (See Waldenfels 2000, p.283) His proposal, in respect of the difference of speak to "the spirit and nature" of "self-differentiation" (cf. ibid), but does take the place of the rejected "by him" from nowhere "just another bland description of the same facts, the Plessner with the eccentric Positionaliät long in sufficient manner the term has to be related. be the subject she can not have ', in an original, self:

, soft' would Waldenfels' subject concept finally, because according to him the objects, which turns to the subject to think in advance only from other manufacturers are 'founded, founding manner. Perception of taken in advance of forest rock as something that the consciousness of its objects are not about, 'but the objects that we can have her only by the Other, "dispossessed" (cf. Waldenfels 2000, S.294) - as could there be a separate independent consciousness of objects!

Consciousness arises but one with its objects, according to my 'hard' concept that so hard ', because it (the subject) has its own point - again in his articles. What else? Just as the subjective consciousness of his body, has ',' has it his subjects, and it will have both full and not just an arm or a foot. My concept of subjectivity is a concept of myself, and that includes that I have a personal, subjective interest in the ownership of goods. I will try to share my article with others - I need the perspectives of others on my subject, without which he would not be complete - but I will raise it against a misinterpretation, to a transformation into something else when I see him can defend. I will contact me so against any attempt to him from me. I do need the courage to use my own mind, without the guidance of someone else.

This concept of self possessions does not contradict the idea that the objects are alien to consciousness, because they oppose him. This also corresponds to the eccentricity of the people. He can not 1: 1 to incorporate the world, as little as he wishes his 1: 1 can implement in the world. But that that's part of the quality of the action in the world, that seem to us the victories as the most satisfying that we had to implement against a resistance, a satisfaction that we can not provide pure fantasy or fiction.

Some Reactive Lymphocytes

Helmuth Plessner, Laughing and crying. A study of the limits of human behavior, Munich 1950 (1941)

first Positionality and attitude
second Positionality and third situation
Feeling and meaning
4th Mind and heart
5th Stupidity and intelligence

over stupidity can write a lot clever. This includes but not to present them as opposed to intelligence. Stupidity is no more a contrast to intelligence as intelligence is unrelated to the individual and social need position on anything, write on the subject is worthwhile. Whatever of substance is on 'intelligence' attempts to find out - you will always ultimately have to make a reference to the requirements of the economic and cultural conditions under which the respective individual 'intelligence' must prove, and this one will come to the same result, as Joseph Jacotot (4.03.1770-30.07.1840), whose life and work of Jacques Rancière in his book "The ignorant teacher" describes. Jacotot was that we develop the intelligence, claim the needs and circumstances of our existence from us: "Where ends the need to rest from the intelligence, but a stronger will be procured ear and says: Go on ... "(See Jacques Ranciere, The ignorant master five lessons about intellectual emancipation, Vienna 2007, p. 66.)

succinctly summarized in the formula:" The . Man is a will, which is an intelligence "(Ranciere, 2007, p.66) - we have here again the connection between mind and heart of reflection and / or naivete. This ratio determination of individual Judgement, the concept of "stupidity" to search for anything.

why it surprised me very much that I at just Plessner, whose sharp, sophisticated and unbiased view of human nature I guess so much and admire, in a rather - come across, oblique 'relation of stupidity and intelligence - I think. For example, with "laughter and tears," that "the stupidity of much laugh more (prone) than the intelligence, "and justified this with the narrowness of the horizon of the" stupid "because:" The closer to the horizon, the poorer the possibilities of understanding, the more rapidly on the border of absurdity and ambivalence " , then to laugh. (See, laughing / crying, p.121)

In this curious set of horizon structure, stupidity and intelligence Plessner contradicts everything he wrote before and afterwards on laughter. Although he was fine with a precise feeling of the life-world theorists used, whom he accuses of avoiding the mind-body problem "by an allegedly still in trouble, original Layer of existence and the existence of "retreat (see laughing / crying, p.39) and therefore can not comprehend that draws the line between familiarity and strangeness through the middle of the living world, he says in relation to the folly of the narrowness of horizon! Laughter is Plessner's own analysis suggests that first of all a loss of control in the familiar conditions of life from the inside by pulling line between familiarity and strangeness, a loss of control both over their own bodies and about the situation regarding, the physical reactions in the laughter and tears the situation regarding to acknowledge 'that can let go of his unanswerable.

If one were talking seriously of 'stupidity', one would not therefore belong to approximately the horizon structure, which can ultimately be only the horizon structure of a living world that has a horizon with laughter and tears not the least to do, but this mechanism of letting go. However, this requires first of all of naivety. For to let go laugh in the face of the breaking up in the middle of seemingly familiar (and not from a limited and limiting horizon ago dawning) Aliens control and, we need simplicity, again trusting that it will go well with the laughter.

Indeed, when us gets the laugh of the evil? - When we let us not just us and the situation we are facing helpless, but if we can laugh at someone in the lurch, which is also a form of letting go, just not good. For it in the laughter there's always the danger to others (and thus also himself) to be failing - to laugh at him. This tendency, however, the 'intelligence' as well as that stupid '. Stupidity and intelligence are just not mutually exclusive! They wear the same weakness in himself: to give up the check does not want to uphold the position at any price to do even at the expense of others. Let go and let you down close to each other. Let us go, so it is naive, We have someone in the lurch, it is folly, not least because stupid let themselves down.

So it's just as Jacotot writes: ". Man is a will, which is an intelligence" - where the will will be respected, even if the circumstances deny him his performance, he is the intelligence to serve there as well try, with what consequences whatsoever. But otherwise is stupidity.