Comment

Comment by 家 在這裡 6 hours ago

馬丁·路德對艾克哈特作品的了解一直是學術討論的焦點，毫無疑問，艾克哈特的神學對路德產生了影響[4]。但除了這種哲學上的承繼之外，艾爾福特的環境是否也影響了艾克哈特與路德的思想？我們是否可以識別出某些與艾爾福特環境獨特相關的聯繫，將艾克哈特與路德跨越時空地連結起來？

語言的影響？

語言對於艾克哈特與路德的工作至關重要，因為他們都致力於推動宗教與哲學知識的語言通俗化。艾克哈特將拉丁概念轉化為德語詞彙，並創造了許多新術語，影響了德語哲學，直至黑格爾與海德格爾。 

“梅斯特·艾克哈特無疑是德語中全新哲學與神學術語的創造者。”（Knaebel 2002, 21）[5] 

克納貝爾（Knaebel）強調，艾克哈特在這一過程中運用了「德語語言天賦」（génie propre de la langue allemande）（Knaebel 2002, 20）。因此，艾克哈特的工作不僅僅是翻譯，而是一場真正的哲學創造，塑造了適合中古高地德語語言與認知特性的術語。

法國地理學家雅克·萊維（Jacques Lévy，2013，2021）所創造的「共空間性」（co-spatiality）概念，定義了一種特定類型的「空間間性」（interspatiality），即不同空間之間的關係。「共空間性」基於這樣的想法：空間作為一種多層次的現實，可以根據不同的度量標準（即距離管理策略）來運作。此外，由行動者透過現實或想像的空間行動所創造的每一層空間，可能——也可能不會——與其他佔據相同物理範圍的空間層次「垂直地」互動（Lévy，2003，第213頁）。「共空間性」指的正是這種在同一物理範圍內兩個不同但重疊的空間之間的「垂直」聯繫。然而，兩種現實同時存在於同一個「此在」並不足以構成「共空間性」的互動。正如萊維所強調的，「共空間性」並不是兩個空間共存的機械性或顯然的結果（Lévy，2003，第213頁）。事實上，即便在不同空間現實間存在接觸區域，人們仍可能學會「看不見」其中一個或多個空間，從而忽視某些社會世界的元素，因為他們認為（或被教導認為）這些元素與自己無關。這一現象在中國·米耶維（China Miéville）所著的科幻小說《雙城》（The City and the City）中被藝術性地描繪，也曾在全球多個實施種族隔離政策的政權中被強制施行（Lévy，2021）。事實上，「共空間性」的地理學概念在芝加哥學派的「一座城市中的多座城市」研究中得到了具體體現。根據這一研究，即便社會行動者共享同一物理範圍（即城市空間），他們也未必居住在「同一座城市」。

那麼，兩個不同但重疊的空間如何發生接觸呢？根據萊維的觀點，「共空間性」的關係只有透過「開關」（switch）這一第三元素才能實現。「開關」是能夠連結兩個不同空間層次的場所。例如，萊維常舉的例子是一座火車站，它「讓旅人從受鐵路網約束的空間轉換到更為縝密的城市街道網絡」（Lévy，2021）。換言之，「開關」使人們得以從一種距離管理策略轉換到另一種策略，進而從一個空間切換到另一個空間。

UrbRel 應用

「共空間性」透過「開關」的概念，也可以追溯到前現代時期。以中世紀印度的紀念性階梯井（stepwells）為例，這些場所最初是城市社群的主要水源，但後來逐漸被賦予宗教意義，成為進行儀式與奉獻活動的空間。在實踐與敘事中，這些空間為不同宗教與社會群體——尤其是女性——所共享。其他城市「共空間性」的例子，還包括那些同步被不同種族、文化，甚至宗教背景的群體所使用的朝聖地。

城市空間由多重重疊的空間構成，這些空間源於不同群體對空間的想像與使用，並因不同行動者的移動而變得複雜。宗教為我們理解這一現象提供了一種有趣的視角，因為宗教既是一種透過儀式使用來標記空間的技術（無論是短暫的還是持久的空間神聖化），也是一種文化技術。

2020年，UrbRel 年度研討會的主題即為「共空間性」，探討那些被不同群體在同一時間或不同時期，以不同方式生產、使用與詮釋的場所與空間。這一概念促使我們反思：(i) 不同群體對同一空間的重疊使用或詮釋如何被機構、個人與團體調節，以促進或避免「共空間性」互動；(ii) 時間性在「共空間性」互動中的作用；(iii) 這種特定的空間交錯如何促使宗教與城市變遷。

Comment by 家 在這裡 yesterday

共時性（Co-Temporalities）

「共時性」的概念建立在一個洞見之上：時間是一種文化建構，因此是相對的，依賴於具體的社會情境。從這一視角來看，時間性從單一性轉變為多樣性，受不同競爭或合作因素影響，從而決定「共時性」如何互動與共存。特別是在都市空間中，不同時間性往往會產生衝突與變遷，並伴隨著不同群體與國家機構所經歷的交錯節奏。「共時性」使研究者能夠掌握城市中這些複雜的時間動態，進而更好地理解城市性與時間的關係。

「共時性」的概念是以「共空間性」為模型，後者由萊維在2003年提出，以描述空間的多層次性。萊維通過「空間間性」的概念，闡述了不同現實間的重疊與互動。同樣地，「共時性」提供了一種分析方法，來探討時間維度中的「共空間性」，即城市中不同時間性與時間實踐的重疊。這一方法建立在「共時性」必須「發生於某地」的假設之上，因此，時間具有多重層次或結構，並且這些層次可以共存。在城市空間中，這一點尤為明顯，不同群體以不同的方式經歷著各種時間形態。

這一方法部分受到亨利·列斐伏爾（Henri Lefebvre）的城市節奏分析的影響（Lefebvre，1992，遺作出版）。列斐伏爾致力於分析城市空間的節奏，以及這些節奏如何影響居民的日常生活。他與妻子兼合作者凱薩琳·瑞居利耶（Catherine Régulier）共同研究了時間、空間、建築與街道運動的交錯（Lefebvre & Régulier，1986）。

在更具解構性的意義上，米歇爾·傅柯（Michel Foucault）在1970年代的《規訓與懲罰》（Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison）中已指出，時間如何在現代社會（如監獄、軍隊、學校）中被規範、刻印與結構化。傅柯的門生吉爾·德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze）在《控制社會的後記》（Postscript on the Societies of Control）一文中進一步發展這一概念，認為在後規訓社會（即日益社會技術化的現代城市中），時間作為控制因素已經變得可調節、可操縱，使個體從啟蒙哲學中的「完整主體」，變為可操控的「分割個體」（dividual）（Deleuze，1992）。

從宗教研究的角度來看，「共時性」也可借鑒查爾斯·泰勒（Charles Taylor，2007）的觀點，即世俗性本身就是一種時間形態。然而，現代化並非均質或同質的，甚至並非必然非宗教化。因此，正如埃森斯塔特（Shmuel N. Eisenstadt，2003）所言，「多重現代性」可以同時存在，並在全球城市化空間與多元城市中上演，有時和諧共存，有時則發生衝突。

換言之，「共時性」作為「共空間性」的補充概念，將時間維度納入對重疊空間的分析之中。畢竟，正如愛因斯坦所教導的，時間與空間可以被擴展、壓縮、扭曲與變形，受物質、建築、城市、身體、污染以及生命運動的影響。(Source: Erfurt-ness by Sara Keller · Published August 19, 2019 · Updated April 10, 2024)

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 26, 2024 at 8:35pm

APP Iconada: Vocative Object vs Evocative Object

The terms "vocative object" and "evocative object" pertain to distinct but related concepts often discussed in literature, cognitive poetics, and phenomenology. Here’s a breakdown of their differences:

Vocative Object  （呼唤型物項）

Definition: A "vocative object" refers to something that directly addresses or calls upon the subject, often implying an intentional or direct engagement. The term "vocative" comes from the Latin vocare, meaning "to call." In literary or cognitive terms, it represents objects that summon attention or dialogue with the observer, almost as if they possess a voice or agency.

Function: Vocative objects engage in a sort of conversation with the subject; they compel a response. They are often imbued with a sense of urgency or immediacy, demanding recognition or interaction.

Examples

Letters in ancient poetry that seem to directly address the reader or another character, serving as active agents in communication.

Religious icons or artifacts that "call" to the faithful, not just as symbols but as entities asking for interaction.

A mirror reflecting one's image, metaphorically "speaking" back to the observer.

2. Evocative Object （引發情感的念物、情動物、喚起性物件、回味無窮的物體、觸動心靈的造物、引發共鳴的物品）

Definition: An "evocative object" is something that elicits feelings, memories, or associations within the subject. The term "evocative" comes from the Latin evocare, meaning "to call forth." These objects don't directly engage the subject but rather provoke an inner response, often emotional or imaginative.

Function: Evocative objects trigger a deeper, often subconscious, response that may include nostalgia, inspiration, or a sense of wonder. They don’t "speak" to the observer but rather act as catalysts for personal or collective memory and emotion.

Examples

A childhood toy that brings back memories of early years.

A photograph that evokes a specific time, place, or emotional state.

Natural objects like seashells or stones that stir a sense of place or personal reflection.

Key Differences

Engagement vs. Provocation

Vocative objects actively engage or call out to the observer, establishing a direct connection.

Evocative objects provoke internal responses without direct engagement, often relying on the observer's personal context or experiences.

Agency

Vocative objects possess an agency that suggests they are "speaking" or interacting with the observer.

Evocative objects have no such agency; they do not "speak" but instead "suggest" or "trigger" responses.

Nature of Response

Vocative objects elicit a communicative or dialogical response.

Evocative objects elicit an emotional, imaginative, or reflective response.

These distinctions highlight how objects can influence human perception and interaction differently, either through direct engagement or by quietly stirring inner worlds.

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 24, 2024 at 6:00am

爱垦APP: “認知詩學”對人類創造力的影响

“认知诗学”（cognitive poetics）是一个将认知科学与文学研究结合的领域，旨在探讨人类在阅读和理解文学作品时的心理和认知过程。它对人类创造力的影响主要体现在以下几个方面：

理解创造力的认知机制

认知诗学通过研究读者如何在阅读过程中理解、想象和共情，揭示了创造力的认知机制。它表明创造力不仅仅是一种天赋或灵感，而是深深植根于人类的认知功能，如联想、类比、隐喻和象征等。这种理解有助于解释为什么某些文学形式能够激发创作者和读者的想象力。

激发和增强创造力

认知诗学的研究表明，文学作品中的语言、结构和情感内容可以激发读者的大脑活动，从而触发创造性思维。例如，通过使用隐喻和象征，文学作品可以促使读者跨越不同的概念领域，激发新的想法和洞见。这种跨领域的思维方式是创造力的核心。

跨学科的创造性应用

认知诗学不仅应用于文学领域，还可以应用于艺术、设计、教育等其他领域。通过理解认知和情感如何在文学中发挥作用，创作者可以在其他创意工作中运用这些认知技巧，以产生更加富有想象力和情感共鸣的作品。

提升文学创作的创造力

对于作家和诗人来说，认知诗学提供了对读者心理反应的深刻理解，这可以帮助他们在创作过程中更有意识地运用语言和叙事技巧，以产生预期的情感和认知效果。了解读者如何处理文本中的信息，可以帮助创作者更有效地构建故事和诗歌，从而增强其艺术效果和创造性。

促进对创造力的科学研究
认知诗学通过实验和理论分析，为创造力研究提供了科学依据。它为研究人员提供了一种方法，可以量化和分析文学中的创造性过程，从而加深对创造力如何在大脑中运作的理解。这种科学研究不仅有助于文学研究，也对心理学、神经科学和人工智能的发展具有重要意义。

认知诗学通过揭示文学阅读和创作背后的认知过程，深化了我们对人类创造力的理解。它不仅帮助我们理解创造力的认知基础，还为创作者提供了工具，提升他们的创作能力，并促进跨学科的创新应用。

相关：呼唤型造物  evocative object  The Etymology of Vocative Linguistic Theory on Vocative  Conation & Affects Vivo's aesthetics         当符号呼唤象征

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 23, 2024 at 12:14pm

APP Iconada: Conation & Affects

The concepts of Conation and Affects both engage with how human beings interact with the world, but they emphasize different aspects of human experience. Here's a comparative breakdown of the two:

Conation

Definition: Conation refers to the aspect of mental life related to motivation, intention, will, and purposeful action. It encompasses the drive to act, make decisions, pursue goals, and engage with the world in a directed way. In psychological terms, it is often seen alongside cognition (thinking) and affection (feeling) as one of the three primary functions of the mind.

Focus: Conation focuses on the motivational dimension of behavior—how intentions and desires translate into actions. It deals with agency, goaldirected behavior, and the will to influence or change circumstances.

Example: A student deciding to study late into the night to prepare for an exam demonstrates conation. This drive is not just about feeling or thinking but actively choosing to pursue a goal.

Affects

Definition: Affects refer to the emotional experiences, feelings, or states of being that influence how we perceive and respond to the world. Affects encompass both shortterm emotional reactions (like joy, anger, or sadness) and more sustained emotional states.

Focus: Affects are concerned with the emotional and experiential aspects of human life—how we feel, respond emotionally, and are affected by internal and external stimuli. Affect is more about the immediacy of emotional responses rather than deliberate action.

Example: Feeling anxious before a public speaking event is an affective response. This anxiety shapes how one perceives the situation but doesn’t necessarily involve action unless linked with a conative aspect (like avoiding the event).

Key Differences

1. Domain: Conation relates to the will and purposeful actions; affects pertain to feelings and emotional states.

2. Function: Conation drives actions and decisions; affects influence perception and emotional responses.

3. Outcome: Conation results in goaldirected behavior; affects result in emotional experiences that can modify behavior but are not directly about action.

4. Temporal Aspect: Conation is often future-oriented (planning, striving); affects are often present-oriented (immediate emotional response).

Interaction

Conation and affects often work together; for example, an affective state like fear can influence conative decisions (avoiding a risky situation), and strong conative intentions (like determination) can modulate affects (lessening the impact of fear).

Understanding these distinctions helps to clarify how motivations and emotions shape human behavior in complex and interconnected ways.

相关：呼唤型造物  evocative object  The Etymology of Vocative Linguistic Theory on Vocative

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 20, 2024 at 10:17pm

APP Iconada： "theory of calling" & Julia Kristeva 1

[A: Affects P: Percepts P: Powers]

In the psychoanalytic sense, the "theory of calling" can be connected toJulia Kristeva's philosophy, particularly through her exploration of the relationship between the individual’s inner world (the unconscious) and the external social and linguistic structures (the symbolic order).

To understand this connection, it's essential to consider how Kristeva's ideas on language, subjectivity, and the semiotic/symbolic dichotomy relate to the concept of a "calling" or vocation.

The Semiotic and the Symbolic

Kristeva’s Semiotic: In Kristeva's theory, the semiotic is associated with the prelinguistic, bodily drives, and rhythms. It is the domain of emotions, the unconscious, and the instinctual. The semiotic is often repressed or regulated by the symbolic order, which is the realm of structured language, social norms, and laws.

The Symbolic: The symbolic is where identity, meaning, and social order are constructed through language and culture. It is the domain in which the individual finds a place within society by adhering to its rules and norms.

Calling as Semiotic and Symbolic: The concept of a "calling" can be seen as a dynamic interaction between the semiotic and symbolic realms. A calling often arises from deep, unconscious drives (semiotic) and is expressed or realized within the social and linguistic structures of society (symbolic). It can be understood as the individual’s attempt to align their deep inner desires and potentials with an external social role or vocation.

Desire and Drive

Unconscious Desire: In psychoanalytic terms, a calling could be seen as an expression of unconscious desires, which Kristeva associates with the semiotic. These desires may seek expression in a particular vocation or life path, driving the individual toward a certain type of work or creative endeavor.

Sublimation: Kristeva, influenced by Freud, would view the process of sublimation as key here. A calling could be seen as a form of sublimation, where unconscious drives and desires are channeled into socially acceptable and personally fulfilling activities, such as art, religion, or a profession. This process allows the individual to express their inner world while still operating within the symbolic order.

The Subject in Process

Kristeva’s Concept of the Subject in Process: Kristeva introduces the idea of the subject in process, emphasizing that subjectivity is never fixed but is always in a state of becoming, shaped by the constant interplay between the semiotic and symbolic. A calling can be understood within this framework as a key aspect of this process of becoming. It represents a way for the subject to navigate the tensions between their inner desires and the demands of the external world.

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 20, 2024 at 10:17pm

Identity and Transformation: A calling can also be seen as a moment of transformation where the individual’s identity is reshaped or redefined. For Kristeva, identity is not static but fluid, and a calling might represent a significant shift or evolution in this ongoing process of identity formation.

Abjection and Transgression

Abjection: Kristeva’s concept of abjection involves the confrontation with what is excluded from the symbolic order—the chaotic, the bodily, the maternal, the semiotic. A calling might involve confronting these abject elements, integrating them into one’s life and work. For example, artists and creators often feel called to explore themes or ideas that are taboo or outside societal norms, bringing the abject into the symbolic through their work.

Transgression: A calling can also be seen as a form of transgression, where the individual pushes the boundaries of the symbolic order to include new meanings, roles, or identities. This transgressive aspect is central to Kristeva’s idea of poetic language, where language itself becomes a site of resistance and transformation.

The Maternal and the Feminine

The Maternal: Kristeva’s work on the maternal and the feminine, particularly in her exploration of the semiotic, can also relate to the idea of a calling. The maternal is associated with the presymbolic, the source of life and creativity, and often represents a powerful, unconscious force that drives individuals towards certain paths or vocations.

The Feminine as Creative Force: Kristeva’s association of the feminine with the semiotic can be linked to the idea of a calling as a creative force. The calling could be seen as the individual’s attempt to articulate and give form to these deep, often unarticulated desires and creative energies, aligning them with a socially recognized role or vocation.

Connecting the "Theory of Calling" with Kristeva’s Philosophy

In summary, the "theory of calling" in a psychoanalytic sense can be connected to Kristeva’s philosophy through several key concepts:

Semiotic Drives: A calling might originate from the semiotic realm, driven by unconscious desires and creative energies that seek expression in the symbolic order.

Sublimation and Identity: A calling could be seen as a sublimated expression of these drives, where the individual finds a socially acceptable outlet for their deepest desires, shaping their identity in the process.

Subject in Process: Kristeva’s notion of the subject in process highlights how a calling might represent a key moment in the ongoing formation and transformation of identity.

Abjection and Transgression: A calling may involve confronting abject elements or transgressing symbolic boundaries, integrating what is excluded or repressed into one’s life and work.

Through these connections, Kristeva’s philosophy provides a nuanced framework for understanding a calling as a complex interplay between the unconscious and the social, the semiotic and the symbolic.

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 20, 2024 at 10:13pm

APP Iconada： "theory of calling" & Julia Kristeva 2

[A: Affects P: Percepts P: Powers]

The concept of a "theory of calling" within psychoanalysis generally pertains to understanding an individual's sense of vocation, purpose, or intrinsic drive to pursue a particular path in life. This involves exploring the unconscious motivations, desires, and conflicts that shape one's professional and personal commitments. When examining how this theory connects withJulia Kristeva's philosophy, several key intersections emerge, particularly through her concepts of subjectivity, the semiotic and symbolic, and the formation of identity.

Subjectivity and the Formation of Identity

Theory of Calling—Focuses on how individuals develop a sense of purpose or vocation. Explores the internal motivations and unconscious factors that drive one's professional and personal choices.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Subjectivity: Kristeva emphasizes that subjectivity is not a fixed entity but is continuously shaped through interactions with language, culture, and the unconscious. Interplay of Semiotic and Symbolic: She posits that our identities are formed through the dynamic interaction between the semiotic (prelinguistic, emotional drives) and the symbolic (structured language, societal norms).

Connection:  The "theory of calling" aligns with Kristeva's view that an individual's sense of purpose is a product of both unconscious drives (semiotic) and societal structures (symbolic). Understanding one's calling involves navigating and integrating these two dimensions to form a coherent sense of self and purpose.

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 20, 2024 at 10:13pm

Semiotic Drives and Intrinsic Motivation

Theory of Calling— Intrinsic motivation and passion are seen as key drivers behind an individual's vocation.  These motivations often stem from deepseated, sometimes unconscious, desires and needs.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Semiotic: Represents the realm of drives, emotions, and bodily expressions that precede structured language.  Role in Creativity and Innovation: The semiotic is crucial for creative processes, allowing for the emergence of new meanings and expressions beyond conventional structures.

Connection: The intrinsic motivations central to the "theory of calling" can be understood through Kristeva's concept of the semiotic. These drives push individuals toward creative and meaningful pursuits, often challenging societal norms and contributing to personal and cultural innovation.

Language, Communication, and Expressing the Calling

Theory of Calling— Communication about one's vocation involves articulating personal values, goals, and motivations. Language plays a crucial role in shaping and expressing one's sense of purpose.

Kristeva's Philosophy—Symbolic Order: Language structures our reality and social interactions, providing the framework within which we express and negotiate our identities.  Intertextuality: The idea that texts (or expressions) are influenced by and connected to other texts, reflecting the complex nature of meaningmaking.

Connection: Articulating one's calling requires navigating the symbolic order of language to express semiotic drives. Kristeva's notion of intertextuality suggests that our understanding and expression of our vocation are influenced by broader cultural narratives and discourses, highlighting the interconnectedness of individual purpose and societal context.

Conflict and Negotiation Between Semiotic and Symbolic

Theory of Calling:  Individuals may experience internal conflicts when their intrinsic motivations (semiotic) clash with societal expectations or norms (symbolic).  Resolving these conflicts is essential for achieving a sense of fulfillment and authenticity in one's vocation.

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 20, 2024 at 10:06pm

Kristeva's Philosophy— Tension Between Semiotic and Symbolic: Kristeva highlights the ongoing negotiation between the disruptive, fluid semiotic forces and the stabilizing, structured symbolic order.  Abjection and BoundaryPushing: The semiotic can challenge and destabilize established norms, leading to creative transformations but also potential conflicts.

Connection: The "theory of calling" embodies the tension Kristeva describes, where individuals must reconcile their internal drives with external expectations. This negotiation process is crucial for developing a unique and authentic sense of purpose, reflecting Kristeva's emphasis on the dynamic interplay between different aspects of subjectivity.

Creativity and Transformation

Theory of Calling: Pursuing one's vocation often involves creative expression and the transformation of personal and professional landscapes.  Creativity is seen as a pathway to fulfilling one's sense of purpose.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Revolution in Poetic Language: Kristeva explores how avantgarde and poetic language disrupt conventional structures, allowing for new forms of expression and meaning. Creativity as Liberation: The semiotic dimension fosters innovation and the breaking of boundaries, essential for cultural and personal transformation.

Connection：The creative aspects of pursuing a calling resonate with Kristeva's ideas on how semiotic forces drive innovation and transformation. Engaging in creative endeavors as part of one's vocation aligns with her belief in the liberating potential of the semiotic to challenge and redefine existing structures.

Ethics and Subjective Freedom

Theory of Calling: Emphasizes personal fulfillment and ethical alignment with one's work. Encourages individuals to pursue paths that resonate with their deepest values and desires.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Affirmative Ethics: Kristeva advocates for embracing difference, creativity, and the fluid nature of subjectivity as ethical imperatives. Subjective Freedom: The ability to continually redefine oneself and one's purposes in response to changing internal and external conditions.

Connection:  The ethical dimension of the "theory of calling" is mirrored in Kristeva's affirmative ethics, which prioritize personal authenticity and the continuous evolution of identity. Pursuing a calling, therefore, becomes not just a professional endeavor but an ethical journey towards selfrealization and creative expression.

Summary

The "theory of calling" in psychoanalysis and Julia Kristeva's philosophy intersect through their shared focus on the dynamic interplay between internal drives and external structures in shaping identity and purpose. Kristeva's concepts of the semiotic and symbolic provide a nuanced framework for understanding the unconscious motivations and societal influences that underpin an individual's sense of vocation.

Furthermore, her emphasis on creativity, subjectivity, and the transformative potential of language aligns closely with the pursuit of a meaningful and authentic calling. By integrating Kristeva's insights, the "theory of calling" can be enriched with a deeper understanding of how personal purpose is negotiated, expressed, and actualized within the broader cultural and linguistic context.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page