The Totalization of Shadows, Part XX
What are the modes of subjectivation and objectivation of concept creation? (The concept creator--is this a human?)
What are the conditions of the modes of subjectivation and objectivation of concept creation?
I think we've implicitly reserved concept creation as our antidote to Totalization,(we do not seem to have waivered in our "faith" in this antidote in over three years of pointed peregrination, indecisive deliberation) but do we believe it is also our antidote to subjectivation and/or objectivation?
Or do we retain subjectivation and objectivation, seeking new modes of them, which will be unTotalizable?
I only ask that any answers this might elicit not be tainted with romanticism: the notion that we will retain nothing at all, but will dance freely and wildly in a plasma of energy, sans condition, mode, subjectivation, objectivation, Totalization, (sans thought or even potential for thought?)
What are the conditions of the modes of subjectivation and objectivation of concept creation?
I think we've implicitly reserved concept creation as our antidote to Totalization,(we do not seem to have waivered in our "faith" in this antidote in over three years of pointed peregrination, indecisive deliberation) but do we believe it is also our antidote to subjectivation and/or objectivation?
Or do we retain subjectivation and objectivation, seeking new modes of them, which will be unTotalizable?
I only ask that any answers this might elicit not be tainted with romanticism: the notion that we will retain nothing at all, but will dance freely and wildly in a plasma of energy, sans condition, mode, subjectivation, objectivation, Totalization, (sans thought or even potential for thought?)
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 11:49 AM
2 Comments:
The concept creator--is this a human?)In structuralism it is not. Structuralism make a claim that it is not humans that use language, but language that use humans. It is the structure that is at the center of all things, and determine the order in which any thing is given as a thing and what meaning that has.
Nietzsche was in a way a kind of structuralist .. In the sense that, the death of god also implied the death of a certain way of viewing man. They also share the theme, of a kind of a metaphysical longing, for something that is greater than man, from which mankind is just one of many possible 'configurations'. Nietzsche has this with his death of god (and man), Heidegger has it with his being of beings, Foucault has it too in the shape of language.
The Schantzian romanticism that you describe, however is different since it has reverted back into a pseudohumanism: man as absolutely free and unbound.
Post a Comment
<< Home