Article published in:
Controversies, Communication and the Body
Edited by Joseph Lehmann
[Pragmatics & Cognition 23:3] 2016
► pp. 404–415

Place and Person(a)

| Bucharest University
Without any polemic intention, our present contribution will be concerned with the idea of corporeality as an ontological index, in positive and negative perspective. In the positive perspective, corporeality represents the definitional index of the human person. More specifically, we shall approach the (human) corporeality within the formative process of the person`s consciousness (persona). In order to make relevant our philosophical target, the idea of corporeality will be treated within the semiotic extension of the concept of place / locus (Romanian: loc, Latin: locus, French: lieu/place, Hebrew: makom ‘place/ locus’ — Hamakom ‘the Omnipresent God, the Omnipresent locus’), in conformity with the following three oppositions: (a) place as a physical index vs. human symbol; (b) place with reference to physical persona vs. spiritual persona; (c) place in profane sense vs. sacred sense. In the negative perspective, the absence of corporeality makes relevant a new meaning of the Judaic concept hamakom: Hamakom with the sense of ‘the Omnipresent God, the Omnipresent locus’.We intend to establish two targets for our research: 1. to follow the process during which the definitional index represents a formative agent of (self) consciousness; and 2. to establish the switching point where hamakom (“the place”) becomes Hamakom ‘the Omnipresent God, the Omnipresent locus’.
Keywords: Corporeality, Person vs. Persona, (the) Self, Subjectivity, Consciousness, Belief, Metaphysical Transubstantiation
Published online: 20 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.3.05ame
References

References

Amel, R.
1999 Doxastic dialectics. The persuasive truth. In Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, XLIV, 1-4 (pp. 3–12). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.Google Scholar
2008 Sign systems - Sign references. Semiotica 32(1-2). 59–68.Google Scholar
2009 To use signs vs. to invent signs. In Eero Tarasti (ed.), Communication: Understanding/misunderstanding. Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the IASS/AIS – Helsinki-Imatra, 11-17 June, 2007, vol. I, 33–43. Tartu: Greif.Google Scholar
2011 The probable and the problem. In F.H. van Eemeren & Alias (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference ISSA, June 29-July 2, 2010. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
2013  Listening and the well-tempered controversy (With reference to intercultural exchange). XXII World Congress of Philosophy (International Association for the Study of Controversies), 4-10 August 2013, Athens.
2016  Petitio Principii (With reference to doxastic/belief dialectics) [comunication, International Conference IASC “Paradoxes of conflicts, 2/4. XII, 2014”, Lecce]. In G. Scarafile & Leah Gruenpeter Gold (eds.), Paradoxes of Conflicts, vol. 12, 207–218. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowell, St
2001 Subjectivity: Locating the first-person in Being and Time . Inquiry 44. 433–454. Taylor & Francis Online. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eliade, M.
1987 The sacred and the profane. The Nature of Religion (trans.from French by Willard R.Trask). New York: The Harvest Book, Harcourt (Internet Arhive).Google Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1991 The conception of value. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M.
1957 Der Satz vom Grund. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
1967 Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Levinas, E.
1979 Totality and infinity. An Essay on Exteriority (trans. from French by Alphonso Lingis). The Hague: Martinus Nijhof Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar