by Stephen Vera Cruz
Last meeting, the bulk of the lecture was devoted to discussing the creativity of human action in narrative identity. The three steps are called Mimesis 1, Mimesis 2 and Mimesis 3. Mimesis 1 is the prefiguration step of the whole process. This part describes the lived human experiences of each and every one of us. Mimesis 2 is the configuration part of the process. It is our own world of make believe. What we have done in Mimesis 1 is linked to how we interpret Mimesis 2. For me, Mimesis 2 is basically the action of dwelling and struggling with the experience. Mimesis 2 in other words is our unique human experience. Mimesis 3 is the prefiguration part of the whole process. It describes what we do with what we have learned from Mimesis 1 and 2. It is our own opinion of our actions. It is a sort of metanoia or change in the base action of Mimesis 1. It is our own reaction to the threefold process we have all gone through.
After this lecture, I couldn't help but notice some similarities between the three fold Mimesis and Marcel's way of thinking. Marcel said that in order to strive for exigence and to try to answer the numerous questions we have when we encounter metaphysical unease, we have to try to use and intermediary way of thinking. The intermediary way of thinking is done by using both the Particularity method and the Universal method. The universal method is composed of all our common human experiences. It does not recognize the differences between human beings and is only concerned with what we all see. I think this method is very similar to Mimesis 1 since both talk about the same lived human experience. However, since this method does not recognize the differences within each human being, we have to also use the particularity method.
The particularity method talks our own insights and what we as individuals can do on our own. It describes how we uniquely interpret our common human experiences. This is the same as Mimesis 2. The particularity method is our own world of make believe. It shows us our own unique set of thoughts that no other individual can think of. Lastly we go to Mimesis 3. Again, Mimesis 3 talks about our actions after our whole thought process. It is how we react to the first and second Mimesis. Now I think that this is very similar to Marcel's mystery of being. We all interpret and react to things in our own unique way. Mimesis 3 talks about all these unique reactions to both our common and uncommon human experiences. I think that this is very similar to Marcel's mystery of being because these unique reactions are examples of the mystery Marcel is talking about. We all "be" differently. Our "inging" is not common with the person beside us. There is a mystery in the way we choose to react to our lives due to our many differences.
To conclude, I think the similarities between these two philosophical approaches show that there is a similar road we are all in as we live out life's journey. What happens during this journey is entirely up to us. How we travel in life depends on the choices we alone make, and this is what philosophy helps us do, make wise choices in our common journey.
It's nice how you pointed out the similarities between Marcel and Ricoeur's respective philosophies. I just think this shows a good examples about how philosophies or ideas in general are always intertwined. Relating this to our own lives however, I see it as a good example that humans themselves are intertwined with each other. As you said, "How we travel in life depends on the choices we alone make, and this is what philosophy helps us do, make wise choices in our common journey." You're right in saying this but I'd just like to say that in our common journey, our journey's are completely unique from one another.
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful blog! As said by fern earlier, it was nice that you were able to relate the three-fold mimesis with the ideas of Marcel and Ricouer. However, with what you said, what struck me the most was how you related the mimesis process with our universality and particularity. I couldn't agree more that these ideas are intertwined since from what I learned in class, through this whole process, we are able to not only learn to read texts but we are also able to learn how to read people. In the same way that we gain insights and meanings from literature, we are also able to learn from other people. Through realizing our particularity and universality, we recognize the importance of other people in our lives since we are continuously shaped by all our daily encounters with others.
ReplyDeleteRobert Go
Ph101 A
Just to add on to your ideas, I think Mimesis 2 can also be likened to that of the idea of reflection, that moment of suspended impact before we dive deeper into life (Mimesis 3). Similar to that of Mimesis 2 which brings us to experience different worlds and see from different perspectives, reflection also brings us to see life in a different light as it opens us to reality of the impossible. As in Mimesis 2 we interpret our lived experiences, reflection precisely allows us to do this as well, to dwell in our experiences to further understand ourselves as part of this world. However, philosophy does not end with reflection but with impact and action. The last fold is Mimesis 3 which is the reconfiguration, a transformation of the self wherein we put out insights into action. Reflection allows us to be transformed precisely in this way, to be changed individuals, changed in the sense that there is a difference on how we see ourselves and others as part of this world.
ReplyDeleteFrenchi Baluyot (A)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting how you were able to connect Mimesis with Marcel. This reminds me how we can relate all the discussions and experiences we've had to broaden our insights. Also, I agree how we may share similar experiences and walk along the same path with other people, but how we choose to act on it creates our own path. Nick Vujivic is known worldwide as the guy with no limbs but managed to live a life that no one even considered to be possible at the time. He talks about how he found people in similar situations as him, they might not be handicapped like him but they were also struggling with what they viewed as incapabilities at the time. Together, they were able to help each other grow and inspire other people with their stories as well. Although they each had their own struggles and had to handle their situations differently, they were able to find a common ground to support each other.
ReplyDeleteGenica Lim (C)
I really appreciate your take on this. I think it is really interesting on how you were able to connect Marcel to Ricoeur. But aside from this, I think you can further venture it to the topic to Heidegger, where in we can connect "the looking of experiences and reflection" to "how we are be-ing beings". Since we are on the topic of thriving in experiences and reflection, it can also connect to the validity and beauty of our very existence as humans. Through our journey in going through philosophy, and now onto the topic of Ricoeur, we are able to manifest the joy of living and the wonder of life itself. The fact that we are able to enrich ourselves in our own lived experiences (mimesis 1), and have the capability to reassess and configure it (mimesis 2), as well as have the freedom of reconfiguration and the openess of change (mimesis 3)--- it just goes to show how we, (humanity), are utterly beautiful, unique, and complex in our own ways and being. The application of our existence through reflection, configuration, and the thought of going through these mimesis encapsulates the wonder and miracle of our very nature, as individuals, and as humans.
ReplyDeleteDenise Tan (A)