A serious question: How acquainted with phenomenology must I be before I dive into this? I can get how poetic images have a distinct dynamism and a result of a direct ontology, but I get flustered around the time Bachelard talks about causality and Minkowski's "reverberation," which sounds transcendental.
Also, as a tangent, any thoughts on the book to those who have read it?
>>8000671
As someone who has never touched phenomenology, you should just jump in and see what happens.
Finally, it won't be out of context.
>>8000787
Fuck you. The Zizek quote is actually on point. You didn't think he was talking about outer space the whole time, did you?
I don't think anyone here can help you beyond 'just read it', which is what I'd say.
You sound like a pseud anyways, so I'm sure you'll come out of it with some very strong opinions whether you make sense of it or not.
fuck off
>>8000817
He wasn't?
>>8000901
No, he was talking about the "space" in OP.