Paradox: Difference between revisions
From Generative Anthropology
No edit summary |
m (The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This signifying paradox emerges because the (now) humans on the scene point to, name and thereby create the central figure that was already there, already a compelling and repelling substantial being—in which case, naming it is just recognizing it for what it is. It is paradoxicality that can never be “proven” or reduced to any particular ostensive sign, because it is ostensivity itself. | This signifying paradox emerges because the (now) humans on the [[scene]] point to, name and thereby create the central figure that was already there, already a compelling and repelling substantial being—in which case, naming it is just recognizing it for what it is. It is paradoxicality that can never be “proven” or reduced to any particular ostensive sign, because it is ostensivity itself. | ||
Revision as of 18:46, 14 March 2023
Generative Anthropology is essentially paradoxical because paradoxicality is constitutive of the first Ostensive sign and everything that follows (human culture itself). The first Ostensive sign is paradoxical because it refers to and designates as significant the central object that was already significant but only recognizably so once designated.
This signifying paradox emerges because the (now) humans on the scene point to, name and thereby create the central figure that was already there, already a compelling and repelling substantial being—in which case, naming it is just recognizing it for what it is. It is paradoxicality that can never be “proven” or reduced to any particular ostensive sign, because it is ostensivity itself.
