Toward a Philosophy of the Act (M.M. Bakhtin)

9macrina9 Says:

Aug 9, 2009 - ",...don't have an alibi..."...and don't want one either,...as in the response-ability to one's own sonorous being; and that being, as an expression and extension of cosmos ultimately mirrors telos, magnifies telos, posits telos.....living in such resonance, as you say, inseperable with all ,..."You are another myself."

9macrina9 Says:

Aug 9, 2009 - forgot to rate :-) *****

soulfetcher Says:

Aug 10, 2009 - I loved it. But I think the last bit you read "we have here a theoretical positing which tends towards the ultimate limit of becoming completely free of any emotional volitional tone" implies an objective rather than emotionally toned 'ought'. Distinct from the "oughts" of relative morality systems, religions, etc which cause so much conflict. It is an ought derived from and (defined by) ones uniqness rather than from being in ones 'tribe'. Thus it is revolutionary, and personally compelling.

Professoranton Says:

Aug 10, 2009 - This is a wonderfully astute comment. You are right, and the theoreticism at end of the last read bit is what Bakhtin argues against. He wants the emotional/volitional sense of one's uniqueness to resonate with theoretical content-sense and to accordingly give the ought not by the content/sense but by one's recognition of one's participation in unitary Being.

jogayot Says:

Aug 13, 2009 - true anarchism da-bases itself as such a singularity.

jericomovie Says:

Aug 28, 2009 - The ethically compellant ought is the intuition of logic--isn't it? Logic, in the moment of its expression, occurs without alibi, right? Without worldview, without abstraction--it just is.Ugh...I might truly be lost. Just bury my body in Greece...

Professoranton Says:

Aug 28, 2009 - I think the book might help more than my explanation, but the drift is that even the Kantian categorical imperative will not suffice, and in fact it may seem to lend an alibi. But there is, moment by moment, an answerable and once-occurrent me who cannot simply rely upon what anyone can say. Having no alibi means that each of us cannot rely upon the content-sense of theoretical ethics.Objective truths may be useful but they cannot shoulder the burden of our unique answerability

sharonvideo Says:

Oct 15, 2009 - "Objective truths may be useful but they cannot shoulder the burden of our unique answerability "thanks

f1ghtclub2k3 Says:

Mar 21, 2010 - I like thisit has personal resonance with me as i have lost a brother, a best friend, at the age of 18 and ignorantly i tried against my mind to find someone that close to me somewhere and it never happened as it never will because of the uniqueness of what eahc individual brings to a relationship with others and then that even more unique occurence when the relationship unfolds by meeting of perspectives and creates ever new ones with the steady foundation of already loving one as he/ she is...

f1ghtclub2k3 Says:

Mar 21, 2010 - or may become...I think this is also a source of resentment when certain expectations are made or at least in my own case when my brother died of an O.D. i knew he was better than that...and it was an act devoid of this exact understanding...nevertheless one still loves...

ZurDruid Says:

Aug 16, 2010 - difficult to find that book ... but is easy to envisage if you know other fluxes

Gzero91 Says:

Nov 29, 2010 - This is verry deep, I need to find this book, It might just be the book for me!

Neilgs Says:

Feb 3, 2011 - "That we don't have an alibi in it" is (or goes along with) the same thing as saying there is no "theoretical framework" or mechanistic model that can be held apart or subdivided (a deus ex machina) as the objectivity of our existence. This essentially means (or this one interpretative looking out upon other, as itself cannot be the subject of extraction abstraction), that we create the universe as we go along in the responsibility of dialogical relations or the act of the utterance.A ripple

Neilgs Says:

Feb 3, 2011 - among ripple in a sea or lake of ripple, like skipping a stone. At one point do we enter the dialogical flow? At what point do we exit? At what point are we drawing the diagram and interpreting? Who is speaking for whom? Hence the "Philosophy of the Act" or the "Responsibility of the act" or the "Flight of the Alone to the Alone." The utterance cannot be dissected in terms of linguistic units or signs. It is an unbroken whole. Indeed, we can for purposes of discussion, but not for purpose of

Neilgs Says:

Feb 3, 2011 - interpenetration or, perhaps, more aptly put the "Poetic utterance" or the position of empathic awareness. This I believe brings us to something that is implied but missing, in what I gleaned from the bit I read on Bakhtin (and in fact relates him to Benjamin Lee Whorf and Romantic poetic understanding including Hindu thought,, I know I am using a wide brush here), which is apperception or metalinguistic position , which attain viability between and betwixt the "narratives"as it is the mirror

Neilgs Says:

Feb 3, 2011 - image or inverse. An implied or Silent Understanding upon which dances multiplicities or possibilities of definition (or how we define, translate or label the utterances). The counterpart to "speaking" is silent intent or Poetic utterance!