In search of lost time

Abstract

The counterpoint to this article was the circulation of the core concepts of the modern philosophy, which include space-time and body-words, and the leitmotif was the development of the concept of conversion-transgression itself carried out through overtones of circulation-words (language), values (gifts), soul (to Another and into-another). "Circulation", projected on the shell of "time" in cyclicity is more clear, and moving to the "axial time" doesn’t lose its connection with quality content of event, dividing on the external form, linking of different quality processes by mechanical chronology, and the internal structure or post-structural properties, given the reflective transformation carried out in recent decades.

Such attempts of through binding are not new. In a certain sense they can be characterized in the following words of J. Baudrillard: "The reversibility of the gift is manifested in the ‘gifting back’, the reversibility of exchange in the sacrifice, the reversibility of time in the cycle, the reversibility of production in the destruction, the reversibility of life in death, the reversibility of each language element and meaning in the anagram... Everywhere it takes for us the form of extermination and death. This is the symbolic form. It is not mystical and not structural ‑ it is just inevitable" (from "Symbolic exchange and death"). Not taking his position as a whole, the author tries to rethink the position of Baudrillard, starting from his descriptive references.

Source point for the author was "impulse-to-whole", that in post-modernity was inclined to the destructive rejection in the apologetics of destruction. Passing through the history of thought, this impulse is gradually drawn to the subject, taking above all romantic meaning. It has long been imputed to the being, in recent times increasingly taking over his features. "The impulse-to-whole" is a good interlude to the theme of being-towards-death, but in different variations it cannot settle in retrospect. However, it tempts by its psychological transparency: non manifested (to consciousness) being leads and directs existence, and realizes itself in the dictate of text- unconscious, of text, arranged in structural sense by semantics and by lexical completeness, experienced originally in the "house of being" (J. Lacan).

The time from the viewpoint of explication appears to be happen-as-perceived, it loses itself in nav’-not-sleep (in oblivion-displacement of the forever-found-here). Plebeian "reality" intrudes into the elitist transparency (of text) by the dictatorship of the space (unity of time and place), dissipating the golden dream of creation by unambiguous-signified (by word-command, under which are stretched bulk of necessity: of coherence, of coordination, of matter).

The future is outlined by unconscious-text, by flight of Stygian swallow of word in the cave the shapelessness; the actual falls in light of the revelation as in the shell of words, gives to eidos-not-conscious-non-existent the body-speech. The being is realized in the actual because it already existed in genuine, once-presented eternal world of ideas, now transformed in the space of the narrative with its impulses-structures. These unconscious dreams of the text become real in recall, dooming the advancing obsessions-shapes. It returns to the structure of “here-”being as being "ready," but cut in a body – in an early dense fabric of matter, vulnerable light fabric of flesh. This coarse canvas, according Heidegger, is the original (here-), and initially aspiring to the fullness (of being). But this isn’t like this from the viewpoint of the gray realities of anthropology and ethnography. In the abstract “here-” its imputed inferiority leads to the two invectives: of the impulse of “here-” to being-fullness and of the impulse of being to localize “here-” as timeliness and appropriateness. The pamphlet of utmost simplification should not cross out the designated by them alternative: “being” in the projection at the beginning of history is findable and foreseeable, “here-” is ephemeral and receives the face and the texture (of the individual or of the person, of the subject or of the autonomy) for millennia. The impulse “here-” to being is tragic (Heidegger) and cathartic (Aristotle); the impulse of being to “here-” is ontological, while its plane of expression transforms it into the comic / travesti.

The presumption in relation to the source of autonomy naturally gives rise to the spiritualism of the structure; “here-”doesn’t need the selfless being, but rushes to it meaningfully; yet "consciousness (das Bewusstsein) can never be anything other than conscious being (das bewusste Sein)..." [K. Marx], and being “up-” and “before-” consciousness indicates the impulse of existence to “here-”. If so, in being “here-” is no autonomy; it is original-being (such as exists-being) and initially overcomes the abstraction on non-cleared basis. But the source of the anthropological specifics is original, and in this source the autonomy is something quite late; “here-” being, if we find the analogy, may not be prefaced itself as the autonomy. This autonomy is acquired historically, and taking into account this obvious fact, the scheme of the impulse should be topsy-turned: “here-” being isn’t initially directed to being, but originally (common), and source ecstatic being directed to the autonomous-individual “here-” being, which realizes in itself the deployment of "now" (in a wide range of timeliness-appropriateness, which over time encompassed the whole world (into world-circle). So now-simultaneity re-encodes itself, losing the metaphysical timelessness and transforming into the self-fulfilling probe, into the conductor-being, and his body in the (increasingly multiple) “present”, variously-distinguished-coherent).

First deconstruction leads to subsequent reactions. Martin Heidegger establishes attitude of being-towards-death, alternative to the original impulse. But their relation is not obvious; being-towards-death is affirmed as a psychological givenness, without kinship with the desire to the fullness. Generally speaking, the closing of the motives of "impulse" (to being) with "being-towards-death" is fraught with cheap enough rigorism. Heidegger wisely doesn’t close them in a common logical field, avoiding the truism of self-sacrifice by means of dissolving in the common being.

At the dawn of history the required (impulse) replaces natural stimuli, represents a perversion (psychiatry), motive (ontology), exchange gifts (the society and exchange economy arose in its bowels), power (sovereignty), holiness (obsession), etc. This, however, does not give to the required the right to (metaphysical) substantiality, but outlines the place of motivation, which in certain conditions is more demanding and urgent than listed above.

The beginning of history is marked by panopticon of motives affecting being, but in fact preceding it and investing the relations of being to “here-”. The being in anticipation of the will, the mind and the ego indicates the source, which in positive interpretation could take roots only in the field of (adaptive-conditioned) desires (materialism) or in innate idea (certain modifications of spiritualism). The third specific desire, which found satisfaction in prolonging the satisfaction, specific satisfaction is dissatisfaction, the transformation of desire in the motif, this unusual game in satisfaction and satisfaction from this game.

This specific satisfaction attached to the desires in their naturalistic iteration (of needs, libido, Thanatos) as motivation converts desire, subordinating the motive and the reality dissolved-lost in it in circulation, the universal form of the time-being.