Art after theory
Part 6 More philosophers….
Heidegger calls this the ontological question because it gives an account logos of the on being qua being, or as Heidegger puts it, being with regard to Being, that is, solely with regard to what makes a being the being it is. As later in de Saussure, language is here the paradigm for the sign, and linguistics is the model for semiology, of which, however, it is but a part. Such developments elsewhere particularly in mathematical theories must perhaps precede the development of certain types of scientific theories.
In his Introduction to Metaphysics, Bergson gives us three images to help us think about the duration and therefore these qualitative multiplicities after all, it only meant that logical principles agreed with themselves, with their own embodiment in empirical acts of thought. And, as we know, these motifs , arbitrary and differential , are inseparable. Its removal, or arrival has made it possible to defend ourselves from being called unreasonable, or meaningless, as in it total presence there is something else, or a possible intention, and in its absence there is a presence or possible intention. However, while it is true that an utterance is a type of action, and a speakers meaning is a type of intention, we want to argue that neither the rationalisation nor the simulation view of the text, reading adequately accounts for the hearers ability to retrieve the speakers meaning. Through this examination of our understanding, Heidegger for instance intends to establish a deeper conception of ontology, and thereby lay the foundations of metaphysics as science.
Our restriction may be introduced here, then, either by rejecting it in favor of the conjunction of others, or by rejecting it in favor of one idea taken alone. First of all, it is obvious that from a single experience of this sort I dont, cant, know how to generalize. In his Universal Characteristic, Leibniz assigned compound concepts by products of the concept’s point of indeterminacy and is not reducible to the concept of lack of information. There is then, in fact, no trust in the methods of direct democratic practice.
Thus, that indefinites appear to have the force of existential quantifiers in cases like this is not because they are existential quantifiers but because of the default existential quantification of free variables. These predictions constitute the institutions affirmative action goals, and failure to meet the goals signals to the institution and to the practice that it needs to revisit its efforts at eliminating exclusionary practices.
The expanded and revised notion of textuality, all those boundaries that form the running border of what used to be called a text, of what we once thought this word could identify, i.e. the supposed end and beginning of a work, the unity of a corpus, the title, the margins, the signatures, the referential realm outside the frame, and so forth.
It would seem that this is in a sense produced by the imagination although we must not forget that imagination is itself original time, or temporality.
It is in this specific approach that the distinction between the two modes of perception, causal efficacy and presentational immediacy, influences the whole discussion. Too simple to be pragmatic or symbolic on some other text, or thing.
In fact, for most deflationists, it is this feature of the concept of truth, its role in the formation of generalizations, that explains why we have a concept of truth at all. But now it became for itself precisely what it had previously been only in itself.
Exercises: We should make some trainings to distinguish cognitively and emotively attributes or predicates from opposites or polarities.
******
As it happens these sets have also a very interesting and natural characterization which is based on the idea of the notion of one of the events is not necessarily, for it stands in an inner real connection with a definition of anything. parallel to this we find in certain corresponding unitys of systems the implementation of which it is supposed to help starts out by criticizing mechanism as it applies to the concepts something not closed off, open dynamic non coding in a fixed way. At any one time there will be one largest act of representing categories, can apply to appearances through the mediation of a determination of time. ‘But I know without thinking.’ theory of self organization and this uses it in a novel way to interrogate a purely mechanistic reductive view of causality. But it is difficult to determine how a metaphysical understanding of the temporality of intention can be avoided. Another approach is to take point that in this context the principle of sufficient reason is both doubtful in itself and opaque in what it requires.
If all consciousness is subject to essential laws in a manner similar to that in which spatial reality is for instance subject to laws then these essential laws will be of most fertile significance in investigating these things as facts of the conscious life.
The intention and the problem coexist in a manner which is not causual non teleological, it is as it were perpetually provisional and is constantly being reduced to or connected with or supplanted by the explanatory apparatus of some discipline characteristically concerned with entities of some lower layer notably a Dialectic which contains implicit critiques of each of these even though in a different sense that this is, however maintaining the distinction between essence and based on context, the ordinary set of theoretics can be identified with, the recent definitions of the intentional which we are considering provide that a text, action - this - is intentional if it entails an intentional idea, it follows that, if sometimes too forcefully the desire following decades of poststructuralist critique to reassert the power and possibilities inherent in the practice of theory, that this might be yet another potentiality. So Gadamer first presents the hermeneutic circle in its simplest form: It concerns the circular relation between the whole of a text and its parts: the anticipated meaning of a whole is understood through the parts but it is in light of the whole that the parts take on their illuminating function.
What we call an intention is neither a transitory epiphenomenon of our thinking and willing behavior nor simply an impulse that provokes such behavior nor merely a present condition we have to put up with somehow or other.
Hegel has been offered as an excellent instrument of self consciousness at a time when the prevailing conceptions of the word says this saying which may be different in each situation needs resolution, but it is precisely the rigour of Derrida’s critique that forces us to address the question of culture at the scene of cultural origin and not in medias where culture has already diversified into an always supplemental manifestation of its originary moment, which lacks the relevant readings assigned to those sentences by this theory, more definitely and directly in respect to metaphysics as a science the mere degree of subordination of the particular under the general which cannot determine the limits in the case under consideration, only complete difference of kind and of origin will suffice.
Those who don’t understand us properly will say with the correctness of thought it is a necessary but not sufficient criterion of the truth of a thinking intuition ie of a cognition of our understanding, of claims about the spatiotemporal world as well. This does however not concern us - not bother us particularly- but once again maybe demonstratwes something of the fullness of this so called empty discource. Works if they are, are in fact the outcomes of different and parallel trains of thought.
With the ‘empty’ (and now we see this word as an external mistake) - subjective space the free play can and does allow the whatever it means to you is what it means approach typically cited in postmodernity, which occurs for what may be a number of reasons which however is not a singular approach if we regard the ethics which are in very simple terms present in the very act of intentionality, seeing destabilization instability phenomenological presence as presence of a wish or desire want need etc. For instance though the same signifier may be used iconically in one context and symbolically in another acceptance of a given view whether modern or postmodern this last requirement would seem to mean that the simplese must contain something like a description operator.
The synthesis of reproduction reaches back and retains the past but not so that the past is merely present but is presented as past:,
The generalization rules (of this) transform like others, try as much as they like to get along by ratiocination or raisonnement, though without philosophy they are unable to keep alive without it or to have any significance.
If that is to say truth exists merely in what or rather what exists merely as what is called at one time intuition at another immediate knowledge of the object, a concept, is to say that what is explicated is severed from the many other dimensions which functioned together with it before which I have raised by saying- that although some day historians will explain to us what false assumptions they presupposed- that there is no hurry then- we can in effect answer the metaphilosophical question by pointing to this space, set of possibilities etc. Historical - dialectic pragmagmatism may well have other answers - may well have answers. Such applications of the analysis of the role of the artist in the society of the seventies leads to a concept of the art context that is expanded by general economic conditions, and nothing at all to do with this - other than its present and persistant potentiuality / being.. The artworld- its been argued- is shaped by the conflict between the artistic role model and art works as products: Artists believe that they are creators within a product and performance oriented society while art works have become a part of an international distribution system of cultural goods ie of a bureaucratic corporate industry.
Indeed considerably enhanced by this requirement by insisting on apodeictic certainty as the sine qua non of knowledge: so some maintain only that whose certainty can be called apodeictic can be called art proper; if normative games are being played - and here they are not - or rather if they are then in part they are of a much greater set of possibilities. Cognition that can contain merely empirical certainty is only improperly called art. Here Act quality and act matter are two mutually dependent moments of the act: it is a matter of necessity that each cannot exist without the other, and again lacking in significance.
The dilemma is resolved once we realize that even though we are unable to provide exact definitions, iternatively one can refer in a premise, when incoming intuitions are arrayed it is not easy to distinguish the process of arraying them from acts of synthesis the the integrated spectacle incessant technological innovation fusion and a perpetual present to a generalized system offers some valuable and novel reflections on the relationship of language to thinking, and more importantly intention.
The boundaries of signs referents and users are not necessarily sharp though this is often assumed by other contemporary theorists, we doe not suggest a way out of this situation but claim only that the principle of sufficient reason is false at least in this context, as it misses out so much.
A conceptual necessity which might have embarrassed others, is not simply the deletion of a problem which can turn out to be a matter of suppressing an antagonism but the conscious mastery of its own history, the notion that art proper, fine art draws the distinction between the analytic and the synthetic through the criteria of conceptual containment, identity and the principle of tautology.
For instance - objectively -You and I are only possible in a you and me relation by virtue of addressability which is the potentiality of calling you into being of invoking you as you for a me, and this begins a proto social relationship.
Conversely it also becomes possible for theoretical knowledge to provide a fuller interpretation of practical rationality neutralizing the instrumental politics of its authority while reaffirming its social origins and so - for instance - imagination is the original unifying force that gives rise to the representation of original unity that Kant calls apperception.
The hierarchy thus constituted is a progressive overforming accordingly the consistent reflection on consciousness yields more particularly it is intuitive in the mode of a new kind of experience, the question therefore arises, why the dogmatic objectivist desperately tries to reduce principles to concrete rules that can be applied automatically, furthermore if more substantial content is added to our conception of the initiator of the modern project that serves as the paradigm or model for this question, calls besides for a thorough commentary since superficial criticism of this conception and its subject matter has so far been primarily that this position ignored the oppositional contrast between the subjective and the objective, between thinking and intending and therefore casuistically produced specifically logical schemas of thought for the ontological determination of things outside thought and on the contrary universal definitions of the reality outside thought for schemas of the logical process and so giving more prolematics, a hypostatising logical forms and a logicalising reality etc.
It so happens however that the text was not intentionally written as an attempt to develop a theory or build upon, update and go beyond classical problems from within the reigning paradigms.
These arguments are considered by, this relation to objects and may be said to be fundamentally intuitive, this at least marks a naïve starting point for some, in whatever manner and through whatever means such cognition may relate itself to- objects that through which it relates itself immediately to them and to which this thought aims as a means is intuition.
Furthermore it is the proliferation of anomalies of past the dominant paradigms / theories are unable to resolve which has resulted in the crisis of the past - another difficulty which I encounter in this text is this sudden reversal when one needs to understand what has first been explained and then asserts that in order to explain one has to understand, for instance a text has been considered to be a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, intentionalites have a potential, none or all suit such a model as I would propose, and what I do propose, its pragmatics and the theory of language uses that need for careful evaluation, is not here in fact ever to be considered in this activity. All these perspectives oppose the mathematization of the world only in the last resort, even if they logically allow for mathematics as one discourse among many! this which is constituting all objectiveities, and so on. Obviously we are dealing with various problems of legitimation in this - and the problems of focussing.
In use this always means something more precise, no single conceptual pattern determines its many uses, so for instance Max Horkheimer moved from a critique of ideology towards a struggle for a theological moment in philosophy that emphasized a human transcending reality! - and might be considered as a clue to what might be thought to be going on here - however this is not quite the point- there is in fact a deep suspision of such materialist/transcendental tendendecies for I do not see why its needed and if its developed only exposes further metaphyisical critiques. Its simply not needed - though its potential is obvious - now - and so here briefly rehersed, not to avoid it perhaps but more as a general cataloguing exercise… so I will not discuss its details here-
Otherwise - and to give yet another picture or potentital picture this hasd been characterized as the phenomena whereby the interpretation of an occurrence - this - of one expression- depends on the interpretation of an occurrence of another- which is so characterised by overloaded meaning, or whereby an occurrence of an expression has its referent supplied by an occurrence of some other expression in the same or another sentence- which is again rhetorically as well as logically active - such activities are deterministic in that that occur with the creation of the classical object, meaning,, sentence , text etc. so the principles of economy simplicity etc are literally self explanatory by virtue of being optimal on their own footing, what goes without saying and not necessarily, the possibility of a text qualifying under both relations was always resolved in terms of a choice being made, we now see another possibility or set of possibilties.
They attune us empirically to the ways in which knowledge of the world is structured by discourses e.g. that reflect conflict over power, they decode these discourses as politically salient etc. methods not only to expound the need to incorporate a variety of methods in the theorization of social phenomena but also explicitly attempts to rigorously theorize an effective practical response to the need for theoretical pluralism, because paradigms are intended to serve as examples of normamative political discoursce. (and such social enginnering of art etc)
(The store of basic philosophical concepts derived from the philosophical tradition is still so influential today that this effect of tradition can hardly be overestimated.) -a deep redescription of the social developed in terms of a corresponding redescription of, intentionalites, hense the incorrect idea that subjective idealism is the opposite - is a mistake.
In none of these instances can an intelligible answer be given finally, concepts are for one firstly conceptual relations. This forces us to notice that there are two different kinds of responsive to objectivity, mere comparing brings the objective and precise empirical response of what we compare, reading the question of the very grounds of thought and practice is something perhaps more complex and inherent in the first.
To illustrate the difference between recognizing that so and so is the case and recognizing what it is that is the case… Derrida has referred to emergent meaning as a mere trace a mere phantasm or illusion and we normally think in a confused and potentially incoherent way when we think about the ways things seem to us, The exactness of the last mentioned thematic lies in its being grounded on it’s a priori on this
For those who can understand this language, every aspect of it carries the permanent confirmation of their vision of the world…. and the need to ask about this more definitely and what it is and why it regulates the appearance of the totality of the world and the position of the one which alleges that if a relation were a further kind of real thing along with its terms it must make a thematic investigation of being in the constitution of that which i.e. this, exists. The question that now arises and which I have already anticipated is what has all this got to do with the aesthetic object. (sic)
So called writing by all rights and in principle and not only due to an empirical or technical insufficiency can function only by admitting into its system signs spacing etc. and ideas about ideas etc - whilst the conservative explanation held ongoing, that labelled, is simply that the facts of praxis are in effect key to some social order not having an antipathy to writing. one must remind architects of this as well as all those who negotiate decisions that bear upon these spaces the nature of just what they are doing.
I do not have to enter into the technical debate, this mode of analysis has produced a teleology today for the need to revisit the notion of teleology.
This reading does of course blur the distinction between imagination and apperception but it does seem part of a move formal definitions which many have in the past thought are worthless because they are always- and have been- inadequate - in fixing even themselves. And the so called call for / to Praxis-
e.g. The idea that -‘Physical phenomena exhibit certain properties which cannot be exhibited by overt speech/textual episodes, episodes per se for such episodes being essentially intentional items cannot be characterized in terms of any physical properties; similarly physical phenomena do not although speech episodes do exhibit intentionality.’ -
The existential concerns seem to have grown in part then- for us out of some contact with such pluralism or what some call epistemological theory.
I do not have to enter into the technical debate this mode of analysis has produced. The resulting higher order categorial acts can indeed be such that the sensory material with which we started is no longer present even in a subsidiary way in the contents of the acts in question, this is hardly surprising given that it is a rather obvious point. Those lack of distinct edges with respect to primary and secondary remarks recreates the problem of the resolving disputes about the application of the analytic synthetic distinctions, intentionalites is the essential obverse side of its freedom as antirealist theorists go, to posit three clearly defined levels of analysis each possessed largely of its own distinct logic, which is to, and has been to offer a model of clarity and theoretical organization against the declaimed ambiguities of postcontemporary social theory to praxis. (etc in latter art and language :note)
One side views it as at least something like the view of cognition that rejects the other as rather like the view they favour.