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
