Skip to main content

Presence and ingratitude: the (restrict) economy of Beyng

Today I started a course on Heidegger's History of Beyng (and on his Meditation). Reflecting on the precedence of Beying over being and beings (and the very ontological difference) while having in mind the contrast between presencing and Ereignis in Time and Being, I explored the idea of the metaphysics of presence in terms of the present, of the es gibt, of the gift. The economy of the gift is the circle of gratitude: in order to show that I'm thankful to the giver, I keep the gift, preserve it and make sure it is no annihilated. My endeavor (the metaphysical or onto-theological endeavor) is to make sure a durable form of the gift is always available, at my disposal. This economic status - a certain restricted economy of being and beings, of what presents itself through beings - presides over the era of persecution (or preservation), of representation, of thesis (as opposed to physis) and maybe of machination. This era is inagurated by a dispensation of being (of Beying), an economic order based on presents and gratitude that places whatever is in the reciprocity circle. In contrast, Heidegger talks about the event (Ereignis) as an appropriation. If appropriation is where being lies - and not the other way round - then there is a taking over of the inhabited world by the events of Beying. The economy that is foreseen then - or found in the past - is one of ingratitude. The ingratitude forged by appropriation, or expropriation. Beying is out of a reciprocal, symmetric relation because it is not grateful but acts with appropriation.

The event of appropriation is what constitutes the history of Beyng. The event of making sure gratitude is brought about is one of the moments in this history. It involves the debt that engages us in a quest for re-presentation (archiving, preserving, restoring) against a background of nothingness. Bataille would have that the avoidance of death (and degradation) is itself an economic gesture.

Comments

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 https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   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