It is a mixture of two social languages within the limits of a single utterance, an encounter, within the arena of an utterance, between two different linguistic consciousnesses, separated from one another by an epoch, by social differentiation, or by some other factor. (358)
Sunday, December 16, 2007
I am currently interested in the liminality of Sri Aurobindo's writing and how they can crossover many of the culturally constructed boundaries which set discourse practices ranging from academic styles to voices of alterity . Particularly of interest is the intersection of conceptualized space we can arrive at when synthesis and integrality are not reified to foreclose the articulated reality of hybridity, collage, works of assemblages, but rather open rhizomic passages toward the revery of diversity, maximizing the ananda of otherness through the unexpected encounter.
If Bakhtin says hybridization is :
Well, Sri Aurobindo was certainly working in that domain, even as he was inventing a unique synthesis, So if we encounter his writings - as I am currently revisiting his discourse on evolution - there are multiple dimensions to comprehend if we are to understand what he really intends to reveal of diversity and synthesis. And what he reveals is not a totalizing metaphysical claim, but rather an opening of experience to speak across cultures (and epochs). In doing this he is not only engaged in an integral praxis but also he is also championing a unique process of hybridization. To fully make sense of this we must also critically engage with those cultures, and times he moved within.
If we follow the chiaroscuro of synthesis into history and culture, to follow the boarders traced by Sri Aurobindo before he erases them, requires liminality ... but first an exploration of hybidity, ambivalence, and mimicry ...rc by Rich on Sat 15 Dec 2007 06:26 PM PST Permanent Link Science, Culture and Integral Yoga