Skip to main content

Process and deconstruction (and their left-overs)

Whitehead makes a surprising move, beyond his position in Process and Reality, in Perspective, Modes of Thought. He holds that eternal objects themselves have perspectives. Everything that affects the sensible has perspectives. The sensible is the realm of concrescences, where things acquire forms, where processes are issued from their original data. In Forms of process, Whitehead presents the limits of process - what is fixed, concerned with space, time and deity. These are the remnants of process, what is kept in a Heraclitean sensible in constant life and motion. Process is non-ending and terminates in no fixity or stability, but it has its left-overs. Whitehead is close to Plato there: there is life and motion and there is a support behind all, except the connection between the two is not one of participation but rather that of fixed points relating to a flux or attractors relating to a transition. The fixed elements, as much as the unstable ones, have perspectives because they are in the sensible (and not elsewhere, and here Whitehead reveals his Aristotelian face). Abstraction - where one gets analogous processes out of different individuals and analogous individuals in different processes - is not what is kept stable, it is only part of the building of potentialities in order to fuel further processes (they contribute to the secondary nature of God).

Derrida's deconstruction is also in the flux of meeting different voices that destabilize what was previously said in their always coming different sayings. Text is always a new encounter and, as such, the reader is never sure something is being said to her and yet feels its appeal. I take "bêtise" as it is analyzed in the 5th session of La bête et le souverain after Deleuze's original analysis in chapter 3 of Difference et répetition to be an important image for this process: "bêtise" has a role in thinking, a trans-categorial role that could be oblivious to some attempts at critique but is crucial to deconstruction. The challenge is that the reader could always find herself doing a "bêtise". Deconstruction is a non-ending process that produces no stable fixity where things a posit for good and nothing is further imposed by new encounters. It deals in the im-pos-ible. Still, it has its left-overs. What carries on the process of deconstruction is the ethics of reading as an encounter - it is justice to the other. This is a fixed point - or rather an attractor that makes deconstruction move. It is not about the truth of a thought, it is about the truth of an encounter (accessible to thought). Justice could also sound as a Plato-like stable element and it is - but it corresponds to no form, to no idea, to no category. It lies within the practice of encountering another understanding. Justice is not a model but rather it is something that emerges from the process of deconstructing the prevailing categories.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne