"If I could be in a group, a collective, a community, that community would have to remain unconditionally open to the attitude of critical questioning."
Irony? I don't think so. Paradox maybe, but again, this depends upon your own doxa. This is not ironic. Rather, the sentence you quoted is an attempt to change the ontological status of the relationship between the ego and the totality of beings (i.e., the cosmos, community, collective, etc.). In particular, I'm trying to apply the phenomenological insights of Jean-luc Nancy to the task of reframing the sense of community. It seems that community can include all beings (in the individuality and totality) insofar as the operation of such inclusion is explicitly inoperative. This sense of an inoperative operation of community is the sense of the world. Because breaks and ruptures are essential to its constitution, an inoperative community can include things which are, as such, impossible to include (i.e., things which are outside the horizon of human community in the traditional sense, including supposedly non-human things like stones, water, animals, plants, deities, subtle or astral energies, etc
( ... )
Comments 2
Oh, the irony!!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment