From within the atemporal region of prethematic immediacy, beings lack hierarchical delineations of objectivating opposition—things have yet to be stamped as extant objects.140 When within the the first-levels region of prethematism, man is informed through a sense of `just being’; an intuitive relation which grants beings their autonomy by simply letting them be. One is in the `flow when within the first-level’s prethematic dynamic. Beings are free `to be’ because there is no-thing, no definitive relation of constraint by which to render beings held—this `event of transition is counter-intuitive in that such a gathering hinges upon a form of `letting go’. The region of first-level abstraction lacks the objective relations of hierarchical valuation necessary to the act of imposing stasis upon beings. Here, such fixed relations of objectification cannot manifest due to the absence of the required linear temporality that is imperative to creating objectified gradients of reified stasis; and as such, the hierarchically delimited valuations which come with linear forms of time reckoning do not manifest within the immediacy of the prethematic moment. Secondly, our phenomenal connections to (and within) the world informs understanding via the thematic interactions within which we are immersed. Thematic relations reflect linear associations of mediated temporality qua symbolic representation. Thematism speaks to having had a past; a past that informs the present and which remains steadfast in informing future revelations. The thematic level of disclosure informs via the semiotic structures that constitute and which are constitutive of the language-games used to define the world. In this, the future is never proposed as a gathered unity of the moment, but is always held away by abstract delineation. Hence, the dynamic of metaphysics, while promising its feel-good myth of a future via enlightenment-speak and theology, can never provide that which it promises. This grounding relation of disjunction is instituted by internal meta-epistemic design. Thematically defined within a world, the power-object-meaning triads employed to impart stasis upon the world, and which renders beings objectively present as `facts’, serves to wrench thinking from the prethematic flow; this so as to send thinking into the assumed stability of a world build upon symbolic order. During the epoch of metaphysics, this dynamic displaces thinking into mind-body and subject/object dualities. Thus, we gain self-conscious awareness of our corporeality as a disjunctive relation. In being torn from the transcendental `now’ of the prethematic `moment, thinking acquiesces to the objectifying activity of setting beings apart qua the schism of phenomena and noumena.141 During the epoch of metaphysics, theoretical abstractions of idealism estrange individuals from the beings there-with co-present. Such forms the nihilistic ground for the epoch’s objectivating dynamic of valuatory estrangement. Seeing things split along phenomenal-noumenal lines, or even accepting a Hegelian view in which some overarching consciousness might be present so as to discern the either/or of the `one’ and the `other’ in the phenomenal/noumenal disjunction synthetically, all speaks to the underlying premise of metaphysical duality. Such therefore speaks to the violence of imposing form and structure upon beings as a mandate of conformity and valuatory stasis. In so doing, beings are estranged, and the givenness of the world in its concomitant presence is passed over and missed via metaphysics and its ontic-centric theory of (self)consciousness. --FOOTNOTES-- 140. It is imperative to remember that extant entities reflect the underlying meaning and import of the term ex/tant. As such, beings are assumed to have existence in the sense of `to be’, and are thus ontically presupposed by the semantics of utilizing the present participle. The deeper meaning speaks to how what is “extant” is placed or stands over and above, i.e., out from, the `other’ as an ontic relation relative to other such “beings” and the phenomenal background from whence they come. Extant relations thus speak the language-game of metaphysics. 141. The mind-body problem, and the problem of how it plays out in Kant via the phenomenal-noumenal disjunction, comes to a head with Hegel. However, even with Hegel, who understands a `third way’ of sorts in this matter (this insofar as the Kantian dilemma is wholly untenable and restricts the realms of phenomena and noumena to absolute and mutual exclusion vis-à-vis one another), and thus insofar as Hegel feels something must either reside outside the duality of exclusion so that we can discern one or the other at any given point in time, or that there must be a state of synthesis whereby phenomena and noumena conjoin, we still run up against the thematic-prethematic rift and a rationalization of the metaphysical premise of divisions which seek conjunction. And, of course, and as should be readily apparent by this point: any epistemic sense of knowing the one, the other, a third rail which allows for an overarching access to plenum the one and other, or some synthesis of the one and other, all presuppose, in being known as such, a more fundamental ontological relation. Oddly, the move to this disjunctive dynamic, whereby the mind-body problem advents, is not a given; for such reflects a move into the third-level theoretical abstraction of estranging objective alienation. The move of second-level abstraction, whereby mediated reflections horizontally project first-level prethematic experiences out for reflective analysis, cannot cause the estrangement necessary for disjunctive dissociations as such are embodied in the mind-body problem. Rather, such dissociative estrangements (as found in the mind-body problem) only advent via third-level theoretical abstractions. (A Single Star in Sight: Post-Metaphysical Transition (c) 2011 (P) 2012 Deno Canellos; Beyond the capacity, ArtifexAstrum (10°=1□))
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:46:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015