Posted by: Xhyra Graf | 26 February 2007

Magazine Chic


Originally uploaded by Xhyra Graf.

I don’t think I noted anywhere that in this one of the digital erasure series, the digital image was taken from a drawing of the magazine chick.


In my other life [the purgatory of the corporate world], I spent quite a bit of my free time reading Vogue, Cosmo and all those other self esteem smashing mags. Although, I was mostly occupied with cutting out pictures of clothing that made awesome lines for collages. This photo at the time blew me away with its ‘not realness’, it was just incredibly beautiful in a way that only post processing can make something beautiful. No wonder women have issues… Anyway the point is that yeah, by the time we process something so that it reaches the conscious level, it kind of looks like this digital erasure version; where we have kept the salient features and it in essence becomes something else entirely. This post was supposed to be about the fact that I’m reading Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff & Johnson… so far, so…well, nothing. I am reading it because I have to more so than because I need or want to. I hate that.

Look, I hope they become more subtle in the points they are trying to make because so far in lauding the amazing revelation from cognitive science that our reason is shaped by the vast and deep levels of unconscious, autonomous thingies going on in our brain and bodies*, they have 1.) Attributed to Kant the very zero sum interpretations that are commonly and mistakenly attributed to Kant**; the reason I wanted to avoid him in this paper, 2.) assumed that self-reflection is only guided by a philosopher’s [and that includes their interpretation of phenomenologists] definition of mind, reason or introspection and are 3.) still binding the parameters of reality to human measurement and excluding the concept of transcendence by asserting that there is no such thing as ‘disembodied consciousness’.

I’m sure I heard somewhere that religious experience of the mystical kind was probably just ‘unordered consciousness’… hello? Um…Am I the only one that doesn’t have a problem with this? Outside of our preconception of space and time, unordered, disembodied…did anyone really read Kant? Besides the fact that he wimped out of saying that some may be able to know of experience outside of space & time we just can’t [yet] objectively prove it in a way that would make it real knowledge. Well, one would never finish a treatise, critique or master’s paper if one didn’t leave out certain things in order to make one’s point. Language, bah! I really know that I am annoyed right now. I don’t need proof. [Oh God, if I continue to write honestly, I will be the Qualiaphile Daniel Dennett. Noooooo! I can see it now “All of you that stubbornly refuse to see the reality and importance of qualia are just pandering to a psycho-neurologically embedded disfunction in the neural networks controlling the quantum relations throughout the stabilizing pan-energy fields that serve to stave off wavefunction collapse in the face of the unknown; the neural correlate to both dogmatic atheism and dogmatic theism, differing only by individually determined spatio-temporal locus of previous neuro-quantum states that affect the type of observer entanglement. The parameters, structures and predictive efficacy of the Qualia phenomenon can be elucidated by Quantum Mechanical Liturgical Eisegesis or HeteroPhenomeNeuroTheology.” Hmmm, I do seem to be a bit more comfortable now. I understand Dennett finally.]

Of course there is disembodied consciousness; it is a consciousness that can grasp and interact with, even for specious present, the reality ‘out there’ that is different from, larger than and outside of our ’embodied’ understanding without reading Philosophy in the Flesh or any other frelling book. Well… maybe the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching, Qur’an, Torah, a Buddhist Canon, Lord of the Rings, Dr. Suess, something, anything other than Late 20th Century Analytic Philosophy. Frell.

Sigh, but what other tools do I have at the moment…it is appropriate that one of them is a linguistics professor. Frelling language…Why, why am I doing this to myself? I really should just make art and pray. Maybe I should take a look at my calendar and see if this is day 15.

* any joe schmo, artist or praying person can tell you – maybe not in the words cognitive unconscious – that there is rewiring of our ‘thinking’ done outside of ‘reason’.

** And of course, my interpretations are shaped by my background processes.

2011/01/19: Still finding errant characters/links and updating…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: