They say if you have to explain a joke it kills the humor, but when the explanation involves the phrase "the structure of Husserlian intentionality, which defines consciousness as only an insubstantial 'aboutness.'" then it's FUNNY all over again.🛠️
Sartre's contribution for me was significant, but probably in the opposite way he (may) have intended. There are several bravura passages in Nausea where the narrator perceives and is confronted with a kind of raw unfiltered perception; where he see reality as empty, devoid of meaning in itself. But his nausea in my mind is less "disgust" than vertigo. He is left reeling with the realization that meaning is not in the "nature" of things, but assigned by our own constructions. He doesn't explain these ideas as much as gives you the experience of them.
I didn't know it then, but these passages closely resemble classic Buddhist "pointing" exercises, which are meant to expand one's consciousness and see past the illusory nature of the world as an agreed upon reality. They are also meant to point out the unified nature of our reality, including our own "selves." For me, after I read Nausea, it literally set me on a determined path of spiritual exploration that has continued to this day, decades later.
They say if you have to explain a joke it kills the humor, but when the explanation involves the phrase "the structure of Husserlian intentionality, which defines consciousness as only an insubstantial 'aboutness.'" then it's FUNNY all over again.🛠️
Hooray for flexing those funny-muscles.
Thanks Franklin, you definitely seem to have found a wonderful way of discussing your points which are deep and layered. Much respect!
This comic might make a good Koan too...
Sartre's contribution for me was significant, but probably in the opposite way he (may) have intended. There are several bravura passages in Nausea where the narrator perceives and is confronted with a kind of raw unfiltered perception; where he see reality as empty, devoid of meaning in itself. But his nausea in my mind is less "disgust" than vertigo. He is left reeling with the realization that meaning is not in the "nature" of things, but assigned by our own constructions. He doesn't explain these ideas as much as gives you the experience of them.
I didn't know it then, but these passages closely resemble classic Buddhist "pointing" exercises, which are meant to expand one's consciousness and see past the illusory nature of the world as an agreed upon reality. They are also meant to point out the unified nature of our reality, including our own "selves." For me, after I read Nausea, it literally set me on a determined path of spiritual exploration that has continued to this day, decades later.
Ah, Sartre. One of very numerous reasons why so-called intellectuals don't impress or interest me.