We may postulate and hypothesis anything, but the validity of such “truths” is, in a relative sense, arbitrary. The mediated understandings and interpretations derived through our semantics—that which we find via semiotic abstraction—comes subsequent to prethematic experiential immediacy. Mediation is influenced by epistemic fallibility, the cultural contingencies within society, the hierarchies imposed via will-to-power, metaphysical valuations, and all manner of social inculcation. Through the existential demands of `having a world’, the immediacy of man’s prethematic experiences are rendered absent and placed in a forgotten “pre-civilized” realm. As such, the region of prethematic immediacy is both antecedent to any and every judgment-of-value one may entertain, and resides in exclusion via appeal to these thematic judgments-of-value. Thinking becomes estranged from the atemporal immediacy of the prethematic once mediated interpretations advance. This fallibility is not merely an epistemic aspect of what mediated and mitigated thought carries along within itself. Rather, this dissociation is an inherent ontological aspect of mediated self-alienation as such projects the hierarchically valuated theoretical abstractions of judgment out and into a linearly derived world. Thus, truth and value judgments are phenomenological in foundation and reflect the intertwining of variable issues. Insofar as we can show that any surety-of-access to truth in the metaphysical sense is impossible, and thus that the validity of the beliefs founded upon such certainties-of-truth are merely period-specific representations of a common and contingent orthodoxy, i.e., certainties-of-truth have no foothold in validity vis-à-vis that which is posed in opposition therewith (the false), the question of believing the invalid as valid comes to the fore as a possibility and issue of epistemic concern. In other words: the issue of just how thoroughly delusional and mythic truth is, comes to the fore as an issue for thinking. With the simulacrum exposed, everything becomes problematic. With this advent, the breach into the abyss is forged. Our hermeneutic understanding of the world undergoes a procession which reflects alterations in the interpretations we developed qua the experienced effects we undergo. We carry forward the effect of past experiences. Via the process of abstractly alienating these experiences through understanding and interpretation, and thus via our symbolic order of language, belief, art, and culture, these effects transfigure our newly affective experiences as life-histories. Because we are no longer where, what, or when we were just moments ago, neither are we wholly who we were in those previous moments. The procession of time, as such gathers past and future into the ongoing process of a present’s `moment’, alters the effective relations we experience in the moment’s event of affectivity (this through our displaced reflective posit qua our alterity in space-time). As such, we too are altered and show our underlying ontological nature as process, always coming to the table as altered in some evolutionary or processionary sense. It is in this way that the future is transfigured as an ecstatic gathering of the past, present, and what has yet to advent: a future’s interpretation. Each event of the effective moment advents in a different place in space-time; and as such, there is a sense of both individuated `moment’ and continuum in this procession. We are both points on a continuum and part of the chain which stretches out to both past and future, with ourselves posited as the gathering moment of (and in) the present. In this, the `future’ is what advances towards any particular `present moment’. We can understand this as such: each experienced effect is an existential point–an effected and atemporal affective position in space-time. And we ourselves are, in a manner of speaking, such effect-points. Depending upon the specifics of the event and thereby the experience one encounters at any given effect-point-in-time, i.e., depending upon the affective difference one encounters at any particular moment in the continuum-of-procession vis-à-vis one’s previous station, such a posit-point can be experienced as an atemporal moment.51 Having said this, and thereby proposing the transcendental `moment’ as an event open to man’s phenomenal scope, such does not imply such a “state” as a teleological end for consciousness, nor as some static achievement of elevated posit. The cycle of an evolving procession of consciousness, with its infinite scope and duration, and thus with its potential for unceasing sojourn, does not speak to a teleological end or eschatological mission. An acquisition of “clarity”, or the stilling grace of a new-found world-view, would not reflect a posit-point at which all consciousness evaporates. Nor would any such change in consciousness denote a future lack of experience by any agent so graced. Consciousness is not, in this sense, to be understood metaphysically. Rather, one would still be empowered with affective experience and be within the calling edicts of the semiotic (though one might, perhaps, sense being more “spiritual” or less bound to the material realm and its form of objectivity). The process of Becoming is always occurring, with new variants of old language-games coming forth to provide inspiration.52 Nevertheless, the important point is this: the procession of man’s hermeneutic dynamic does not end with some “breakthrough” or paradigmatic shift in how the world is seen or interpreted. Any shift in our semiotic structures, or any collective sense of changing consciousness during this transition period, merely reflects movement. Such movements are as old as history itself. Having said this, post-metaphysical transition reflects a difference of movement: insofar as the underlying premises and dynamics which underlie the transformative semiotic structures of culture eschew metaphysical predication, the valuatory structures endemic to Transition are fundamentally different from our previous modes-of-being. --FOOTNOTES-- 51. This is meant in Nietzsche’s sense of the timeless `moment’ of transfiguration–of the stillness of `the perfect’ at the gateway named “Moment”. Though this work is not the forum to explain nor explicate the Gateway Arch or stilling Moment of transfiguration in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, nor is this the forum to explicate how such bespeaks a gathering unity of temporality from both future and past in the atemporality of a now’s moment, this as per Heidegger’s sense of the ecstatic gathering of temporality as Care, such issues for thinking should be readily understood by the reader. This subject also brings into issue propositions of Einstein and other works of my own. Of course, this work here is not a manual for initiation to the grail, so too speak. If it is desired AND needed, such works, as they plod through the history of thinking and deliver us to where we now dwell, can and will be forthcoming. But the work before you is not a guide in such a scholarly sense. It is something else entirely. 52. In fact, Socrates, in the voice of Plato in the Meno, clearly notes that wisdom is itself only accessed via divine inspiration, and that this realm is precisely that which is prethematic insofar as it outstrips any potential for mediated knowledge. Hence, while others can provide “right opinions”, Socrates is continually forced to proclaim his ignorance; as the divine immediacy inherent to being within the realm of the inspired is prethematic and thus in alterity to the representational edicts of the semiotic. I have provided a short 4 page explication of this Platonic Dialogue, Socratic Paradox and the Ineffability of Explanation: Divine Inspiration and Wisdom’s Immediacy, in the Appendix to this book, Endnote: Addendum #2. Though an original reading of the Dialog, one will see how my reading takes from Plato and exposes the epistemic path of Transition. (c) 2011 (P) 2012 Deno Canellos ArtifexAstrum (10°=1□))
Posted on: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 19:54:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015