Edward S. Casey

This review of On Philosophy first pursues the question of just what “the speaking of matter” means: is it a matter of the sheer production of sound or “voice” or is it a matter of articulate “speech”? From there I explore the question of “finding your voice” with reference to the “new feminist materialism” and the work of Susan Griffin. The second part of this review concerns the status of border and boundary in McCumber’s powerful notion of “ousiodic structure,” suggesting that beyond the strict limits of this structure there is an alternative notion of open enclosure that is much more permeable than is allowed in the ousiodic model and that offers a way out of the Aristotelian paradigm that has had such oppressive effects in Western thought

This review of On Philosophy first pursues the question of just what “the speaking of matter” means: is it a matter of the sheer production of sound or “voice” or is it a matter of articulate “speech”? From there I explore the question of “finding your voice” with reference to the “new feminist materialism” and the work of Susan Griffin. The second part of this review concerns the status of border and boundary in McCumber’s powerful notion of “ousiodic structure,” suggesting that beyond the strict limits of this structure there is an alternative notion of open enclosure that is much more permeable than is allowed in the ousiodic model and that offers a way out of the Aristotelian paradigm that has had such oppressive effects in Western thought.

THESE are difficult days in which to philosophize, and not only for institutional, historical, or political reasons. Nor is it a matter mainly of a disconcertingly eclectic pluralism of possible ways of doing philosophy; this has been a problem, or at least a temptation, ever since the disciples of Plato clustered into competing sects. More alarming, and more challenging, is the fact that the very idea of thinking and writing reflectively in various ways hitherto acknowledged by a broad consensus as "philosophical" has come into serious question. The particular form in which such doubting has emerged is itself various. In Europe, it has taken the shape of undermining the self-assurance of the "metaphysics of presence" by attempting to show that the notion of determinate presence is constricting and groundless, or self-deceptive and self-deconstructing, or relative to historical epistemes or epochs of Being. In Anglophone countries, strikingly complementary efforts have been made to dissolve traditional philosophical concerns with knowledge and reality, mind and other persons, into a tenuous tissue of language, of word-play and word-use: all becomes "wordwork" in Joyce's prophetic term. Or else--in a move that expressly conjoins continental and analytic tendencies--all becomes "conversation" of an unending and self-reabsorbing sort.

“Borders” are impermeable limits designed to stop the flow of human beings as well as ideas across them, whereas “boundaries” are permeable enclosure that permit and often encourage movement through limits. I develop the differences between these two forms of edge with a series of historical and geographical examples. I conclude that the Journal of Chinese Philosophy is a sterling instance of a boundary whose entire being has consisted in facilitating the two-way flow of concepts and traditions across formerly closed borders of communication and culture. I offer homage to this extraordinary accomplishment over the past forty years

What is bound to mislead us is the dichotomist assumption that keeping in mind must be either an entirely active or an utterly passive affair. This assumption has plagued theories of memory as of other mental activities. On the activist model, keeping in mind would be a creating or recreating in mind of what is either a mere mirage to begin with or a set of stultified sensations. Much as God in the seventeenth century was sometimes thought to operate by continual creation, so the mind was given the same lofty powers in the Romantic thought that represented a reaction to much of what the seventeenth century stood for. But the activist model is by no means limited to the Romantic idealists or Natur-philosophen. It reappears in more than one phase of phenomenology, and it informs the sober theorizing of Bartlett and Piaget on the nature of remembering. On the passivist model, on the other hand, the mind is mute and unconfigurating. It takes in but does not give back other than what it takes in. It is a recording mechanism only. Something like this view is at work in empiricist theories of memory, considered as restricted to the contents of Humean "impressions" and arranged according to their order and position in time; it continues in Kant's notion of "reproductive imagination" as operating by association alone; and it is found flourishing today in psychological accounts of what is revealingly called "human associative memory."

IMAGINING and remembering, two of the most frequent and fundamental acts of mind, have long been unwelcome guests in most of the many mansions of philosophy. When not simply ignored or over-looked, they have been considered only to be dismissed. This is above all true of imagination, as first becomes evident in Plato’s view that the art of making exact images tends to degenerate into the making of mere semblances. Kant, despite the importance he gives to imagination in the first edition of The Critique of Pure Reason, nevertheless considers images to be lowly "monograms" that are unruly and thus untrustworthy. In more recent times, Sartre, who is nearly as ambivalent as Kant on the subject, has stressed imagination’s "essential poverty"—its character as "debased thought"—while Ryle, in covert counterpoint, has attempted to conceive imagining as parody and pretense: as mere make-believe.

Imagining A Phenomenological Study Second Edition Edward S. Casey A classic firsthand account of the lived character of imaginative experience. "This scrupulous, lucid study is destined to become a touchstone for all future writings on imagination." —Library Journal "Casey’s work is doubly valuable—for its major substantive contribution to our understanding of a significant mental activity, as well as for its exemplary presentation of the method of phenomenological analysis." —Contemporary Psychology "... an important addition to phenomenological philosophy and to the humanities generally." —Choice "... deliberately and consistently phenomenological, oriented throughout to the basically intentional character of experience and disciplined by the requirement of proceeding by way of concrete description.... [Imagining] is an exceptionally well-written work." —International Philosophical Quarterly Drawing on his own experiences of imagining, Edward S. Casey describes the essential forms that imagination assumes in everyday life. In a detailed analysis of the fundamental features of all imaginative experience, Casey shows imagining to be eidetically distinct from perceiving and defines it as a radically autonomous act, involving a characteristic freedom of mind. A new preface places Imagining within the context of current issues in philosophy and psychology. [use one Casey bio for both Imagining and Remembering] Edward S. Casey is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is author of Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World and The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Studies in Continental Thought—John Sallis, general editor Contents Preface to the Second Edition Introduction The Problematic Place of Imagination Part One: Preliminary Portrait Examples and First Approximations Imagining as Intentional Part Two Detailed Descriptions Spontaneity and Controlledness Self-Containedness and Self-Evidence Indeterminacy and Pure Possibility Part Three: Phenomenological Comparisons Imagining and Perceiving: Continuities Imagining and Perceiving: Discontinuities Part Four: The Autonomy of Imagining The Nature of Imaginative Autonomy The Significance of Imaginative Autonomy

What would the world be like if there were no places? Our lives are so place-oriented that we cannot begin to comprehend the loss of locality. Indeed, the space we occupy has much to do with what and who we are. Yet, despite the pervasiveness of place in our everyday lives, philosophers have neglected it. Since its publication in 1993, Getting Back into Place has been recognized as a pioneering study of the importance of place in people's lives. This edition includes new material that reflects on the development of the field of environmental philosophy and presents Edward S. Casey's current thinking on place and home in our increasingly troubled world