Instances of Reactivation, Part III
We live in a historical moment, we are exposed to various and diverse historical forces. Though we do not elect these historical forces, we may have some narrow range of responses to them from which we elect.
We attempt to be scrupulous within this election, but in scrupulousness, we notice the defect even of our notion of the scrupulous. Within our elections, we notice the interplay and effect of unelected forces.
“I” confront a diversity of forces, and one of the first things “I” notice is that “I” am forced to deal with them through an “I” which must be understood as individual and isolated—fixed, also, if you wish (fixed both in the Peircean and Schantzian senses.) Individual, isolated, and fixed mean to me as an individual-- putting blinders on, accepting a harsh narrowness to what I will care about, “deal” with. “I” must rely on the help, assistance, and cooperation of other “I”’s, who do help and cooperate, but also within the domain of their own individual, isolated, fixedness, and these are not without significance on the effectiveness of the power and quality of their help and assistance.
Do I want to put the blinders on? (Do I desire my own repression?) I do want to make a living. I do want to make my way in the world. Seemingly open to me would be the option of BOTH not putting the blinders on AND making a living, making my way in the world. Is this one of my options? What do I confront when I attempt to take this option? An open path (a surfable wave)? Or difficulties (barriers, reefs, walls, a room from which I can make no exit, “mind-forged” or “forge-forged” manacles)? I can say with some certainty I confront the other “I”’s who stand in varying degrees of awareness at this seemingly-same fork in the path.
The other “I”’s standing at this fork are as much a barrier to my passing as “I” am to “theirs.” None of this is willing. It is not voluntary, elected. There is no sense in which any of us desired to be standing here in this way. It is a historical moment. It is a totalized historical moment (but no more so than any other post-Enlightenment historical moment is totalized.)
We attempt to be scrupulous within this election, but in scrupulousness, we notice the defect even of our notion of the scrupulous. Within our elections, we notice the interplay and effect of unelected forces.
“I” confront a diversity of forces, and one of the first things “I” notice is that “I” am forced to deal with them through an “I” which must be understood as individual and isolated—fixed, also, if you wish (fixed both in the Peircean and Schantzian senses.) Individual, isolated, and fixed mean to me as an individual-- putting blinders on, accepting a harsh narrowness to what I will care about, “deal” with. “I” must rely on the help, assistance, and cooperation of other “I”’s, who do help and cooperate, but also within the domain of their own individual, isolated, fixedness, and these are not without significance on the effectiveness of the power and quality of their help and assistance.
Do I want to put the blinders on? (Do I desire my own repression?) I do want to make a living. I do want to make my way in the world. Seemingly open to me would be the option of BOTH not putting the blinders on AND making a living, making my way in the world. Is this one of my options? What do I confront when I attempt to take this option? An open path (a surfable wave)? Or difficulties (barriers, reefs, walls, a room from which I can make no exit, “mind-forged” or “forge-forged” manacles)? I can say with some certainty I confront the other “I”’s who stand in varying degrees of awareness at this seemingly-same fork in the path.
The other “I”’s standing at this fork are as much a barrier to my passing as “I” am to “theirs.” None of this is willing. It is not voluntary, elected. There is no sense in which any of us desired to be standing here in this way. It is a historical moment. It is a totalized historical moment (but no more so than any other post-Enlightenment historical moment is totalized.)
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 3:11 PM
6 Comments:
Interesting post, Yusef.
There appears to be a – perfectly understandable! – reductionistic urge or fundamentalistic longing in the recent posts for some kind of “grounding”, foundation or root as in the search for objectivity and now the subject = the I (which, by the way, undergoes a metamorphosis from the I with the “cape” of quotation marks around its shoulders to the I with the cape thrown off).
This quest for the stripped-down “Ground Zero”, as it were, of definition is universally human and a thread running through much of the history of philosophy (cf. the recent discussion of Descartes).
Without psychologizing it too much (!) isn’t it also a search for “identity” instead of “individuation”?
However, it is also a concept of the I as a “beleaguered” subject surrounded (even threatened) by external forces,
”We are exposed to various and diverse historical forces…In other words, a defense of the subject is needed,
We may have some narrow range of responses to them.The subject is subjected to,
the interplay and effect of unelected forces.In fact, the “I” (as “subject”) becomes an “object” of forces foisted upon it,
“I” am forced to deal with them through an “I” which must be understood as individual and isolated..It is a lonely, cold, narrow, and alienated space the “I” inhabits. And it calls out for,
the help, assistance, and cooperation of other “I”’sAlso very understandable.
Yet, the imagery of confinement, closure, and punishment continues with “blinders” and “mind-forged” or “forge-forged” manacles”.
Yet, there is a “fork in the path” – entering the geography of choice, however narrow, because
”It is not voluntary, elected”It would be too easy (and uninteresting) to create a dualism of contraction versus expansion in discussing this approach to subjectivity. Maybe it could be more fruitful to ask, not whether the aim of the search is productive or not, but rather whether the concept of the “search” itself is relevant and/or constructive.
It is a historical moment.Naturally. If that has any more meaning than just that all moments are that: historical and arbitrary.
Provocative problems are inexhaustible while solutions are a particular form of exhaustion.
Thanks for producing a problem!
Orla
The warning of a danger of a reductionism--that seems to me to be a common knee-jerk reaction to anything having to do with Cartesianism.
What interests me is that while this could appear to be a longing or search for grounding,fundamentalism, identity, a root,etc., which longing is coded I know to cowardice and weakness (we can be sympathetic to cowardice and weakness as you are willing to be,) but what I would like to see is how you would distinguish these longings from the effort to "make a difference."
Descartes' reductions and methods have been taken apart and put back together with skill and excellence thousands of times, and I think virtually everyone agrees his manuevers are suspect, not to be trusted. My opinion is even Descartes didn't have full confidence in causality back up to God from cogito. But none of this kind of skepticism and criticism has been effective in undoing whatever it was Descartes did effect. His creative power is greater than ours--we have to have greater creative power.
--Yusef
"It is a historical moment.Naturally. If that has any more meaning than just that all moments are that: historical and arbitrary."
I guess I said something so banal, so stupid. I admit it. I meant to say something ironical,however.
--Yusef
The warning of a danger of a reductionism--that seems to me to be a common knee-jerk reaction to anything having to do with Cartesianism.Very true. My point was a larger one: that the effort to isolate, narrow down, and define complex wholes into manageable entities or concepts is the traditionalistic approach we have all been taught through years of schooling and indoctrination. Escaping is hard for us all. It is as if western thinking is governed by a hidden image of thought that is akin to an architectural metaphor (or as Deleuze would have it: aborescent ditto) of excavating the ground, finding firm footing, then constructing a solid foundation on which to start building (systems of thought, supported by the "strong" pillars of causality and "truths").
Instead - or alongside it - another metaphor of thinking could be pursued as in a musical one of composing, filled with intermezzos, harmonies, discordant interruptions followed by ritornellos and flowing rhythms at varying speeds and intensity. More "ands" than "becauses".
This is hard, as well. Fluidity and flux, waves and streams are unmanageable and wash over fragile architecture.
You seem to indicate this possibility in your post,
Seemingly open to me would be the option of BOTH not putting the blinders on AND making a living, making my way in the world.Or is that reading too much into it?
...grounding,fundamentalism, identity, a root,etc., which longing is coded I know to cowardice and weakness...
No, no. Nothing of the kind was implied or coded. In fact, this might be another hidden metaphor: philosophizing as implicit masculinity, with discussion taking place in the locale of the courtroom, rather than in the salon. Maybe thinking would benefit from becoming more feminine, non-aggressive, non-macho, non-gotcha, and more supportive, addition without subtraction, openings rather than attacks, joining rather than dividing.
But none of this kind of skepticism and criticism has been effective in undoing whatever it was Descartes did effect.Yes, indeed. One can only stand back in awe at his grace and power of analysis.
His creative power is greater than ours--we have to have greater creative power.Oh, yeah, bearing in mind that systemic, reductionist thinking can also be highly creative. Maybe more so than its rejection.
I guess I said something so banal, so stupid..So what? Don't we all? And isn't this precisely what we should do, groping and fumbling towards something that may just lead to the "terra firma" of just a tiny, tiny stepping stone.
Just as anybody should be granted the benefit of the doubt, there should also always be granted the benefit of banality.
Orla
Hi again,
There is the whole concept of noology which might add to our discussion and suggest avenues of thinking that could open up new ways for "the private thinker".
Googling it turned up a post on this blog (right after the definition of it in an online dictionary) here it is in case you have forgotten it (I had:))
http://enlightenmentunderground.blogspot.com/2008/09/noology-or-thought-without-image.html
I want to develop this further in a future post. A Thousand Plateaus offers some inspiration.
"The private thinker" is a fascinating discourse that needs to be developed.
Orla
In fact, amnesia might just be one of the reasons behind philosophical fundamentalism: the desire to always start from scratch, wipe the slate clean and go back to TABULA RASA.
Isn't that the history of philosophy (at least until 30 years ago)?
Let's be politically (and enviromentally) correct! - and recycle this quote,
We constantly lose our ideas. That is why we want to hang on to fixed opinions so much. We ask only that our ideas are linked together according to a minimum of constant rules. All that the association of ideas has ever meant is providing us with these protective rules – resemblance, contiguity, causality – which enable us to put some order into ideas, preventing our “fantasy” (delirium, madness) from crossing the universe in an instant, producing winged horses and dragons breathing fire.
(D&G: What Is Philosophy, p. 201f)
-O
Post a Comment
<< Home