This paper investigates a number of elements derived from my practice. Specifically, it considers in depth historical analyses of one area of my interest: the passion of wonder. The paper uses Luce Irigaray and Philip Fisher’s readings of René Descartes section on wonder from his The Passions of the Soul. Obviously, through the tree of wonder, the topical focus branches out and touches a few other related areas. I have chosen to concentrate on where wonder traces notions of (1) the everyday, (2) time, and (3) knowledge.

I quickly abandoned my original goal to include an analysis of ‘spirit’ simply because it so often provokes a problematic response that I was unwilling to tackle again. I hesitate to claim that its mildly diversionary replacements pose any less scope or difficulty, simply that the notion of spirit seems notoriously contentious within the academic context.

While trying to remain within the confines of a critical analysis of my interests, the paper will refer to Kristen Lippincott’s broad overview of time from a National Maritime Museum publication, as well as Henri Bergson’s unique perspective on duration. A number of other theorists and poets sneak in but by no means can this paper be considered an exhaustive authority. Lastly, the paper does not propose any structural framework designed for a personal understanding of the aforementioned ideas. Instead, it simply highlights some key topical ideas.

Within the thaumatology that is the science of wonder, there are a few starting points to its investigation. The typical definition has two parts: (1) n. the pleasure of amazement; and (2) vb. to question. I suspect that the paper deals more with the former than the latter. But what is the situational context for this pleasure of amazement?

Download PDF:  On Wonder, The Everyday, Time And Knowledge

Tags: academic, London, philosophy