>
>but still recognize the social as irretrievable from the 'subject' -
>likely, there is no 'identity' per se,
>but moments of identification, when we 'identify' with
>someone/thing/activity/memory/emotion,
>and slip through it into some other-self, kind of self.
>
>know what i mean?
yes - well, no - perhaps - yes, in the sense that all is motion -
the flower falls on the mountain. the mountain falls on the flower.
all things fall.
phillip
>
>
* * * * * * * *
* *
The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.
from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.
phillip white
third grade teacher
doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.htm
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:56 PDT