After I wrote about Edwards, Vandekeybus and Foucault I was confronted with Foucault’s idea of the world’s plentitude. Namely, I fell prey:
This text is supposed to show that we are hasty and precipitative as well as we have many patterns in use to deal with the overwhelming plentitude of the world. When I read this text a second time I realised that I’m still trapped. I suppose due to its self-motivating content. Damn it! 😉
But how to free myself?
Recently I used to be at an exhibition of René Magritte’s work. I admire him for some years because of his disturbing and sinister pictures. What makes them letting the viewer feel uneasy?
In David Silvestre’s book on Magritte he cites an interview with Magritte. There Magritte says, that he’s putting things into places where we never would expect them to be. With this he pursues the goal to create a shocking poetical effect. Thus those ordinary things gain a mysterious meaning (p. 283-284). The English Wikipedia article on Magritte specifies that mysterious meaning by citing a statement of Magritte. Since the mysterious is unknowable it has no meaning. – By this means even such an ordinary thing like an apple can raise some questions (p. 27-28).
That way it is possible to regain the ordinary in new meanings. For Magritte it was himself portraying as an ordinary, conventional man wearing a black coat and a black bowler hat. But he wasn’t that kind of man, according to Silvestre. That’s why he interprets “La Grande Guerre Façades” and “Le fils de l’homme” as subversive self-portrayals of a man who pretends to be someone he isn’t, of a man who hides his needs and wishes (p. 32).
The background of all of this is strangification. (Another example for this is Friedrich/Fritz Wallner, a philosopher of science, who researches in a serious manner in classical/traditional Chinese medicine. Or the TV sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun.) And I think and hope it’s worth to give it a try.