Thinking science chapter 3 end

 Forth we have another dimension of presence that derrida have regarded as sign, when such an idealization process creates the flour of interiority that creates the sense of conscience in front of us turn to be outside making presence in front of us but now as a language, as sign, according to Derrida the sign in the first objective form through which we have an external images of the interiority of our conscience now outside us as a sign, this time presence is nothing else but a tangible ousia and gramme as Derrida called it, another name of the substance of expression, sign as presence itself.

   We have yet in examination three additional ideas of presence completely diferents to the formers, presence in relation to absence, presence as mark in the system of difference and our main focus, plenum presence but let set it seizing the whole sense of our discussion.

   We choiced to identified the idea of subtract and stratus between other reasons because the sameness with itself of appearance seen substantially meaning an essence suppose that appearance is itself a form or a moment of essence and we want to reserve an space to phenomena’s needed to distinguish appearance from essence to get the true of appearance as the true of phenomena to which we need to distinguish between world itself and the phenomenological world, because even when both are moments of the same or sides or faces of the same, we also have non-substantive and non-substantial levels when everything’s is inmaterialized and dematerialized like for example in the idea of sensibility considered beyond palpable sensoriality as a form of the spiritual and the soul or moreover when in conscience and the spirit we have another true of form like for example in aesthetics. To do so we deployed the idea of empty forms or forms without contents as merely form since form retains the time and temporality of sensibility, a sensibility far to what derrida defined as insensible sensible, the so-called sensible multiplicity as another name of reality or as pure exteriority of spatiality.

   As discussed above everything that made presence in front of ourselves, presence of conscience to us or considered outer as sign made it appearing and appearance presuppose the analysis of phenomena when it is not yet the phenomenic of conscience, before this genesis side, outside and before conscience as éter or inmaterialized, idealized interiority of sprit, soul and subjectivity, something simply appear.

   This issue seems to bring us back to perception returning to sensible multiplicities from which everything made presence to us through our five datas of senses and its impressions and by the way the principle of reality itself, but while near to perception this sense of the appearing basis appearance as the source of any presence is doubtless needed of the gaze and the gaze is presupposed under it.

   Before understanding presence as a mark inscribed or fixed as an image as well as before recognizing presence versus absence distinguishing it as light on the backgrounds of shadows, before distinguishing absence as the otherness of presence or as non-presence and of identifying what something is in its own identity in difference with what it is not, a sign defined in its own identity by another sign it is not or by the empty space or the sense of nothing mediate in between them as marks, there is a rise and source more general phenomenological sense of presence in general appearance and if certainly this general sense return us to sensible multiplicities, palpable sensorialities and even the principle of reality, this general phenomenological sense of presence allow us to distinguish that there is thanks to reality buy beyond mere reality a plenum presence.

   In fact the idea of reality itself following Hegel is nothing else but accident and phenomenic contingency and as such even when less than when considering eidetic and noetic issues, it is yet an idea of presence highly stratified, the idea of reality and reality itself being a pure phenomenon is affected by complex stratifications as I discussed it in my paper "stratus confines" when we can’t separate stratus from progressive hermeneusis.

    Certainly to figure out plenum presence a world and a universe is needed to be restaurated, we need the restauration of a micrototality which will be itself beyond reality, even when reality will ever be also inside it, plenum presence need to attain the core of a meaningful world, a world whose stratus’s we already know, a meaningful world is a world that is considered not as seen by first time, not a subjected to the scrutinization and measures of phenomenological perception, but a world which have already signified something to us, a world plenty of sense to us, a world we don’t have to comply by differencing what is real according to several stratus, reality in fact, what is reality?, a world of imagination and fancy in existence under a social reality such as for example the symbols of religions, ceremonies and icons is real without doubt but is it at the same time pure symbol and fancy, fiction for example occur under reality while it is non-real according to defining reality as ontology while real in another sense, reality itself is a concept fully stratified, in difference to that a plenum presence addresses us toward a restored world and universe, an intramundane horizont in which everything is already meaningful to us, a world about which all the stratus must be already knowed to us.

   A meaningful world of plenum presence is not a world of countless objects we there fore assign meaning one by one, it is not about meaning something itself, for example, in recognizing perception distinguishing it from the image perceived, the object of perception we usually recognize its separation, perception as something itself and the perceived as independent to perception, an object of perception, the image outside of it, however we seldom note that separation and the reason is because the meaningfulness of the world leads us integrate both things, we abides with the objects of our perceptions as if everything fall out in a chrysalis without ledges or perhaps we integrated ourselves with all that made sense to us, we stricken perception under sensibility to acomply a plenty of meanings.

    It is from this perspective that I discussed in the first chapter of this book that separating signs even when it helps our understanding on codes and communication seems to be itself a neurotic activity seen from the hermeneusis that weaves and texere our phenomenological universe of daily life, under the intramundane horizont hermeneutic and phenomenology are integrated to the level of taking shape of its own ontology, a plenum presence allow us to understand that we disallows separations of perception and objects, signs and hermeneusis because things are meaningful to us, hence more than a one by one meaning, meaning in general increase our capacity to disentangle as well as to integrate what is set aside.

   It is in general an strong argument to us in phenomenological sociology and hermeneutic to recognize a core issue, the fact that during centuries we in order to know best separated everything, we dissected and operated dislocations of things in elements to the point of the atom as well as we produced an exaggerated disjunction between the observer and the observed, we already know both the positive result and well as the desbastation consequences of such a neurotic procedure, the task of phenomenological sociology and of modern hermeneutic is about to reintegrated again what was excesibly disintegrated, a world of plenum presence is thus by necessity a world of restauration of world and universes of experiences and plenty meaningfully horizonts over reality.

   We already know what plenum presence is like, let know attain to discuss its differences and relations with another forms of presence such as presence under difference and presence versus absence. This is not at all as obvious presence as mark, nor a presence thus seen as something by what it is not, nor presence according to difference, neither presence cutted as something according to absence or a sense of nothing, presence according to absence, being versus nothing, A versus no A as difference to B. both kind of presence are figure out negatibly, what is affirmed as presence is defined as such because it is not its opposite, nor a nothing, nor an absence nor a nonidentity which define identity, it is presence figured out according to the thinking of differences and plenum presence is not affected by differences not reduced to the game of the identical versus the non-identical because all its sides around and in its surrounding are restaurated, the substantial relations that made the game of identity as the coincidence with itself of something, as the sameness of something versus what it is not as the system of differences from which the identity receive its affirmation is already ravine, gully, break, smash, crush, annul, bend, fail, bankrupt, we already know in fact as Hegel brilliantly sustained that the game of identity and difference is breaked in diversity, an identity is as such because it is different to another identity, so that it opposite antithesis is already inside it breaking it own supposed to be unity or self-coincidence, a difference might be something as such because it is an identity different to another one and as such it is itself breaked by identity as its own negation and both are breaked and disseminated in diversity.

    The game of identity and difference is one of substantialized entities to remember again Bourdieu constant insistence of the necessity to be critics against substantialism.

   At the same time the game of pure difference without identity indeed overflows in the relation between mark and the unconcient as Derrida sustained, it is not only breaked in diversity since identity sake the weakening and weariness of difference and difference the one of identity, but as a substantial’s force it also entails the realm of the unconcient, whence it is nothing else but the definition of differed presence paradigmatically defined, the opposite of plenum presence.

   This is not a way to negates or say that nothing is yet already to be discussed according to differences, but nothing less than presence correspond to the asistem of difference, what have difference of course around several kinds of issues, for example, difference is a sin equanon to the contemporary discussion on economies overall when we are thinking about capitalized relations as it is almost impossible to figure out the contemporary virtualization of the financial and credits system of economics in capitalism without understanding how difference made under it the form to conceive time and so on, but this is not casual or hazard that difference appear precisely around matters of absence, the idea of differed presences is highly connected with it and is one of the reasons for derrida to connect writing and difference, there are difference in many things, we can’t for example, erase difference when we need difference to be productives or to creates new sense over previous assigned senses to things, but the asistem of difference is always related with emptiness epistemologically, something is needed to be given as empty, difference in a few words is highly weaved with nothingness, absent and affected by marks toward us to think about non-presence or differed and proffered presences.

  On the other hand if we attempt to attain in any case to relate difference with presence we will obtain nor only differed forms of presence but also we will recognize us again back to the idea of presence diluted and or not yet separated from appearance since thinking presence according to difference reduced everything to the moment of something appearing, to apparition itself, an certainly, we should recognize that to a certain point any thought on genesis is need nor only of structure but also of a certain difference, so that as soon as the idea of presence is considered within eidetic and noetic levels, pre-expressive and expressive wishes to say toward language as well as under presence in self conscience and in sign as exteriorized image of ourselves in front of us, a certain level of difference is yet there not as much as when difference is stablished as the realm from which everything revolves around negatives forms to define presence according to absences and identities according to non-identities.

   There is also under the idea of difference a certain naiveté and a so simple idea of negation. Let just figure out this simplicity by recognizing how a more complex and rich idea of negation such as that evolved within Hegel negation of negation easily demonstrate the general futility of difference and overall the inferiority of the unconscious realm of difference in front of plenum presence by remembering a beautiful paragraph of Derrida when claiming the idea of alive presence as the more transcendental level of thought, the present of the present, discussed a more refined way to understand the superation of difference negation under the relation between negation of negation and the restauration of spacialities. Derrida sustained:

    "Pure spatiality determine itself in negating the indetermination that constitute it, I mean, negating itself. Negating itself, this negation must be a negation determined, negation of the space by the space. The first spatial negation of space is the dot. The dote is the space without occupying space, a place without a place, it suppresses and substitute places occupying the place of space which at the same time negate and consevate. It negates spatiality the space but at the same time the dote goes to be in contact with itself, meaning, with another dot, and this is a first negation of negation, the spatial negation of the dote is the line, the dot retains and extend, it is sustained substituted by the line which constitute its true, but this negation is in a second level spatial, the dote is the line, the first being other, meaning, the spatial being of the dote. According to the same process of negation of negation the true of the line is the surface but this true of being other is a negation of negation again. The line become a surface which on the one hand is a determination in respect to lines and dotes, in this sense surface in general but which according with the same retained negation suppressed of the space it is at the same time the restauration of the totality of the space, of a space as a whole, the space have become then concrete and in reverse we must demonstrate the opposite that such a movement of producing the surfaces concrete totality of the space is a full circle and reversible. We can demonstrate that a line is composed of negated dots and the suffice of negated lines"

    We are now concerned with the issue of the genesis of the sign by set up in the Forefront the question about if we may assume several simultaneous genesis of the sign.

    On the one hand doubtedly the quest of the idealization by which the external pass by to the interiority of conscience and sprit in Hegel is a quest of a certain form of the sign as Derrida did, the sign itself is already in Aristoteles and later in Hegel, but I will attempt to demonstrate that such a form discussed by derrida as first form of presence of us in front of us as an exteriorized image of conscience might be elucidated as one of the phenomenological genesis of the signs.

    We are here of course speaking on a certain kind of sign that one originated from the interiority universe of subjectivity and expression while at the same time in saying genesis we are at the same time recognizing a moment in which the sign is not yet as much a sign, the sign is nothing here with its own status yet it is unformed and or undiferiented yet.

  On the one hand it is disseminated under conscience as presence of conscience in front of itself, something like saying that a sign is almost a reflected dimension or a repetition of the sensible multiplicity in another level of representation like conscience itself, recognizing the sign under it by identifying the exteriorized level of being inscribed in sound and writing outside the usual immateriality of conscience and or by identifying it among conscience as levels of signing something out is of course an undoubtedly wortly of derrida, while not without recognizing that over there sign is not fully already and not yet a sign, it is neither itself neither not itself, but it is borning, arising, rise, takin shape in its source.

   Doubtedly this is an entery phenomenological issue and under an specific form of phenomenology that one revolves around conscience when the sign is diluted among what it is not and discovered within which it is ready to source to rise disseminated yet before and after. It is even less a sign yet when we quest for it within noetic and eidetic levels of stratus in experience.

 We may of course do a move of revisiting all this zones after semiology and semiotics arises and merged as science of the sign and in that sense we might give try to work under that zones as if by using our well defined sense of what a sign is revisiting its zones of original phenomenological genesis.

   But this is not the only genesis of the sign as soon as we are investigating and discussing the need to renew semiotic in a less separated idea of sign from hermeneusis we should quest for a balance.

  Now well, the sign in pierce, also a theoretician based and inspired in Hegel is not as Derrida have assumed the idealization process that creates the flour of interiority, the sign in Peirce is not arising from there, not around conscience and self-confidence, not defined as a form to made presence in front of us, nor an exteriorized form to conscience to perceive itself exteriorized outside as language, this is not the way Peirce choiced and unveiled to seize and rise his theory of sign, far to this way the sign in peirce is unrelated with the progressive process of substitution of the sensible multiplicies and palpable sensoriality to perception, representation, conscience and the i, it is instead figure out according to the relation between language and reality.

   According to peirce a sign can be something even physical meaning an object outside our conscience and interior subjectivity for example in identifying indicial signs we have many levels of signs outside subjectivity.

   On the other hand he identified how language name the qualities of things and how the relation between names and substance helps to recognize and difference objects in between, his attention was cognitive and as such focused in the coordination process that relates language with reality.

  Certainly and Peirce defined it a sign is something in the place of another thing but it doesn’t have to be a word in regard to its referential object, it may be an ordinary object which is in the place of another thing signalizing it.

   We have then through peirce another genesis of the sign different to that assigned to Hegel by derrida in defining Hegel system as a semiology.

  For example a form of plenum presence in which we have signs in the physical sense Natural and social signs are of major meaning here, for example, a person who I am now earing outside my door through the stairs is to me inside home a sign of someone who will probably call in my door or who will continue through the stair to another flour like a neighbour.

   However, I will recognize a wortly to Derrida way to interpret Hegel, according to me and my understanding on this issue, Derrida discussion on Hegel may help to anticipate a well needed philosophical reconstruction today–In habermas sense of the use of this notion—of philosophical anthropology recalling from a new and renewed perspective Cassirer earlier efforts.

 In fact, to me, what I am defining here as a phenomenological genesis of the sign might be considered in this book on new avenues between philosophy and sociology as a further possibility for philosophical anthropology.

In Derrida words

"Conscience, the phenomenological is thus the true of the soul, meaning of what constitute precisely the object of anthropology, conscience is the true of man, phenomenology is the true of anthropology"

bibliography

Habermas Junger, Ciencias Constructivas y Reconstructivas: conciencia Moral y Acción comunicativa

Hegel, ciencia de la Lógica, Hachete

Derrida Jacques, La Pirámide y el Pozo: Introducción a la semiología de Hegel, catedra

Derrida Jacques, Ousia and Gramme: Notes on Zeit and seit, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, Form and Wishes to Say: Notes on the phenomenology of language, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, The ginebra Linguistic Circle, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, The Supplements of the couple: Philosophy in front of linguistic, margins philosophy, the university of Chicago press