Am only three days, and 6 pages into this, and already starting to think that I am nuts. I am really struggling with the text, hopefully it will get better as I start to pick up the jargon. There seems to be an assumption of an understanding by the reader of the prior works of others such as Husserl, which I don’t really have. However, I also think because I am still in the introduction he is not really exploring issues in a great deal of depth, which gets in the way of really getting your head around the issues.
At the moment, I am reading about the being of the appearance, which is a tricky concept, mostly because I am still struggling to get my head around the idea of “being”. According to Sartre each appearance has its own being. From what I can gather the being is existence itself, the act or state of existing, without which the appearance wouldn’t happen.
For example if we look at a quilt. The being of the quilt is revealed by the appearance of the quilt. The question then is, if we start to examine the being of the quilt does the being have its own appearance i.e. an appearance of being. If it does, then what is the nature of the appearance of the being? Does it require its own being (the being of the appearance of the being) leading to an infinite backward regression.
Sartre seems to think that being isn’t experienced in the same way as other things like quilts and so the same rules don’t apply.
My blocks are getting done on schedule though. I did experiment with bulk piecing them, sewing bits from each of them at the same time, but am finding that while it might be a bit faster I don’t enjoy it so much, plus I usually end up making mistakes. Three new blocks are below.