Thinking science chapter 1 end

In contrast with Austin meanings usually regarded to the relation between certain sentences in language when the idea of practice is defined to be considered as an effect internal to language sentences itself, my concept of performativity is far to be subordinated to, originated and or constrained by a sentence effects of the language internals and its implied practical meanings, no longer defined as something internal to sentences and far to be a derivated modal of illocutions, allocutions and perlocutions –see note down--as the Austin sentences are defined by ways of modifying practices from speech act ideal phrases, my concept of performativity inside face to face relations is evolved within intersubjective forms of communication and even through isolated forms of one by one subjects forms of pragmatic elucidations of experiences, are intrinsically related with a more extended and pregiven sense of the hermeneutic activity of the everyday subjects in quotidian word of life.

     In fact, the human performance as I understand it take place under an intramundane horizont which evolve all we do between day and night in an ordinary or routine circumstance of life. Now, this is not to say that identifying the whole human everyday routine performance from day to night should be considered performative itself.

   The issue in question here allow us to understand that epistemologically the concept of performativity should be cutted and or framed, derived from and or cloused up, defined by and or identified as something that merges from and or that its grounded and basis cognitibly in the activity of elucidation and explicitation which hermeneutically occur through the phenomenological order of quotidian pragmatics outside language instead of as something orthopedically constrained by and or subordinated ontologically to forms of the sentences.

    In fact, we should attempt that performativity indeed and or above all instead of pertaining to sentences rather belong to human performance entail in a narrow form inside how hermeneutic considered not as forms of sentences but even as a form of silent elucidation and explicitations by the subject stay yet to be a moment of the phenomenology’s of the pragmatics of quotidian intramundane horizont.

  This is not a way to negate that as Austin discussed there are also linguistic performative at the language level of certain sentences in speech act, but instead the reason whence we should recognize that performativity itself can’t be reduced and or defined by being originated in language sentences nor in speech less in writing, but outside alphabetic parameters and outside langue considered as idiom.

   Rather and hence, as I understand it theoretically performativity should be considered as evolved in any relation between subject and object as such relation ground the condition of possibility of any form of knowledge first in common sense mundane knowledge and more precisely later recalled as we are focusing it here from the perspective of methodology of research and science of knowledge, inside epistemology.

   Whereas the issue in this form we should attempt a double move, on the one hand, assumed performativity as something specifically related with the relation between subject and object, we should show and demonstrate how can we see relations of subjects and objects as a matter of knowledge in everyday activity to which we will immediately attempt that it works usually in our ordinary and routine world in common sense forms of knowledge around ordinary things when relations between subject and object basis and ground any form of daily knowledge on anything all, on the other hand, reestablished the basis of performativity in terms of epistemological grounds in the intramundane horizont hermeneutics and phenomenology’s, we should then fly toward how should it be considered in science forms of research within epistemology.

    It is all about the following. First, from the theoretical point of view, the relation itself of subject and object become in an object of reflexivity focused in it and from the empirical perspective the investigation of such a relation entrance to be a part of a theory that go and return from the theoretical to the empirical and in return with the objective on the one hand of enriching theoretical reflexivity with empirical specific issues evolving unique modes of the relations unveiled under the specificities of such an empiricity and in reversal, the theoretical lab of research focused in the relation itself return from theoretical explorations to empírical issues to unveil the way in which research should be developed.

  What defines performativity in short is the idea of althernancy, the principle of never fixing the relation exposing it to a research that become itself experimental around how the relation work under certain empiricity in question and in reverse to the theoreticity in question derived and explored around such an empiricitiy.

  If to ancients and classical sciences such as arimetics, mathematics, physics, astronomy or chemistry were defined according to pregiven objects, cutted in anticipation and theoretical knowledge was obligated to imbedding that relation to discuss, modern thought is yet much more delimited in that sense. In fact, the ways to arrive and to pass by the relation between subject and object to define specific sciences and specialties as linguistic, semiotic, sociology and some other modern sciences was never arbitrary, but well delimited in anticipation almost as a condition of possibility of this science to have delimited ontology.

   For example, semiotic whereas it from the philosophy of science or understanding culture as communication, needed to clearly differentiations of the sign from the objects it denotes, substitute or by the object reflected in the sign to hence afford such a sign as a language object instead of a just an external nonlinguistic object, in a few word turning object in an specific form of the object, a semiological one to the semiological subject, if the sign end to be delimited and cutted as a codified and well defined entity and if the codes end to be stablished as a priories to the subject of knowledge cuts around its objects, then semiotic as science lost its limits and lack self-definition and reasons to be a well differentiated science, equally linguistic is needed of a well delimited distinctions between langue and speech, langue and language to late obtain a well-defined object of study in gramatics, sintacs, lexicon, substance of expression, significants and significance, writing and speech, morphemes and phonemes, semantics and transformations, other ways it lost it boundaries as specific science.

    In this form we can clearly see how the autonomy, the boundaries and the ontology of a science is itself possible only by prestablishing a well-defined idea of how to consider the object and how to relate the subject of knowledge with the object of it.

   The same is obvious in sociology, it need a thing, an act, an action, a world or an structure as forms of the sociology object defined in anticipation, a minimum unit considered social in difference to individuals, culturals and economics, other ways it lost its boundaries as science being dissolved in psychology, economy, culturology or any other thing.

    This is performativity in research, our investigation is defined as both a theoretical and an empirical field of research defined by putting the exploration around the relation between subject and object in the forefront transforming it in an open field of research, we don’t have in performativity theory a pregiven or prestablished shared well defined relation between subject and object, we instead call it to the forefront to generate a theoretical reflexivity around it that will work all the time between theoretical and empirical issues, a phenomenological field, performativity theory task, as an specialty in epistemology, consist about unveil, explore and develop investigative modes based and grounded in working with that relation between subject and object instead of fixing it as something prestablished and it is precisely in this specific sense that performativy not more general and universal in regard to specific sciences and specialties than epistemology is not other thing that a needed new area of epistemology.

  This is based on the fact that in logic all the pairs monadics, diadics and triadics are obligated to cross and go by this relation of subject and object in a variety of riches and unpredictable forms something that itself unfold the richness of the field, from the point of view of the phenomenology of research problems whatever themes, topics, issues and matters of research are we considering, subject and object become inexhaustible, endless, never failing among them.

  Knowledge itself is grounded in the exploration of the forms acquired by this relation and all the lights of the field of knowledge previously constituted were possible and are constitutionally based in it. All this field of previous constituted forms of knowledge are then a collected memory to the theory of performativy, a collection about previous jornys among that relation even if developed without calling the issue itself to be research and limited under it, it is to the theory of performativity a data bank on explored modes and the commitment of performativity theory is focused in unveiling new inexhaustible, endless and never failing relationships in between, this is to said that performativity theory inside epistemology is nothing more than philosophy of science.

  Far to investigate the world of things, objects, reality and "sensible multiplicity" under pregiven parameters of subject-object relations, we go to such sensible multiplicities, realties, objects and things according to a research that return to it with new unveils forms of the relation both theoretically and empirically.

  Let then return to ancient and classic inquiries.

   We mentioned that the theory of performativity as I understand it is far to Austin theory of phrases and sentences, but the same dilemma allow us to reconsider the logical questions evolved within Derrida objections to Benveniste. According to Benveniste Aristoteles logical propositions at organon endowed categories of thought with categories of language or more precisely that he in working with categories of language believe or imagined to be working with categories of thought and certainly something similar but in reverse can be sustained regarding Austin performatives, by saying that in the opposite sense Austin worked with categories of thought while he believes or imagine to be working as if with categories of language.

    Indeed even taking out of language and returning it as questions of thought, performatives as Austin discussed it are not defined in terms sufficiently universals as to work with it in that form to a theory of performativity under knowledge theory.

  The field of performativity in fact even considered out of language is not logically organized according to a form which constrain a practice, it is not defined by the ontological constrains of form, but by the relation between subject and object as this relation is itself evolved and implicit in the hermeneusis and phenomenology of pragmatic decurses of life in quotidian environments when saying performance we are evoquing the whole activity of the body between day and night, it is not about constrains but to use an Stephen A Tyler word about "cocurrencies".

  The pragmatic field is not understanded here in terms of the economy of action toward ends, but as a phenomenological and hermeneutic one.

    But at the same time, however, this more delimited cuts required to understand how subject and object worked in modern science in comparison to ancients and classics, was not only the source of science constitutions but also of its limitations.

     Semiotic, for example, is fully based in understanding culture as a whole as communication of codified signs, on this basis there was an enthusiasm to encompass a whole field of issues with semiotic such as iconographic visual communication, function signs in architectural spatial communication, gestural and space distances in cinesis and proxemics, the rhetoric’s of persuasion in publicity, and overall mass medias and fashion as a privilege field, however, by the same reason helped semiotic to afford all this in a semiotical specific form, the pregiven presupposed well defined differentiation between the sign and the object as well as the sign and codes created about its objects the effects and the image of being death, under it objects seems to be empties and afforded as if it death miss understanding how all this is alive in culture and is a part of a culture alive itself.

     In front of such kind of dilemmas performativity theory reestablish the alive character of all this in culture, we are not so focused in fact in delimiting and or separating sign and the objects since separating sign from the hermeneusis of an alive culture seems to be a kind of neurotic activity rather, we think that for example, the field of publicities and mass medias is a field of alive sensorialities to the body as well as to subjectivity and that affording it should be considered as a form of multisensorial experience remembering the sensible multiplicities of ancient thinkers and considering it from the intramundane horizont world of life. We are not closed to heritage certain things from the legacy of semiotic, we do so incorporating semiotic and sometimes when pertinent priorizing it, but as soon as we understand it in another form semiotic itself is renewed from phenomenology, hermeneusis, sociology and cultural theory.

   My theory for example of intangibility as a phenomenology of the relation between aesthetic and sensibility in between free market and publicity was possible since I conceived the empirical field issue from the alive sensoriality of the body and from the intramundane horizont, to do so it was necessary to abandon certain parameter of semiotic theory usual way to separated signs from the objects affording it simply as codes of decodification and as if death signs rather than as I did as an alive phenomenological hermeneusis in which the signs are to a certain point diluted, this is not a way to say that there is not sign in culture and less that signs are not culture themselves but to renew the ways to redistribute it under a another proportions.

  Performativity theory defined inside epistemology and at the same time rediscused in the grounds of phenomenological research between clasical philosophy and sociology under the universes of the intramundane horizont allow us to reassume certain semiological issues as for example the concept of "language object" as well as some other issues but redistributed and reconsidered from another parameters which are not positioned around a fixed prestablished definition of subject and object relations.

   The universe of the common sense world play at this point a pivotal and major place.

   Without doubt, as previously sustained, mi research positioning is grounded in between philosophy and phenomenological sociology and the world of life which is the same to say my own world of real life.

Bibliography

Aristóteles, Escritos de Lógica

Derrida Jacques, La Semiología de Hegel, Márgenes de la Filosofía, Catedra

Derrida Jacques. The Hegel Semiology, Margins of Philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, Comunicación sobre Austin, Márgenes de la Filosofía, Catedra

Derrida Jacques, Communications on Austin, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Habermas Junger, Interludio Primero, Teoría de la acción comunicativa, Taurus

Habermas Junger, First interlude, The Theory of communicative action, beacon press

Habermas Junger, El problema de la comprensión en las ciencias sociales, teoría de la acción comunicativa, Taurus

Habermas Junger, The Problem of comprehension in social sciences, The Theory of communicative action, Beacon press

Hernandez San juan Abdel, After Ethnometodology, The Indeterminist true, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, Book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Sobreordination in everyday life, The Intramundane Horizont, Book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Self and Acervo, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The World Correlate: Interpretant and structure in postmodern cultural theory, book

Hegel G.W.F, Cual es el comienzo de la ciencia, ciencia de la lógica, Solar, Hachete

Hegel G.W.F, lógica del concepto, ciencia de la lógica, Solar, Hachete

Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, form and master, Science of Logic London: George Allen & Unwin, 1929, translated by W. H. Johnston and L. G. Struthers, translated by Henry S. Macran (Hegel's Logic of World and Idea) (Bk III Pts II, III only). Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1929translated by A. V. Miller; Foreword by J. N. Findlay. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1969, Prometheus; Later Printing edition (December 1, 1991), Humanity books, translated by George di Giovanni, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010

Shutz Alfred, El Conocimiento en los mundos de la vida cotidiana, edited by ilse and luckman