The world correlate chapter 5 end

   In my previous analysis in this essay i moved myself from Stephen essay on evocation to certain selected passages i choiced from his prolegomena from the next linguistic, A point of order and them others without mirrors, however, i would like to say that evocation is not only his more philosophical paper but a paper in which Stephen advance to propose thinks that transcends his previous ways to discuss a variety of problems

   For example, the issue discussed by derrida about if there is or not an outside to language derrida discussed around Saussure idea that the subject is a function of language, within them others without mirrors Stephen maintained himself under the idea that there is not an outside to it while in his paper on evocation in response to me he modified his position by recognizing that evocation shows several dimension which are not originated in language and overall about which language result limited as less and as excessive thus placing avocation before, simultaneously and after in regard to being and the timeless of becoming, in respect to the quotidian, in respect to even the pluralization of discourse

   With the sublime of the quotidian in this paper he also explored possibilities outside the parameters of the so-called retrofasism as he called it at them others without mirrors in respect to previous forms of anthropology

   He also explore in his evocation response to me a different and new solution to the issue of otherness which was focused at them others, he now fully negated othernnes and the idea of distinguishing we from the others not only with the idea of the meddle voice he discussed but through new proposals

Moreover, the kind of reciprocity entailed here is not expressed in the grammar of differentiated subjects and objects, us and others. It requires instead, something like the idea of the middle voice in which subject and object, us and them, are not differentiated, but are mutually implicated in some ongoing process or performance whose meaning cannot be predicted before hand, but many found simply in the activity itself or possibly in its joint contemplation. The ideas of mutuality and reciprocity conveyed by the middle voice establish a world of participation in which the distinction between us and them no longer function, a world where others are not reduced to objects of our desire and we are not possessed by them.

  While to me the issue of subjectivity and objectivity discussed at them others and usually pointed and analyzed by Pierre Bourdieu is one of the main qualities of them others an issue I solutioned at The Subject in Creativity with basis in retheorizing the problem as Bourdieu has sustained subjectivity is a part of material culture and objective material culture a part of subjectivity and the subjective

   The main proposal of Stephen in regard is to incorporate the other into my subjectivity and to incorporate us into the other objectivity

  The idea of the meddle voice was first discussed by Derrida in his essay diffarence as a meddle voice between passive voice and active voice while we should not forget that this concept was discussed by derrida in a pure philosophical context, not in an anthropological sense and as such its possibilities are philosophicals by which I mean that the issue of subject and object, self and otherness as solutioned under meddle voice is related with otherness in philosophy like for example it might be recognized in Hegel in the discussion of one and multiple, being oneself and being another to the self of another meaning concepts developed outside of the issue of different cultures parameters

  While derrida himself was an argelian emigrant to France and as such a France thinker who revisited the tradition since ancient thinkers, his perspective was one of a north African emigrant, the margins of philosophy might be defined in this sense as a self-ethnography, the performative play is in fact evolved nor only in the form of a critique of philosophy that explore its margins but in the performativity of the first chapter developed in two columns with leiris

  As Stephen recognize

It is also associated with speech or orality, and thus seems to fall neatly into the discourse about the opposition between orality and literacy. In a way, it is not surprising that evocation should be linked to the voice, since both voice and evocation derive from the same root (latin uoc- “to speak”), but the connection in literature is not really with the idea of speech as sush. The sublte difference between “speech” and “voice” is the source of an equivocation here. Note, first of all, how the idea of voice has been “literalized” as when we speak of the “voice” if an author, invoking by that expression the distinctive and characteristic mode and manner of the author’s written expression. “Voice”, in this context of literary avocation is disassociated from speech, apart from indicating the syntactic role of the semivocal subject as a means of discriminating among the grammatical categories of active, passive, and middle voices. What calls out here is the revocation of speech as the speechlessness of voice, the provocation of voice as writing, as literature and grammar.

   The issue discussed above at the same time on the worldneess of discourse and aesthetic understanded from the parameter of evocation suppose at the same time an attention to the ontological principle by which evocation made possible language and the other one relative to the mode of organization of our discourses so as to solve the relations of adecuation something that suggest a relation between the posmodern work, the title of one of my papers, and the open work as eco discussed it from the moment the idea of evocation suggest an space of indetermination in the horizont of the senses so as to let it open at the level of the relation between the parts and the whole, a kind of aleatorism as eco discussed it

  While at the same time the effazis of Stephen on the relation between evocation and synchronicity and the simultaneous with connect also with the sublime of daily life and with the timeless time of becoming reestablish parameters that are usually excluded and miss considered within usual or traditional forms to understand the posmodern work if we not forget the habermas objection to postmodernism miss regard and forgetfulness of the major issue of life world

   And this is something that remember the discussion of eco and levis strauss, eco remembered the discussion at his book reader in fabula arguing that levis strauss was suspicious and questioned eco idea of the open work claiming instead a closed work

  It is then obvious that if we analyze evocation in Deep on the way of sense and by what it supposes to language, it is on the side of the open work and as so very far to levis Strauss, in this sense we may sustain that with his essays in response to me on evocation Stephen notably taked distance from levis Strauss in respect to the point of relation of his earlier cognitive anthropology to levis Strauss beside certainly Stephen focus was on lexical analysis and semantic instead of phonology

    Both coincident in the past in the fact of getting the organizational forms of society with basis in linguistic parameters something leads us to the differences between ontological structuralism and operational structuralism as discussed by eco at the absent structure, the first one transfer to the ontology of a culture the structure it find in the logic of forms, the second understand the abstraction formalism as strategic structure to operate analysis without transferences of it to be considered as the ontological structures of society

   Between both options I was always on the operational side while today I am beyond both as discussed in this books the structures are symbols and nothing else and as such nothing might be done with it without the work of the interpretants more even yet if we are considering it in a posmodern sense

Evocation, in other words, is not the emasculated other of difference, which serves merely as the means by which the positivity’s of good form construct their identity. Evocation can be captured neither in the duality of opposition nor in the separated poles of opposition that make the discourse of identity. Evocation is not then, a concept indicating the identity of an essence, positive or negative. We know it neither as an essence nor as the concept of an essence. It makes itself available to us as its effects, and these effects are ephemeral, singular, non-empirical, multisensory events.

  In respect to posmodern ethnography one of the most beautiful Stephen essays also stylistically my position about is prospective, from my point of view there’s not yet a posmodern ethnography in existence, nothing already done in the field of contemporary anthropology and ethnography might be considered as truly posmodern and as such posmodern ethnography the only paper which really approach it in a convincent manner must be understanded like Stephen did under prolegomenon to a next linguistic, as a paper on a future ethnography so never to be considered as a paper on already done ethnographies

  One of my porposivennes in the past was about to explore that future as a contemporary present by focusing curatorial practice of propositional exhibits, but later with the time I take distance from it and I commited by self with instead affording it within author books such as my recent years one rethinking urban anthropology, anthropology of archaeology and the indetermist true

Ethnography is a return to the idea of aesthetic integration as therapy once captured in the sense of proto-Indo-European *ar- (“way of being,” “orderly and harmonious arrangement of the parts of a whole”)...that family of concepts so closely connected with the idea of restorative harmony, of “therapy”...ethnography is an object of meditation which provokes a rupture with the commonsense world and evokes an aesthetic integration whose therapeutic effect is worked out in the restoration of the commonsense world... ethnography captures this mood...for it too does not move toward abstraction, away from life, but back to experience. It aims not to foster the growth of knowledge but to restructure experience, not to understand objective reality, for that is already established by common sense, nor to explain how we understand, for that is impossible, but to reassimilate, to reintegrate the self in society and to restructure the conduct of everyday life.

    My former allusion to Peirce cosmology are obviously referred to a sense of the world cosmos semiotically understanded so regarded not to how mans and society explain the origin of the world but in another sense from Peirce infinity semiosis as a matter of inference

   In a few words, according to Peirce as to derrida and eco our thought is itself a form of sign, well what I want to point here is that the concept of cosmology understanded outside religion so as discussed by Peirce, explain a kind of cosmological constellations of the signs in between them

   And certainly, while Stephen find coherence in the Hindu cosmology, something approximates his position as near to the weber one in the sociology of religion, we should not forget that weber effasis was not in cosmovisión but in discussing another aspects of society according to religion, what to me is relevant again in a sense started by Peirce, is to recognize that under deeper gramatological studies of the signs and the symbols we ever find amazing and sorpresive congruence’s

        Perce explained it as speculative grammatology and as pure rhetoric, i understand grammatology scientifically as Chomsky and derrida too, but far to alphabetic languages in the semiotic of visual languages I have find in practicing the semiotic of symbols a kind of cosmology of the signs by which i am meaning a system of inferences which outside and excluding cosmology as an explanation of the origin of the universe, between signs and symbols one ever find again and again new, plenty and amazing new orders of consistency

Bibliography

Eco Umberto, Los Fundamentos Semióticos de la cooperación textual, Pp 41-72, Lector in Fabula, Lumen

Eco Umberto, Estructuralismo operacional versus estructuralismo ontológico, la estructura ausente, lumen

Derrida Jacques, Form and Wishes to Said, Note on the phenomenology of language, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, Genesis and Structure: Of Phenomenology, Antropos

Deleuze Gilles, Empiricism and Subjectivity, Columbia University Press

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Self and Acerbo: The Self and the Social Between Writing, Research and Culture, Complete Works, Tome IX, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking Urban Anthropology, Complete Works, Tome VII, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Anthropology of Archeology, selected essays, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, complete works, tome VI, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Exegesis of the Texts of Culture, in Pp, Self and Acerbo: The Self and the Social Between Writing, Research and Culture, Complete Works, Tome IX, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Plots of matter: workshop with cristina Jadic, Houston, Texas, 1998

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Living between Cultures, Lecture discussed at the Hispanic institute of culture and late developed as a one-year seminar on self-anthropology of emigrant in the united states including myself, Argentinean Americans and Mexican Americans, Houston, Texas, USA, 1998

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Lab for performativity and Ethnography, printed program of lectures, travels and dialogues, ocre paper Kraft, designed and printed by bubu, Houston, Texas, USA, 1998

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Indeterminist True, selected essays, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Threshold of the Couple, complete works, Tome VII, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Constellations of Common Sense, selected essays, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Theorizing multiculturalism, an anthropological perspective, lecture discussed at the panel Multiculturalism in Venezuelan culture in front of the globalization procesos, abdel Hernandez san Juan and peran herminy, Fundaayacucho, Ateneo de Caracas, Venezuela, 1995

Polack, Amanda, Cognitive Anthropology KEY FIGURES, Harold Conklin (b.1926) Claude Levi-Strauss (b. 1908, d. 2009) Stephen Tyler (b.1932)

Sini Carlos, Peirce, Pp, 13-81, filosofía y semiótica, Hachete

Tyler Stephen A., Evocation: The Unwriteable, A Response to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, Sept 9, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA, 1997

Tyler Stephen Post-Modern Ethnography, The Unspeakable, Discourse, Rhetoric and Dialogue in the Posmodern World, Wisconsin University Press

Tyler Stephen A, Presenter (Dis) Play, published at L'Esprit Créateur31.1 (1991): 122-130

Tyler Stephen A, Pp, on the markets in India, A POINT OF ORDER, Pp 133-135, Rice University studies, 1973-1974, USA

Tyler Stephen A, Presentation, Re-presentation, Mediation-Remediation, Pp, Prolegomena to the next linguistic, in Pp, Alternative Linguistics. Descriptive and Theoretical modes, edited by Philip W. David, John Benjamin’s publishing company, Rice University, Houston, Texas. 1995.  

Tyler Stephen A, Philosophical analysis on Indian cosmology, A POINT OF ORDER, Pp, Rice University studies, 1973-1974, USA

Tyler A, Stephen Them Others-voices without mirrors, rice university May, 1995

Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953, Philosophical Investigations. New York: MacMillan.