According to Borges, humans have two selves: the private and the public one, i.e. one self that quietly sits in the library and the other one that holds lectures and moves around under the public eye. Now, which of these two selves is the real one? As Rhodes rightly states, a self has many facets, and rather than distinguishing between these two categories should we consider the variety of the human self.
Of course, ignoring the conceptual gap between 'feeling' as such and the molecular and cellular foundation of that feeling, one can 'feel' like oneself without being able to explain the full concept of feeling. Referring to Rhodes example of the loon, one might explain natural phenomena neurologically-scientifically-or just feel it via the act of contemplation. This would also be the case when hearing a special musical masterpiece that touches you. You could go ahead and analyze it to the core of the matter-and I can tell of many incidents where this made the whole matter even more aesthetic-or just perceive the music for your own sake and avoid depicting it in full score. Some may interject that science-or a rational, scientific perspective-removes the mystery from nature or its phenomena. Rhodes replies that science is rather a 'means of distinguishing ignorance from mystery' and that it thus cannot overpower mystery.
After all, for me, it all depends on how you look at aesthetic issues as well as perceptional processes.
Nina
According to Jorge Luis Borges in his short story “Borges and I,” [foc] humans have two selves: the private and the public one, i.e. one self that quietly sits in the library and the other one that holds lectures and moves around under the public eye. Now, which of these two selves is the real one? As the molecular biologist [foc] Gale Rhodes rightly states, in her analysis of Borges’s text “Ignorance and Mystery,” [foc] the self has many facets, and rather than distinguishing between these two categories, we should [WO,Gr] consider the protean nature [rep] of the human self.
AntwortenLöschenOf course, ignoring the conceptual gap between 'feeling' as such and the molecular and cellular foundation of that feeling, one can 'feel' like oneself without being able to explain the full concept of feeling. Referring to Rhodes example of the loon, one might explain natural phenomena neurologically-scientifically-or just feel it via the act of contemplation. This would also be the case when hearing a special musical masterpiece that touches you. You could go ahead and analyze it to the core of the matter-and I can tell of many incidents where this made the whole matter even more aesthetic-or just perceive the music for your own sake and avoid depicting it in full score. Some may interject that science-or a rational, scientific perspective-removes the mystery from nature or its phenomena. Rhodes replies that science is rather a 'means of distinguishing ignorance from mystery' and that it thus cannot overpower mystery. After all, for me, it all depends on how you look at aesthetic issues as well as perceptional processes. [Nicely said!]