Who Put The Benzedrine In Mrs. Murphy's Ovaltine?
Jan. 17th, 2006
EDIT: have either of you ever read or heard of any positive correlation between language acquisition and degredation of other mental faculties, specifically in the case of feral children?
Dec. 7th, 2005
12:32 am - Maiden Voyage!
Hi guys. I started this group because I know that there are a growing number of people out there who are interested in Transwankerist theory, particularly in regards to politics, literary criticism and ontology. I’m by no means an expert, but I saw a lack in the LJ community and took it upon myself to put a group together. I hope some more people join. :-)
Anyway, I don’t have much to say right now (disappointing for a maiden post, I know!) so I’ll just type up a quote from Alden which I think will generate a good initial discussion. It’s taken from his memoir, Ontological Rough Trade, and is, according to most scholars, his clearest elucidation of the concepts of perceptativeness and inter-perceptativeness, which cause many problems for readers new to Transwankerist theory. They are key concepts, and are unfortunately dealt with too illucidly in the more formal texts. Here goes:
In this sublunary world of complex human sign-environments, in which communication is essential for survival, very few ask what communication is, or question its perceived innate goodness. So dependent are we on its presence in our lives that we are fooled into a subservient relationship to symbols; and we speak of communication and miscommunication as if we could draw a clear distinction between the two, when in reality we rarely have substantial confirmation that we have been understood by others, or that we understand what our fellows wish to communicate to us.
In my many years of dealing with the written word—as a journalist, conventional prosaist, poet, “experimental” provocateur, critic—I have experienced time after time the thrill of putting out a work and observing the response to it. This never fails to surprise. Some readers seem to “get” what I have to say moreso than others, but all misconstrue to some degree. Criticism is a strange land! Scholars read my works, misinterpret them, commentate, and then other scholars read their commentaries, misinterpret them, commentate, ad infinitum, into greater and greater realms of absurdity that reference my original ideas less and less. This, simply, is a demonstration of the interperceptative process, and is not limited to commentary on Transwankerist texts, but to the whole gamut of communication.
Perception, defined in one usual sense (and by usual I mean non phenomenological), is becoming aware through intake of data by the senses. This understanding presupposes that the impressions can be trusted generally, common exceptions being cases involving insanity or chemical intoxication. Anyone who has ever witnessed testimony at a criminal trial will doubt such an assertion, especially in the realm of human communication, whose veracity is less, even, than other classes of phenomena.
Call to mind the game of “telephone.” I assert that for the most part, what passes for apprehension in communication is in fact misapprehension, and call deducement from misunderstood data perceptation, as opposed to perception (which I reject, anyway). The initial inference results from perceptation, but this leads, quite often, to another person responding to the explanation of the perceptation, and that begins the process of interperceptation (a “back and forth” of response that moves further and further away even from the unreality of the perceptation). Call to mind my earlier example of literary criticism. I maintain, as I always have, that we exist in a self-created universe and that the question of the noumena, and of gods and first causes, is not relevant at this point, and the relevance is decreasing as we get further away from the initial perceptation that set the universe as we know it in motion.
Navigate: (Next 6 Entries)