|
well, in a way its a tweak of what filtherton's been saying in these threads too.
i focussed on expectations in time consciousness because if you think about it you can see how basic a role they play in the reduction of complexity, which enables us to generate a stable perceptual field...so the problem operates at a very intimate level, one that skims beneath the surface of interpellation involving subject positions generated by Institutions (in the big, straight sense) and points to how it is that we are ourselves institutions (the I is an institution) in a smaller sense--there are rules and we perform ourselves in contexts shaped by those rules (this is way too simple, but for the sake of being able to actually end this post...)
i went here because i think this is an interesting way of thinking about perception in general, how it is fashioned, what might be the parameters (at the biosystem level, say) that shape its production. and what i've posted really is only the barest of outlines, not even cliffnotes stuff.
anyway, if anything about the above is accurate, then we live mostly in ways shaped by protension, by expectation, which is a way of referring to modalities whereby we stabilize phenomena that we encounter in time (you know, from a particular side, from a particular angle, etc.)
and i dont think husserl was right in separating language from time consciousness and its operations...[[steps should be here but aren't]]
so i think that ideological propositions (implicit propostions) are repeated or performed in the most basic perceptual activities. we internalize and perform ideological positions. and many of these committments or positions are not rational at all--think for example about capitalism and the greatest mystery about it, that it has not exploded
anyway, it makes no sense at all to imagine that one type of knowledge production will eliminate this space held together by projection and another will not. science doesnt get rid of that. religion doesn't. so neither alters the central space of projection/expectation...so it's not like one is True and the other False in itself.
this isn't to say their equivalent, though.
scientific procedures do not falsify religious committments held by those who undertake them--they're simply integrated at a different level of symbolic interaction. nor does science-like activity explain the atheism of those who are. nothing is proven or disproven necessarily.
this also does not mean that there are not arguments for or against beliefs and that some are more persuasive than others.
it's all only to say that it is naive to imagine that "science" provides anything like a procedure that would lead anyone to either a religious commitment or to a lack of a religious commitment.
it's also naive to imagine that anyone is consistent in their ideological commitments--when you get down to it, people seem to value a sense of locatedness from which they are able to derive a sense of self as stable and/or coherent--so there's a bit of the conservative in everyone.
btw, i think god is just a word.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|