Thinking science chapter 3

The Restauration of World

©By Abdel Hernández san Juan

Written in english and translated to english

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

    I want to tie up a series of reflections addressed to articulate analysis and propositions on the relation between what I would like to propose as restauration of world and the idea of plenum presence understanded in the present of the present of presence as well as to come across discussing in contrast with plenum presence several forms of differed presences albeit as well as in relation to appearance, absence, difference and a chain of concepts among which the idea of presence usually braiding need to be unbraided until focusing what must be understanded and I will attempt to discuss as phenomenological genesis of the sign.

   All this are things implicit in the first chapter of this book but without focus on it, the effort now will consist about calling it to the forefront to be afforded.

   The issue in question revolves as follows, considered as a language matter, meaning, as something inside of language, speech suppose the plenum presence of the others in front of us, a well centered subject with their own intentionality of saying and another one audience counter-enunciations equally plenum in present, while instead writing presuppose the proffered nature of the others absence, differed presence.

   But this is so simple yet. The issue of the differences between plenum presence and differed presences is highly complex than that and evolve a whole phenomenological discussion on the several forms of presence.

   Before and outside language, within the eidetic and noetic evolved within pre-expressive and expressive levels, meaning the universe located before the taking shape of tangible language while toward it which include the unsaid and unformed, intentionality of sense and wishes to said, we have many complex stratus’s involved in conscience before conscience arrival to acquire presence to us and in front of us, this stratus’s contains themselves phenomenologically several levels of presence, while outside language yet but with conscience already arrived to have presence in front of us, meaning us in front our own conscience as result of the idealization process which create the flour of interiorization, we again have severals forms of presence differents in between, finally we also have forms of presence when the conscience acquire form in front of us but now exteriorized in language as signs outside our idealized interior world of subjectivity.

   All this forms of presence from noetic and eidetical pre-expresive levels, to expressive, from the idealization creates the flour of interiority in conscience to conscience exteriorized in signs are stratified forms of presence generally however tangle, embroil, enmesh, ensnase or to put is more clearly undiferiented and by that reasons diffuse with the idea of differed presences in severals forms.

   I will define this undiferiented diffusion as an skein and I will attempt to commit myself with to disentangle it.

   The general reason for me to do this unbending below is related with the fact that I have realized as major to made differences between plenum presences and differed presences since on the one hand my purposiveness is not as much focused on saying what we already know that speech suppose a certain form of plenum presence but to reestablish and demonstrate the need of a full restauration of world under presence outside language as well, meaning as intramundane horizont quotidian world of life, and on the other hand I have realized as pivotal to differentiate several stratus’s of non-plenum presence in between them which are not always forms of differed presences and or different forms of the differed.

   My objective is to give plenty of deeper theorization on an issue as sustained above embroiled needed to disentangle the skeins of presence as to comply with renewed language the comprehension of the former.

    To articulate this analysis I will choice as point of references the Jacques Derrida interpretation on Hegel in two of his essays one on the relation between the vulgar conception of time in Aristoteles physics and the continuation of it under Hegel and Heidegger including Kant, the question of Aristotle’s about if time is a constitutive part of ontas and ontology and the elucidation of it around time and space from the perspective of the right now of time, the present of the present and the issue of the relation between the presence of the present and the nun.

  Another essay focused in the pass by of the exterior world into the process of idealization which interiorize it and how under it we may recognize as implicit the presence of conscience to us, meaning the presence of conscience in front of ourselves in the phenomenology of the sprit the so-called, according to Derrida, semiology of Hegel.

   The reason to focus my attention on this last issue is defined by proposing that what Derrida have discussed around the signs as the first form in which we have an exteriorized image of our conscience in front of us as language, should be theorized and understanded in term of the discussion of presence as a phenomenological genesis of the sign.

   At the same time I want to carry out the challenge of demonstrating nor only that this Derrida assumption of the sign as a first from of presence of us in front of us as an exteriorized form of conscience is nothing else but a phenomenological genesis of the sign, but also that this is not the only genesis of the sign. In fact, we should aside several forms of the genesis of the sign and to increase our theoretical distinctions in between.

   Let just then do it.

   To attain this analysis, we should first seize the sense of appearance from which all the forms of presence source and arise. We should leads the core of the phenomenology of any presence, presence itself in fact is nothing else but a side and an stratus of appearance and appearance is the phenomena or to get it better the phenomenic that which made presence to us, thus we must recognize a chain of related notions so nears and sometimes moments of the same, phenomena, appearance, form and finally presence.

    Beyond the former distinctions we had aside as differentiated this several forms of presence in between, this are sometimes stratified, meaning not always immediately in all its sides simultaneously present to us, from plenum presence to presences of us in front of us from the mirror to how the conscience itself is a form of self presence both as an idealization of the interiority and as exteriorized in our signs and languages, listening our voice or reading our writings, to presence as the otherness of absence or as the to be of a mark defined differentially by what it is not, as in the differences between signs that made the presence of each one, all forms of presence are nothing else than appearance and phenomena.

   Before presence appear or as through it in a same simultaneous dimension presence looks like, it is yet diluted, distributed, apportioned, allot or disseminated inside appearance, thus it is not a full presence, no yet but only appearance or presence as a form of the sameness of mere appearance undiferiented yet from it, a moment of what made appearance one with itself, of the identity of appearance by all its sides.

   Thus understanded the idea of presence is first an expression of a former relation between appearance and phenomena, appearance is itself another name of phenomena and in reverse phenomena another name of appearance.

   But the exposition of appearance as the source and rise of presence suppose stratus and stratifications, a subtract which will ever be to be find behind it since presence as a form of appearance evolves that something is not present in all its sides, something is making presence and nothing can be assure on everything about it but only about how it made presence, if this is making presence we can’t knowledge everything about it.

   We know, of course, about the existence of things about which nothing is needed to be fund behind, and we even have sometimes doubt about if something must be looked for behind such like for example an essence never fully retained under its phenomenal form or some kind of thing out of just how it made presence, but even in such cases which are seldom as for example in certain form of technologies, beauty, fashion and aesthetics, our knowledge is not fully filled, often our duty is to attain the core by immersing us in a deeper or profound dimension like for example in knowing a person we share with an intersubjective relation of friendship, nothing is given to us by just the mere presence or appearance, or in knowing a new city, a new language or a culture, something is always behind the first impressions and claim to recognize successive stratus’s of explicitations, interpretation and understanding.

   However, the paradox is about that even in cases as the former, all we must and may know will ever be available to us each time again by a next form of appearance and presence, in a few words we can’t never advance to successive levels and stratus’s of senses, knowledge and understanding than ever through phenomena’s, the world to be known is available to us always and only again and again through forms, phenomena’s, appearances and forms of presence.

  And it is in this sense that we must say that there is nothing to be find behind presence but that all we will ever know will always be through forms of the presence. By this reason the idea of stratus or stratification is not like it happen with the opposite relation between presence and absent, a relation between a surface defined by forms and appearances and a kind of non-formal deeper kind of unpresented or absent dimension, stratus and stratification are nothing else but always new levels of the phenomena itself.

  This allow us to understand that everything is beside and aside not necessarily behind and hidden or absent, it is instead under and in the phenomenic of presence but not available in one time. Like for example interpreting the saying of someone addressing us we must elucidate it progresibly making sense of it gradually by successive stratus of hermeneutic.

 Or in cooking something from a first level of flavor of the elements to the mixing of it to successive stratus of flavor, this is a way to said that even when we are speaking on forms, the core goes and arrive always through nexts forms of appearance, the substrate in fact is nothing else but the form of becoming of the phenomena, it is in appearance and presence itself making it identical with itself.

   To get it fully we should abandon the idea of form and contents as separated and or divided things, there is not a content without form nor a form without contents, the first content of appearance and of presence as form of appearance is defined by its own identity, the stratus arrive through and joined with the phenomena within its own forms of appearing, presence in a few words is a moment of the identity of appearance, form and phenomena and it is appearance itself what is stratified, the sameness and coincidence of appearance is itself the supposed to be essence or deeper and one thing is inseparable from the other, both are moments of the same.

   Now, after this general deliberation on appearance as the source of any form of presence let be back in the several differentiated forms of presence committing our task and let attempt to attain the taking shape of each one, its consistency and its consequences. To do so we must have to seize the specific senses of each one and to examine in the light of clear delimitations what should we seeks or not around each one, what must we foreseen in recognizing their differences, when to hesitate to entail and when to entail, what and to what points.

    Can we assume the idea of presence at the eidetic and noematic level?, this level as we know is fully dominated by pre-expressive and expressive issues, all that zone related with experience which take place and happen before the taking shape of a tangible language while toward it, by this reason everything at this level revolves around intentionality, motivations and wishes to say as pre-expressive and expressive moments of experience before the tangible arrival to language, we have in a certain level what the subject might say on such an experience, if we are ourselves the subject in question, we must assume that we are the same subject who both have before and remember later the experience, but if we are thinking in another subject we don’t have the enough to comply and accede to it, while even being ourselves, how to made presence of such an stratified level of pre-expressive and expressive moments?, certainly, both levels are always related with a language to come and in that sense we might say that there is from before acceding to a tangible language a previous ontological relation between eidos and morphe, meaning form, if we are ready to bring something to language in the process of taking shape of it all about the non-discourse pre-expressive and expressive level indeed which are rise to be weaved with morphe as a mise in regard of language, from this perspective we can assure agree with Jacques derrida that there is within form a level of presence, according to derrida, in fact, form itself is the ultimate and primer ontological dimension of presence, everything that made presence take shape of it under forms, however, the kind of presence we are here speaking about is intangible and disseminated through a texere between the non-discursive and the discursive, between experience—non language yet and language, this is in a few word, a concept of presence related both with appearing –as the appearing of something in form language—the discursive, and the stratified levels of wishes to say, intentionality and motivation between experience and the mise in regard of form as expressed between eidos and morphe, this kind of presence usually work weaved with both the unsaid and the memories of the wishes to say and allow us to think about that the subject is making presence to himself in a certain form but in an stratified manner.

  At this point the task consist indeed about recognizing to what level the subject might have a language ---before the effective born of a final language—to speak on such a non-discourse level of experience, if he or she can recognize pre-expressive and expressive concern in between eidos-noetic and an idealized anticipated idea of form, since form is not yet formed but anticipated from the mise in regard –morphe--and if only in form we may speak on presence such texere of non-discursive issues, need to be recognized in a simultaneous language, a language of process so to speak.

  In a few words under eidetic and noetic levels the idea of presence is tangle under complicated stratus, there is certainly presence in form as form is presence itself but eidetic and noetic level of experience as soon as always born toward and addressing to form a language, to take shape under form, it is before the arrival of a final form, and in this sense the subject may recognize the relation between such pre-expressive and expressive contents of motivations, intentionality and wishes to say only as eidetic and noetic source in a memory weaved with a morphe, eidos-morphe, ontologically.

    Now, we should recognize this idea of tangle presence as completely different to the kind of presence that we have in the idealization process creates the flour of interiority when conscience may be recognized in front of us through self-conscience.

   In the idea of presence we have in self-conscience we have endowed conscience of a sense of a whole of a totality system that reflect another level of reflection, conscience itself is a repetition through reflection of the sensorial levels, and conscience of conscience evolves a seize of sense of the former conscience reflected endowing it with a sense of a whole. Here the idea of presence is regarded to how in self-conscience our conscience made presence in front of us, the relation between wishes to say, intentionality and motivation toward a language is here out of date not in consideration, instead of operating by fragments of experience as in pre-expressive and expressive eidetic, noetic and morphemic level when everything regarding the interiority of conscience by the relation between the animation of discourse from non-discursive contents, here presence is not a considered under the relation form-presence, morphe-mise in regard, but by the totalizing activity within which conscience appear as a representational whole whereas more or less outside objects and or insides reflections of substitutions.

   At the noetic-eidetic level presence is stratified and considered according to morphe and form as alive presence in between the weaves of experience and language, the non-discursive and the discursive, while at the self-conscience level presence is reflected, it is not about world itself but about a reflected world when representation and perception dominates the field of presence.