Skip to main content

Beyond permanentism, beyond Severino's parricide

Any attempt to tackle the past in its vanishing character seems to require a memory that is independent from the biological one. Something that supplements it, as Jacques Derrida would have, and that can be trusted to keep what has happened when biological features become past - call it archive. The archive could be a being that makes sure that everything is eternal and nothing fades away because states of affairs, objects, relations, properties and events are permanent and only disappear from the horizon when they are in the past. There is a being-archive beyond the horizon that keeps everything intact - this is the full-blown permanentism that seems close to Emanuele Severino's Neo-Parmenidism. The parricide, on this account, is the idea that nothingness is conceivable - then one needs to find an archive that could rescue what has past from the all-engulfing nothingness. The parricide paves the way to metaphysics - the postulation of enduring ousiai among temporary accidents where things stand even when they are not apparent - and to religion - a God-archive that will ensure that at some objects, properties, relations and events are saved and therefore safe from oblivion. But if we conceive the mode of existence of the past in memory as neither permanence nor disappearance, but rather something akin to the intermittence that are experienced in remembrances, then there is an overlooked alternative, to say the least. Perhaps biological memory is plagued with failures and haunted  by remembrances because this is the very mode of existence of the past as memory - it cannot be fully converted into an archive as it cannot simply lapse in complete oblivion. 

Fabián Ludueña's disjuntology is committed to the idea that there is a non-ontological, para-metaphysical dimension that is neither that of the immortal with an eternal (or always resurrected) body nor that of the perishable that continues in time and eventually ceases to exist. The dimension of specters is that of a haunting, insisting and intermittent items akin to images, apparitions and remembrances. Biological memory is not insufficient, it is simply a memory that works as such and therefore is open to the eventual visit from elsewhere. No supplement can fully fix this because memory cannot work by storing things constantly. Its immortality is that of what comes and goes and contrasts both with mortality and with resurrection (eventually in a better, supra-sensible body). The effort of (classical) metaphysics, therefore, appears as intending to provide permanence to what is otherwise intermittent - either in the form of substantial existents behind the appearances or in the form of an absence of anything behind appearances. 

Interestingly, the intermittence that characterizes things from the past is not guided by randomness either. It is not contingency that brings back the hainting remembrance - this idea is perhaps still a hangover from the metaphysical assumption of an underlying substantial (and possibly empty) behind the passing recollections. Rather, it is not a hidden realm that dictates what haunts us in our memory - not even a stochastic hidden realm - but a domain that is in different ways entangled with (but not included in) the domain of the perishable. That domain is not filled with substances but is composed of irredeemable intermittence.



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