Skip to main content

The indexicality of conceptual thinking

I'm getting closer to a more solid connection between what a post-nihilist thinking can do and what indexicalism provides. While substantives could have an intelligibility that can be extracted, captured, followed or persecuted - with different degrees of success, with different degrees of approximation - because their correction is given by something independent of any situation, indexicals can only be understood in a context. A situated metaphysics is one where the effort of intelligence is a production that is not consummated in a product, in an idea or a thesis that is general and could expose and replace its object - situated thought is not about replacing what is thought but attempts to produce what is not geared towards a further distribution or registration.

At the same time, I understand how the indexicality of conceptual thinking is an example and not an exception to how things are. Indexicalism conceives concepts as being inextricably connected to the position from where they are thought. One can attempt to exorcise this tacit subjectivism of the "for us" of our conceptual capacities - this is the project Hegel inaugurated in order to render the lessons of Kant less subjectivists (and therefore more substantivist). The attempt to extricate concepts from indexicals is based on a conceptual dynamics that could be contemplated from nowhere and from no position in particular. However, this is only possible if concepts converge - if conceptual activity is understood as producing (fully present) products. The adventure started with Kant was that of concocting a different substantive, one that is not provided by the world, by an apodicitic phenomena, by a position that is somehow universal and necessary. This adventure is taken further by Hegel in his attempt to establish in a converging Geist a new promised land for substantives.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 nev

Memory assemblages

My talk here at Burque last winter I want to start by thanking you all and acknowledging the department of philosophy, the University of New Mexico and this land, as a visitor coming from the south of the border and from the land of many Macroje peoples who themselves live in a way that is constantly informed by memory, immortality and their ancestors, I strive to learn more about the Tiwas, the Sandia peoples and other indigenous communities of the area. I keep finding myself trying to find their marks around – and they seem quite well hidden. For reasons to do with this very talk, I welcome the gesture of directing our thoughts to the land where we are; both as an indication of our situated character and as an archive of the past which carries a proliferation of promises for the future. In this talk, I will try to elaborate and recommend the idea of memory assemblage, a central notion in my current project around specters and addition. I begin by saying that I

Talk on ultrametaphysics

 This is the text of my seminar on ultrametaphysics on Friday here in Albuquerque. An attempt at a history of ultrametaphysics in five chapters Hilan Bensusan I begin with some of the words in the title. First, ‘ultrametaphysics’, then ‘history’ and ‘chapters’. ‘Ultrametaphysics’, which I discovered that in my mouth could sound like ‘ autre metaphysics’, intends to address what comes after metaphysics assuming that metaphysics is an endeavor – or an epoch, or a project, or an activity – that reaches an end, perhaps because it is consolidated, perhaps because it has reached its own limits, perhaps because it is accomplished, perhaps because it is misconceived. In this sense, other names could apply, first of all, ‘meta-metaphysics’ – that alludes to metaphysics coming after physics, the books of Aristotle that came after Physics , or the task that follows the attention to φύσις, or still what can be reached only if the nature of things is considered. ‘Meta-m