Double Economy II (Supplement). Living on the Faultline:
Diremptions
(describing the world).
For our lives are dominated by two kinds of ¡®assertion¡¯:
of fact, and of self¡
Seeing ¡®double¡¯¡
Dichotomies¡
Diremptions¡
¡®
Bifurcations¡
¡®Subject/Object¡¯:
two sides to the hinge¡
Two
fingers to the world¡
(Meaning: double; a pun). Two
descriptions/ interpretations/ readings/ voices; out and in, objective and
subjective: one, referential, pointing, describing the world, constative; the
other. expressive, emotive, gestural, self-assertive: taken together, performative
of the meaning of this article¡
Two
functions found in all language, in every sentence, in all discourse, two kinds
of assertion: asserting ¡®Truth¡¯ and asserting ¡®Self.¡¯ ¡®Truth¡¯ as referring,
constative, communicating something about the world. ¡®Self¡¯ as expressive,
asserting, communicating something about ones¡¯ self. The realm of ¡®Truth¡¯; a
singular manifold (what ¡®is¡¯), and relevant science and educational
institutions (object ¨Cin all senses- of reason and philosophy, as of religion
before them) ¨C but Quantum physics now questions the unity of the object
manifold. The realm of the Self; shows the subject manifold asserting its unity
and ¡®sovereignty¡¯; but itself as always already riven (but with a posited
¡®essence¡¯ as ¡®cure¡¯, the ground of ¡®humanism¡¯), based upon distinction and
identity, ¡®differential definition¡¯ and recognition and belonging, so the basis
of a sense of community. Asserting Self (and Collective Self), indeed are all
forms of identity support, the papering over of the cracks of subject and
object, self and others, self and Other, and not least, the fragility and un-locatability of the self itself; an identity support
including even negative identity (asceticism, etc.) as asserting just ¡®another¡¯
form of self. These two major functions are also manifest in the difference of
law and ¡®Law¡¯ (the legal and the ¡®sacred¡¯, actual laws and core beliefs, again,
observance and assertion), but are also found in the anti-institutional pose -
an ¡®antinomian¡¯ or ¡®rebel¡¯ identity, the cult of transgression¡ (Desire before
Law; Self before All ((including Death¡)) so paradoxical ground and unity of
all selfish and sacrificial relations¡).
To
the subjective side of language use or discourse, in addition to the presence
of the self as desire in the ¡¯subjunctive mood¡¯, we might further add the
¡®vocative¡¯ a difference of the name of a role and the calling someone by their
role¡ present in some languages as separate words, less so in others (in
Chinese yisheng/Ò½Éú and daifu/´ó·ò). A
difference of the description of things and persons using agreed nouns, and the
calling to, so asserting of self towards other using a honorific form of
address not used in description, a kind of role-based Proper Name.
Also
in discursive practice, there is the difference between ¡®mention¡¯ and ¡®use¡¯,
between citing and performing, so constative and performative; otherwise, as
quoting or stating or describing something (objectively) or as employing it as
a part of your sentence as part of the means of expression (subjective choice
of means) - and not just the reported content (of expression). So also showing
the difference of subject and object, of rhetoric and of fact, of identity as
informing manner (and so the surrender, or exchange, of object, for point of
view, or assertion of self in the statement) and reference or ¡¯selfless¡¯
witness. Again, we find the difference of gift exchange and of rational
exchange (of symbols, language and time, and so of ¡®use value¡¯ as information
for others: as opposed to ¡®using¡¯ as an extension, expression or assertion of
self)! For the performative usage is also a form of rituality¡ also an identity
assertion, or exchange¡ Whereas its opposite takes the subject as grammatical
and so transparent¡ (a ¡®metaphysics of im-presence¡¯¡).
A putative denial of self.
By
contrast, in the history of philosophy, we see the putative privileging of
(one¡¯s own) ¡®voice¡¯ (the ¡®Word¡¯) over ¡®writing¡¯ or any form of representation.
So, after Derrida, the full presence of the thought (one¡¯s own voice in one¡¯s
own head) as undermined by the past, or our reliance on memory and on the prior
experience of culture and language (not always conscious¡). Present to
ourselves in the present: but ¡®differential definition¡¯ suggests that all
meaning is governed by what it is not¡ and not only as a result of past
association; in the future too, as in repetition or iteration, where, as
context changes, as we change, so does the meaning of any given thought.
And of course once the thought is made public (is written or verbally passed on)
is made ¡®utterance¡¯, this is even more the case, as context and interpretation
suggest that all meaning is as an infinitely evolving form of ¡®writing¡¯, as
every new ¡®reader ¡®writes his or her contextually constituted ¡®last word¡¯ ¨C a
¡®last word¡¯ deferred to infinity (just like the infinite expansion of all
living languages and cultures). A full presence often stated as prior,
reliable, axiomatic, universal, originary and
teleological (yet undermined by Idealism¡¯s reliance or ¡®absent¡¯ essence,
Structuralism¡¯s -and Linguistics¡¯- reliance on absent deep structures or
differential definition ¨C both forms of the rhetoric of eternity, and in
Husserl¡¯s Phenomenology, the insistence of the past in the present, the nature
of repetition ¨C undermining any claims to a short-cut to universal species
being, the short-cut from the subjective to the objective). This is the role of
the ¡®metaphysics of presence¡¯, the illusion of full presence as (on Derrida¡¯s
reading) constitutive of, or foundational with respect to, the human sciences¡
(and well, provisionally¡ it usually is¡).
Indeed,
the rhetoric of eternity is implied by the presence of the present, (the
¡®Eternal Present¡¯ as site of our experiential being) as always there, where we
are, the meeting place of sensory input and memory. Eternity (and its
functional synonyms: universal, heaven, immortal, general (General Law),
axiomatic, a priori, Nature (Natural Law) etc.) as a generalization, or
universalization (sic) of the sense of the Eternal Present into a parallel , invisible,
unknowable, unchanging a-historical realm appears essential (sic) to religion,
ideology and even the sciences (insofar as not resolutely, empirical and
contextually inflected). A place ¡®outside¡¯ which we can rely on ¨C except is has
no existence outside of our minds, a guarantee that being eternal, is nowhere¡
Again the ¡®metaphysics of presence is seen to rely on a, this time, totally,
un-present, and unpresentable, fiction, that nevertheless is a function of our
minds (perhaps hard-wired into the brain along with the sense of the Sublime).
The Eternal Present being impossible to ¡®put one¡¯s finger
on¡¯, to ¡®pin down¡¯, the rhetoric of eternity was conveniently ¡®invented¡¯ to
sustain it (whence ritual, with ¡®eternity¡¯ (Myth, Belief) as its centre, and the sacrifice, identity exchange, as its
price¡). The ¡®metaphysics of presence¡¯ supported by the metaphysics of
non-presence¡
So not a matter of ¡®beings¡¯ and ¡®Beings¡¯ (the
¡®ontological difference¡¯) ¡ but the ¡®eternal present¡¯ and ¡¯Eternity¡¯ (the
temporal difference, the difference of being in time and being ¡®outside¡¯ of
it). And with each second term, the final term, the ¡¯big term¡¯, functioning as
an illusion; for what, in our experience, could be ¡®bigger¡¯ than the ¡®eternal
present¡¯ ¨C anything imaginable, would at once be contained within it. (Such as¡
what is not present: the past or memory (retrievable) and the future
(projectable) and these are ¡®semi-present¡¯, contained¡ And everything else¡
imaginable or not-imaginable¡ un-present, the Absolute Other¡
Indeed
the ¡®moment¡¯ of full presence is the ¡®moment¡¯ of non-presence, or absence, for
as we stop to examine we find Nothing, the ¡®moment¡¯ gone, and any successive
¡®moments¡¯ impossible to pin down, empty, non-full¡ (not ¡®one¡¯, not ¡®I¡¯) only
possible to experience¡ (and lose to memory). As we become conscious, we become
conscious of ¡®it¡¯ passing, that¡¯s all¡ whence the ¡®necessity¡¯ of ¡®eternity¡¯, to
the foundational supplement to the flux of the eternal present (which in turn
becomes its fleeting, passing, surface aspect or appearance, essence is always,
eternal¡). Eternity, an imaginary extension, beyond the ¡®moment¡¯ as
forever¡ A universalization, an
extension to fill all possible (read imaginary) space and time, but something
not of any ¡®moment¡¯¡ (¡®¡ that¡¯s all¡¡¯ And it is. That¡¯s all there is:
everything we experience (as ¡®we¡¯ experience it ¨C as I experience this¡).)
The
borderline of subject and object is the difference of subject and object. Not
¡®objective reality¡¯, where binaries blur, or are a matter of point of view (so
relative, complementary) but as a linguistic or culturally received opposition,
as our personal experience ¡®as it arrives¡¯ - the difference of two terms before
we blur it, or dismantle it, or load it with provisos¡ (not originary
difference ¨C this, whatever it might be, would anyway be lost in the depths of
the pre-conscious, but distinction or difference as the focus of consciousness
and so the description, putting into words, of experience; not ¡®passively¡¯
absorbing, not ¡®actively¡¯ constituting, but noting the difference). This
meeting place of subject and object is ¡®us¡¯, ourselves, our consciousness, the
meeting of ¡®in¡¯ and ¡®out¡¯, inside and outside, and incoming or
perception/stimulus (including from the body) and memory (linguistic and
cultural recognition and the preconscious). A meeting point, a borderline, a
difference that is ourselves, our ¡®place¡¯ in the world, our ¡®moment¡¯ in time
(but unlocatable, so, when relied upon, a ¡®metaphysics of presence¡¯, a
¡®non-place¡¯¡ and when the basis for decidedly un-present and un-presentable,
¡®parallel¡¯, extrapolation as ¡®eternity¡¯ - then the basis of the ¡®rhetoric of
eternity¡¯). ¡®Self¡¯ separates as ¡®difference¡¯ separates¡ The ¡®Subject¡¯ too
subdivides, until what is left is the eternal present of human experience, our
perception of the differentiation in space of things and (in or as) time
(constituting ¡®time¡¯ as our temporality) ¨C as when nothing moves, then our
sense of time passing continues¡. Our selves as eternal witnesses to
¡®Becoming¡¯. A becoming that includes ourselves¡ (¡®time passing¡¡¯). So the
¡®Same¡¯ exists only a convention of identity, and not a literal fact - the Self
is never ¡®the Same¡¯. On the borderline, the ¡®difference¡® is ¡®us¡¯, our ¡®moment¡¯¡
and our movement¡ a ¡®moving target¡¯ (the ¡®rest¡¯ is the Subject or Self as
Object or Other - as described by the sciences).
*
Commodity
exchange proposes an exchange value for a use value (the cost of a given
desire); identity exchange offers brute matter, persons. commodities (and time)
in exchange for identity as the required use value (recognition and its cost).
Perhaps standing in relation to each other as the sign to the symbol: like the
sign itself, the commodity may be read as having a second meaning (a second use
value), a symbolic meaning (and identity exchange may, of course, be described
as ¡®symbolic exchange¡¯). All are exchanged for ¡®time¡¯ ¨C the common measure. The
passing of human time (objective), in the service of a temporal identity
(subjective).
Identity
exchange, fundamental to human identity (not just a throwback to archaic gift
exchange): witness the sacrifice unlimited, of self or of others, witness war¡
its continuation (for years¡) beyond stalemate (WW1) beyond any hope of
concrete gain. A ¡®face-saving¡¯ defiance which would sacrifice one¡¯s own people,
community or country; an anti-economic anti-rational destructiveness, only unleashed
when identity is at stake¡ Self-image as death¡¯s head, a card trumping all
reason and logic, all economic sense and all and any common sense (perhaps the
card with the face of the Joker). Our everyday obsession with ourselves, become
megalomaniacal.
Identity and finitude; for all may disappear in the
imagination, all may be dispensed with - all saving the self. And this too may
be dispensed with¡ when in the service of the self-image of the self¡
*
Subject
and Object also feature in another side of human culture; our means, form and
content of representation, as in our writing and picturing¡ and in making
copies (of things and the world)¡ in our deployment of Left/Right as markers of
Subject and Object points of view, inner and outer, personal and another¡¯s
(other), personal and that of the deity (Other). As found in narrative images,
Left to Right in West, Right to Left in Middle East and in the traditional art
of the East (now often switched to, from Left to Right; as Chinese ideograms, for
example, are suitable for an easy switch of direction, un-like Arabic or Hebrew
scripts (Abjads), or Western writing (Cyrillic and Latin Alphabets). These
narrative directionalities show the direction of writing and image reading
(cartoon strips), and are complimented by movement around an object,
traditionally clockwise in the East and West, and anti-clockwise in the Middle
East and the Islam-influenced cultures in the world¡ The later showing
self-first or ¡®Subject right¡¯ in relation to objects: the former, ¡®stone
worshipers¡¯ showing ¡®Object right¡¯, the dominance of the object¡¯s point of view
or its right-handedness¡ (as opposed to ours, the viewers¡¯). Shown in art as
the sanctified top left corner, with the different forms of narrative Left
Right indicating the direction of approach, ascent or influence (these two
dominate art history, East and West until the 20th century). But as
the right side, anti-clockwise, is also iconoclastic (anti-image)¡ Might we say
that Object right is manifest if the deity is so , otherwise (if invisible,
unnamable ) not shown, nor showable,
then Subject right has priority, as in ritual (opposite to that of East
and West). Therefore, the Subject/Object division also dominates cultural and
writing production. With clockwise showing the point of view of the Other¡ (or
kings; the statue as it faces us¡). Subject w/rite for self-assertion. Object
w/rite for the Other realm and its assertion (Might is Right). Culture is also
a divided manifold and its fault-lines follow those of the human and ¡®hard¡¯
sciences and what they describe¡.
Culture,
of course, includes, architecture and in the built environment we have the
physical function of a building or part of a building and the symbolic
function, again of the whole or of part of a building (usually the top, and
other ¡®decorated¡¯ elements, entry, windows). In effect the difference between
objective and subjective functions (how we use it and how we see it; how we employ
it and how we understand it; what is it for, and what is it for us¡). This
¡®extra¡¯ expenditure of ¡®decoration¡¯ is, of course, an ¡®identity exchange¡¯ ¨C a
performance of intense meaning, an act cultural assertion (the ritual force of
a building, street or square). Indeed the ¡®Solar¡¯ tops of buildings (or of
entire streets and squares - for this concept is trans-building) may
also be read as divided between narrative or subject right and object right, as
stories are depicted and statues look out¡ but most of the solar top level and
its d¨¦cor is skyline related¡ a hypsosis that
begins from below and leads our willing eyes up to the rim above and beyond:
cornice (edge), spire (deictic), symbol (regional cultural code).
*
So,
in summary, 4 major aspects:
In
art: recognition of Object Right, the assertion of the object as deity (in most
cultures, East and West); recognition of the Other (not depictable in cultures
without Object Right, like those of the Middle East). In architecture in the
(top) decorated part, its expenditure as identity exchange. All in opposition
to Subject Right as evinced in narrative and script direction.
In
human behavior in general as ¡®identity exchange¡¯; the assertion of Subject
Right (over the object, including Self as Object, as in self-sacrifice or
suicide). Also the scene of the clearest insistence of ritual in modern culture
(and so inseparably sutured to the modern extended form of exchange, the
commodity form ¨C even as its non-equivalence form of exchange (¡®disjunctive
reciprocity¡¯) is defined against it).
In
philosophy (¡®Anglo-American¡¯) the ¡®is/ought¡¯ or ¡®fact/value¡¯ difference as the
opposition of objective and subjective points of view (description versus
choice or action, asserting fact versus asserting identity). Further divisible
into (descriptive) institutions of science (describing self, other and objects)
and (prescriptive) institutions of governance tying the self to laws and norms
(mores) held by an-other, regarding the behaviour due
to self and other, and guaranteed by a (fictional) Other (¡®rhetoric of
eternity¡¯) ¨C the assertion of a Collective Subject of conformity.
In
physics (and the physical sciences in general); the division of classic and
quantum descriptions of reality, as the recognition of subject interference (in
quantum physics) so indicating recognition of the subject/object relation as
the ¡®edge¡¯ which differentiates description.
What if the glove has two fingers: ¡®two fingers to the world¡¯¡
with mutual contact, overlap, a shared part of the glove (or¡ not¡) only a mutual application - but no
unity. Or four¡
*
Note
I. The terms subject and object; or rather the ¡®subject/object¡¯ divide¡
Regarding
the terms (or better, ¡®dyad¡¯): ¡®subject/object¡¯¡ where I have preferred to use
¡®asserting self¡¯ (or taking the point of view of the self) and ¡®asserting fact¡¯
(or taking the point of view of the object) ¨C with the former in fact (sic)
often actually an assertion of fact mobilized as an assertion of identity. This
received and deceptively simple opposition of ¡®subject¡¯ to ¡®object¡¯ in practice
includes or overlaps with a variety of ideas¡ (whence my use of ¡®assertion¡¯ for
clarity¡). Ranging from: the original terms, subject/object, with the near
cognates, self/other and same /other, followed by the more metaphysical
Same/Other with the implication of a collective Subject (¡®mind¡¯, ¡®Spirit¡¯) as
Culture (Language) or History, as Nature (as 2nd nature becomes
Nature, ¡®Natural Law¡¯). Again, we have object as matter with subject, or
subjective point of view, as personal experience and assertion, or the object
as the other point of view or ¡®object point of view¡¯, perhaps as a (putative)
collective point of view (of others/of the Other). Or if Subject as Collective
Subject, with community again as the asserting subject. In the case of the
object, or objective point of view, we have the limit case of empiricism,
effectively of collective witness, of Truth as inter-subjective and (within
limits and with many exceptions) repeatable. The collective subject of course
is analogous to Hegel¡¯s ¡®World Spirit¡¯ or Heidegger¡¯s ¡®Being¡¯. The
subject/object division in physics, as noted above, is the point of view (or
limit or edge) of our species being, with the Quantum-influenced sciences
showing a subject ¡®interference¡¯ and so offering a divided manifold: leaving
classical physics as still representing the objective point of view (with
denial of subject interference) as guarantee the claim to a unified manifold
(which if read as metaphysics is no longer an empirical statement about the
world, but a statement about how the world should be¡ so ideology¡ in
subjunctive mood¡ and so back to the assertion of a subject position or
belief).
And
on the other, ¡®the Other¡¯¡ home of the Sublime, the Face of the Object writ
large (subject of no little personification) and (reinforced by the capitalized
adjective, ¡®Absolute¡¯) Proper Name for unknowability.
So
the so-called ¡®subject/object¡¯ difference, or subjective and objective points
of view, include a range of relationships¡ which not only include their
differences (internal/external, same/other, subject of perception/object of
perception, self/other, self/Other, individual/collective, experience/witness,
unique/iterative, etc¡ as well as generalised
and collective versions) but also their common human origin and place(s) of
enactment. The border on which we find ourselves¡ The border from which
we launch our modes of assertion¡
In
summary, this diremption traverses or fractures all human activity: in science
in general, the description of things, in relation to our ¡®species-being¡¯
limits; in the human sciences, the description of human behaviour,
of society and culture; in the particular case of the arts, of subject versus
object point of view as in script and narrative Subject right versus Object
right, the two complimentary points of view needed to describe directionality
and meaning in the arts (with different solutions in different cultures); and
in thought and language, in philosophy (where, again, both sides are necessary)
the distinctions of is/ought, fact/value, use/mention, analytic/synthetic (lost
in Quine¡¯s monism where the analytic becomes a habit of thought, so historical
object) and most obviously in language¡¯s, I/you; I/she, he, it together with
their plurals and; I/we; constative/performative, indicative/subjunctive.
All
of the above binaries are also hierarchies; that is they have traditional
associations as positive and negative, upper and lower term, major and minor,
main and accidental, essence and appearance, which may also depend upon ones
(ideological) point of view¡ With the first term read as ¡®restricting¡¯ because
excluding. And the second term as ¡®general¡®, because inclusive, becoming the supplement
to the first term. Unless full reversal simply turns the lower term into the
upper - a reactive mimetic formation which maintains the hierarchy, apes
tradition and repeats the same errors ¨C remains ¡®inside¡¯ the same paradigm
whilst believing it is leaving it¡ Like Bataille¡¯s
own attempted reversal of ¡®restricted¡¯ and ¡®general¡¯ (his terms) in the
preference for ¡®gift exchange¡¯, unequal forms of exchange and destruction; as
opposed to production, rational forms of exchange, equivalence, or commodity exchange¡
(as noted by Derrida). Both terms are necessary for a non-exclusive description
of human behavior.
And
the same might be said to be true for the basic terms of human thought
(philosophy, language, formal languages) subject/predicate, element/set, topic/comment,
the difference of the two terms of function f(x) and¡ subject/object. With the
added observation that these pairs invite paradoxes if interrelated as (i) infinite contradictory self-reference, where A becomes
~A, (the alternating two terms of ¡®going in¡¯ or ¡®down¡¯) and (ii) accreting
layers of metaset, as each succeeds the former as the last word, the ¡®last
all-encompassing view¡¯ (additions ¡®going out¡¯ or ¡®up¡¯). With the metaset
relation or process as ¡®before¡¯, with each step as ¡®more fundamental¡¯ so
¡®past¡¯: and relation of process of contradiction as repeating onwards, so as
¡®future¡¯ - in an implied arrow of time¡
Another way of thinking our limit and its relation the
outside is that every time we think it¡ our circumference just got bigger (so
each metaset to infinity potentially increases the space inside¡); Just as the
infinite reference of self-reference, of the movement ¡®in¡¯ (as opposed to
¡®out¡¯) increases the interior depth, or the dimensions of the pocket.
Note
II. Double illusion.
Illusion
I. The metaphysics of presence, a kind of listening to oneself, as privileging
oneself (mental voice/¡¯logos¡¯) as present to oneself now, therefore always
reliable, ¡®true¡¯ - with the inference of being present. So again, reliable, in
this way ¡®forever¡¯.
Illusion
II. The ¡®rhetoric of eternity¡¯ employed as a support to identity and ideology
(religion, faith-based and ¡®Natural Law¡¯ type) as ¡®place¡¯ of deep structure,
Essence, Nature, Universal; put ¡®outside¡¯ time as guarantor of their
authenticity, their ¡®Truth¡¯, their eternal value¡
So
both methods of establishing ¡®Truth¡¯ employ an appeal to eternity: the first, intuitive,
as presence, with the inference that ¡®this¡¯ intuition or thought will always be
true, always be the case, always be the same (ignoring time and iterability, or
other interpretations of the given thought or utterance - even by one¡¯s self¡
repetition as difference): the second, logical or received, as absence, opposed
to appearance, the surface, the mutability of the above, as an eternal verity
which is hidden elsewhere - beyond time, eternal (and so beyond us¡). Double
illicit moves because the first assumes eternity for a (passing) moment in the
eternal present; whilst the second assumes eternity from an, equally imaginary,
generalisation and extrapolation from the eternal
present, ¡®Eternity¡¯.
Note
III. Criticism (description or ascription of meaning) and Psychology.
Criticism
too (literary, aesthetic, ethical), no longer seeks wholes, nor to put things
¡®back together again¡¯ ¨C as with criticism in the wake of ¡®deconstruction¡¯,
showing the parts that no longer make up a whole¡ Adult thinking no longer
requires that all cultural objects and practices have a simple (unified)
meaning, any more than it requires that the law of non-contradiction to be
operative from the very beginning of an exploration of a given ¡®difficult¡¯
(contradictory, contentious) topology or topic.
One product of the divided self is the power of belief¡ Charms, lucky actions,
placebos, etc., have no direct objective validity, in effect are superstitions,
often based upon dubious associations. But here again we have two points of
view¡ objective and subjective - or perhaps we should say, psychological¡
Moreover it is here that objective analysis (as in of a poem or piece of music)
robs the belief of its power. Two starting points, fact and belief, as seen
from the outside and felt from the inside ¨C but it is the later that carries
psychological force, is the most effective¡ (mysteriously so ¨C the outside view
however, provides the answer, descriptive, indicative, but, because of this,
not performative ¨C no longer ¡®usable¡¯, effective¡).
Afterword.
Should
we begin to think of this diremption, traversing all aspects of human life, as
the experientially originary split, or rip, or tear,
fundamental to our being, crossing all other differences (gender, generation,
¡®race¡¯, class, culture, belief, sexuality, life-style¡). Our species-being, a
¡®constitutive diremption¡¯¡ irreducible, unavoidable, ¡®incommensurable¡¯ - an
existential double-bind. Little wonder the dogged persistence of humanity¡¯s
ages old resort to ritual exchange, ¡®identity exchange¡¯, whose ¡®disjunctive
reciprocity¡¯ is the nearest we can get to unity, to crossing the bridge -
little wonder that this practice is so important to human identity¡ our
assertion and our continuance.
Subject/Object;
Subjective/Objective; Self/Other; Eternal Present/Eternity; our vision of the
present/our visions of the imagination; our presence of the present / our
ability to imagine the absent; our imaging of ourselves/ our imagining of
ourselves in the place of the other; different kinds of internal/external
points of view¡ a complex of complementaries. Not so
much an ¡®ontological difference¡¯ but an ¡®alternating difference¡¯ or a
¡®reciprocating difference¡¯. The flip sides of a Mobius-strip, running into one
another, but always on opposing sides¡ with us, the edge, thinking the
difference¡ now one, now the other¡
Humanity¡¯s
most intimate of divisions. A barrier Husserl once tried to bridge. But the
subject/object binary is now better regarded as unbridgeable, indeed,
constitutive, formative rather of ourselves and our relation to our context,
our environment, our ¡®world(s)¡¯.
Or if bridged, bridged, symbolically, that is
subjectively, performatively, in our acts of assertion, in the ritual
¡®disjunctive reciprocity¡¯ (exchange of matter for mind) where an action or ¡®cause¡¯ in one (¡®material¡¯) mode, has a ¡®parallel¡¯ reaction
or effect in the other (¡®spiritual¡¯) mode ¨C or, more simply, ¡®identity
exchange¡¯.
*
Double Economy/Diremption III. Diremption and Temporality (the ¡®double
economy¡¯ and our experience of time).
Let
me recapitulate the four zones of divided manifolds¡ (in each case the second
term accepts and complements the former ¨C reminding us of the fact of the
involvement of a seer or speaker). In the physical sciences, classic/quantum
description; in the human sciences, equivalence/non-equivalence in exchange,
commodity/identity or ¡®gift¡¯ exchange; in thought and language, fact/value, or
is/ought, together with mention/use and indicative/subjunctive; and in art and
architecture, object right/subject right directionalities. In each case a
division or admixture of the assertion of fact and the assertion of self
(degrees of subjectivity returned to the object).
From
where does it come then¡ this division in our world, in our life, that never
leaves us whilst we live¡ a division that tears a massive, near unbridgeable,
rent in our individual experience of ourselves and the world as in our species
being? A division, diremption, dichotomy that can, after all, only be based on
one difference¡ on one experience. Our experience of experience ¡®now¡¯¡ and then
the rest of our previous experience. The experience of the ¡®Eternal Present¡¯ in
which whilst we live, we live¡ and its others. In practice these all come from
the past; source of all continuity (in self and perception), all our other
knowledge (we know ¡®others¡¯ are others because experience has taught us so).
The diremption of our eternal being in the present: and the semi-present
presentation of past being (framed, experienced -again- only in the present):
the past, our memory (of what we have done and what we have learnt from others
and other sources) and (its projection, the projection of what we know into
what has not yet happened, as¡) the future. Together they make up the others of
the present; the places of remembered experience, and the experience of things
we have not ourselves experienced, the experience, recorded, of others¡
knowledge, all knowledge, and the results of the sciences¡ the results of
thousands of years of stored collective memory (it is this, I think, that makes
our species different). And the projections of this knowledge, these rhythms,
repetitions and the predictions we base on them, forwards¡ making planning and
foresight possible (our window on the future). We have only to add the
extrapolation from the Eternal Present to non-experience of ¡®Eternity¡¯ which
offers the indispensable non-ground of universals and of laws in secular
thought, of the gods and their heavens in religious thought, (together with
dream time) to complete the set of human options on temporality.
Root
of our diremption. First and second (and third) hand experience¡ The first as the
basis of our self, including our experience of our self, of being a self, and
of having a memory of that self, our self-recognition¡ (our self, having
memories, remembering who we were¡). The second, also from our memory,
of others, of the point of view of others (of the possibility to recognize
this), of their collected, inscribed, transmissible experience, whether as myth
or narrative, religion or ideology, fact or fiction¡ what we learn or believe
or what we take for granted ¨C what we take as given and what we accept from
others (and make our own). A temporal ensemble made from the Eternal Present
(the present) and its others (past and future) and its Other (¡®Eternity¡¯)¡ with
only ritual to bridge them¡ With only the assertion of that self (the experience
of the Eternal Present and its associations, its communities, its
differentiations and distinctions) through identity exchange to bridge the
impossible chasm¡ to unify the un-unifiable¡ Much as ¡®eternity¡¯ glues together
our orientation in the past, present and future, offering ¡®the world¡¯, the
narrative of first and last things, with the ¡®metaphysics of presence¡¯
attempting to ground knowledge in the self, and the rhetoric of eternity acting
as guarantor of these connections and ¡®groundings¡¯¡ For the self has two
pillars, one within and one without¡ and the arch that bridges them is the sum
of the assertions made in ritual exchange¡ assertions that are also renewals,
assertions of self, identity, assertions of community membership, of
recognition, as self with others, assertions of dominance (or its opposite),
assertions of the state of the world, of first and last things, and so to
assertions of fact¡ And if we are fortunate the facts fit the former identity
propositions and we have an objective picture of the world, and if we are not¡
then we lie to ourselves and to others¡ we live in denial ¨C and, when
questioned or challenged, become vicious¡ individually ¡ or collectively.
Twin
Pillars bridged by the Arch of Memory. For memory is both the bridge and
foundation of the basic diremption of human experience. For memory is both
subjective and objective, the memory of our own experience and our experience
of others experience¡ of learning¡ Yet despite the importance of presence, of
our presence to ourselves in the present as our place in space/time (our ¡®self¡¯
identity), despite this ¡®situatedness¡¯, Truth, nevertheless, is intersubjective
(we, ¡®I¡¯ might be dreaming, delirious, deluded, drugged or just forgetful) so
group witness constitutes empirical knowledge (facts), which we (¡®We¡¯) store in
archives before we (¡®I¡¯) locate it and store it in our individual memory (the
absolute external viewpoint, metaset or ¡®absolute objective¡¯ is of course the
Other point of view and is fictional, even if assumed in much thought ¨C the
¡®God¡¯s eye view¡¯, or again , the point of view of ¡®eternity¡¯). However one more
element yet is required: the repetition that accompanies learning and maintains
memory, as it maintains our links with others in the world; repetition in
required for connections, whether to self, memory, identity or to others, our
collective identity, the desire born of recognition¡ Whence the force of
ritual; repetition with affect - at its most powerful, repetition leaning on
the rhetoric of eternity (fueled by some manner of exchange, of sacrifice or
gift¡).
In
summary (and continuing to simplify as much as possible), perhaps the biggest
difference of all is the difference between our present experience (our
experience of the present) and everything else (a very practical division,
enabling response and survival, but with the illusion of autonomy ¨C as witness
the force of habit). Either the rest is not there, not accessible (unconscious,
pre-conscious, reactions, habits and repetitions), or it is semi-present, as
when we access recall, find memories (or project into the future). Thus this
¡®everything else¡¯ (we know or have experienced) is present to us (the ¡®bridge
of memory¡¯) as demarcated from the present, as ¡®semi-present¡¯ ¨C if you like the
co-presence of our subjective and objective worlds. Things objective, which we
prove in the company of others (empirical proof or witness), or learn from
others, lodge in our memory, whence we access them, make them present to our
subjective experience. For the difference between subjective and objective
experience surely lies in numbers, subjective experience may be deluded (or
memory faulty), but collective witness is more likely to the right. Truth, so
perhaps reality also, is intersubjective¡ (but all objective matters are
present to us, in us, subjectively¡). This difference between the experience of
present and past would then be the basis for the diremption(s) noted in this
account of the description of the world and the assertion of our selves (easily
confused, so suggesting an origin point for the difference of subjunctive and
indicative mood and their analogues in philosophy, fact and value). Perhaps we
might say, the past (re)asserts facts, the present (re)asserts self (we have a
present reason to re-assert the fact). Our lived temporality is again found to
play a key, in not constitutive, role in our relation to the world, how we
describe it and the limits of this describability.
*
Copyright Peter Nesteruk, 2020