Dear Iraj and everybody–
Iraj, I sense that we use the term "space" differently which is good because
it appears I can learn something new from you. My use of "first space",
"second space" and "third space" comes from architecture. I do not have
reference with me of who initiated this terminology in architecture
(knowledgeable people, please help me!) but the "first space" is referred to
"home" (warm, cozy personal dwelling), the "second space" is referred to
official (cold), formal public places like office or other institutionalized
places, and the "third space" is referred to personalized and "friendalized"
public places (Starbucks cafes want to be such "third space" see
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/05/1031115910533.html).
Iraj, can you elaborate how Lefebvre, Soja, Bha Bha, Spivak, bel hooks, and
Gutierrez use their space terminology and what they mean by that (please
give examples if possible)?
My "il'enkovized" mind has difficulty to grasp the following paragraph,
> yes, the issue, according to Lefebvre and Soja, becomes reality (real in
> space) AND virtuality (imagined in space). The former being what we
> experience by our senses outside of our bodies (first space) and the
latter
> being what we conceive of that experience in our minds (second space),
> regardless of any judgement about them being 'real or false.'
because experiences given us in our senses are also "idealized", according
to Il'enkov (but also many other philosophers). For Il'enkov "ideal" does
not occupy any space: it is everywhere. We perceive the world "idealized".
We are dealing with "idealized" world and we do not need any other world (we
are not "trapped"). "Idealization" is not bad subjectivity distorting
perception of material world of "the real reality" or "the world-out-there"
but rather a product of human activities and practices embedded in social
relations. I guess, from Il'enkov's perspective, it is possible to talk
about ideal and material aspects of the world but definitely not as
"spaces". Did I miss something?
Again something like
> All these authors used 'third space' as a way out of a trapped set of
> practices (first space) and consciousnesses (second space). third space is
> about transformation and change in what exists--actual and virtual.
does not fit into my "il'enkovized" mind. But I'll try, Iraj, – I promise.
Please help,
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IRAJ IMAM [mailto:iimam@cal-research.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 7:13 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: false consciousness: real and virtual worlds: third space
>
> Eugene:
>
> 'According to Il'enkov, there is not "real" and "virtual" ...
consciousness
> because by its very nature consciousness is always virtual ...'
>
> Lefebvre and Soja would agree and that is 'second spaces' to them. Those
> include all forms of mental activities, dreams, consciousness ('false' or
> otherwise), knowledges, ways of seeing and/or projecting,
> propaganda/spin/ad, etc.
>
>
> '(Modern philosopher Zizek (sp?) recently made a similar statement about
> "virtual sex" on the Internet arguing that any sex has its virtual
aspect).'
>
>
> Who would doubt that --perhaps women experience a more intense virtuality
by
> closing their eyes?!
>
> 'Thus, the issue is not "virtuality" versus "reality". '
>
> yes, the issue, according to Lefebvre and Soja, becomes reality (real in
> space) AND virtuality (imagined in space). The former being what we
> experience by our senses outside of our bodies (first space) and the
latter
> being what we conceive of that experience in our minds (second space),
> regardless of any judgement about them being 'real or false.'
>
> 'I think what makes consciousness "false consciousness" is not the nature
of
> the consciousness itself (e.g., "virtual" vs. "real" artifacts) or the
> nature of underlining experiences but rather the nature of social
relations
> and practices in which the consciousness is embedded in (situated) and
> emerge from.'
>
> And this brings the notion of 'third space' (or lived space, Lefebvre), by
> Soja, Bha Bha, Spivak, bel hooks, and GUTIÉRREZ (thanks Mike for the
> reference). If I understand Eugene correctly, the assumption is that
> consciousness emerges from ' the nature of social relations and practices
in
> which the consciousness is embedded.' I think these above authors would
> agree with that assumption.
>
> They continue to ask 'so what?' what are we going to do about it? (eg,
these
> people within these sets of social relations are trapped into these sets
of
> consciousnesses). Here is where 'third space' becomes of a
> response--production of new space, both actual and virtual in a new
> activity. That is a new practice (virtual and actual) which in turn allows
> for a new consciousness, or learning, to emerge from those activities.
>
> All these authors used 'third space' as a way out of a trapped set of
> practices (first space) and consciousnesses (second space). third space is
> about transformation and change in what exists--actual and virtual. In
> Lefebvre and Soja, third space is about production of new spaces --actual
> and virtual--through new activity (lived space). It is close to what
Deleuze
> called 'line of flight.'
>
> iraj
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST