Although I, like most other contemporary labyrinthians in the continental school, revile many of Edgar Milosovici's labyrinthological positions, his writings have proved extraordinarily influential in our field. Certainly anyone with a sustained interest in Gollesten or eco/loco labyrinthianism must be well-versed in his thought.The following excerpt comes from Milosovici's Basic Questions of Psychical Labyrinthianism (trans. Patel), perhaps his most famous text. In this passage, Milosovici addresses the question of the labyrinth after Aaldi, reiterating his mentor's dismissal of the possibility of a non-psychical, extra-mental labyrinth.
"How can we, in the wake of Aaldi’s thinking, assess the question of the labyrinth? We might ask ourselves at this juncture, what is left for labyrinthianism? As Aaldi points out, the inner function of the labyrinth is now understood to be quantifiable. With skepticism cast over the possibility of an extra-mental labyrinth, we observe persuasive evidence of Reede’s position vis-à-vis the cognitive component of the labyrinth as ontological proof. Moreover, cognitive centrality has proved the locus of theory once more. Our engagement with the constructed labyrinth is a dualism.
The notion of the perimeter, posited initially by Scaruffi and since refuted in the labyrinthological project of Aaldi and the Medial School, has been destroyed. As Hume tells us in his Enquiry, “To form monsters, and join incongruous shapes and appearances, costs the imagination no more trouble than to conceive the most natural and familiar objects.” Such phantasy is the case with the notion of the perimeter, and the same may be said of the argument for the existence of any extra-mental labyrinth as such."
Posts
12 comments:
OMG Creepy! This guy totally looks like a picture my mom has of my great uncle...
Is this the only actual treatise that Milosovici published? I know a lot of his lectures are in print, but I've never heard of any other texts by him.
I will remain skeptical of perimeter theory until someone can PROVE to me that radial physics does not apply! Despite the disappointing turn away from Cartesian thought in the last decade, I am committed to the insight that mathematics can and MUST offer to the increasingly delusory world of the labyrinth.
Perhaps Alex can confirm this: I believe I've seen an online text by Milosovici which is translated as "Against the Perimeter: Pure Cognitive Labyrinthianism." I seem to recall that it pre-dated "Basic Questions..." and is now out of print (hence the free online version).
Perhaps the more seasoned labyrinthians will consider this an amateurish question, but here goes: how important is concentrism to the integrity of a labyrinth? That is to say, can a square- or oval-shaped "maze" technically be considered a labyrinth, or is circularity an absolute necessity? Someone, please refer me to the appropriate scholarship. I've been scimming through Crete's text on Magnetism all night and he says NOTHING about geometry! HELP!!
Teuton: The text you refer to is considered by most to be what amounts to a first draft of Basic Questions. In it, Milosovici grapples with some of Aaldi's most dense notions about cognitive centrality and applies them to his own labyrinthian framework. Just for your own information, Against the Perimeter is a somewhat problematic translation of the title. I think Adjacent to the Perimeter, though less attractive, better conveys the sense of spatiality that Milosovici intends.
Stephen: There are only three published, composed treatises: Basic Questions, Adjacent to the Perimeter and Psychical Boundary Structures, the latter two of which are indefinitely out of print (I hear Milosovici's great-great grandson is something of an eccentric and is reticent to allow the publication of new editions).
Thanks so much for the clarification, Alex. And yes, I agree with you, a word like "adjacent" definitely seems better suited to what Milosovici seems to be getting at. Thanks again.
35-3 loss to mannings boys today.
this season needs to be OVER
BEARCATS IN THE ORANGE BOWL YALL!!!!
Alex, nice article. Revile is a strong word however. I would politely remind you that many of Milosocivi's post-Aalidi themes (or "leitmotifs," in the colorful language of Crete and other post-modern labrintho-conjecturalists) have found their way into several of your recent lectures on Asiatic and Sino/pre-Edo era labyrinthine structure. Specifically, I am reminded of your St. Paul lecture entitled "Cyclical Pathways: A Brief Criticism on Post Gollesten Labrythine Studies"
Chucky55,
Your question is not amateurish, but in fact penetrates deep into some of the most hotly debated issues in contemporary labyrinthianism.
One of the primary reasons this issue faces such debate is due to the reclamation of the first-person in early 21st century French labyrinthianism.
Here's the concern:
From the point of view of the navigator, how does shape affect the labyrinth experience?
You see, you are engaging the issue of meta-labyrinthianism. That is, the issue of the architect (Gollesten, "Entwerfer," which might better translated as Designer).
Thus arises the problematic. Clearly, the architect/designer determines the experience of the navigator, yet, in the true classical labyrinth, the navigator is never aware of the labyrinth superstructure. Labyrinthologists commonly refer to this as the Daedalian Paradox, or DP for short.
Look for my upcoming post on the crisis of Stephon Crete for more about this dense topic.
Mark: Well put. I am, like all labyrinthians to some degree, in debt to the labyrinthological project of Milosovici. I use the world "revile" though because in a lot of ways I think Milosovici, through his appropriation of Aaldi's most skeptical/constructivist views, brought about the proto-interiorism that Gollesten had to fight so hard to overcome.
Ultimately, I think Milosovici is a very polarizing figure; one whose vast influence cannot be avoided nor denied.
Post a Comment