Thinking science chapter 4 continuation

  Near to our sense of biography, it is not however biography at all.

   It is not in fact biography in the sense of a person collection of experiences organized according to a socially exteriorized list of things done in the social objective world or in terms of the facts of things done understanded as list of contiguities plus to plus collected or juxtaposed, neither biography in the sense of a history of the individual in respect to social general history as a kind of history of the person, but before well as symbols through experience and acervo are constantly actualized by the constant transformations evolved in the taking shape of the self and the permanent modification of the relations between the self and the social, something evolving a unique way of processing inside each single person understanded here synchronically each time again and again when biography appear a something to be gathered again, recollected, retired again from the world, pick up each time again, to lock up, to take shelter, to call, in a few word to meet again with ourselves.

    Doubtless we indeed know in our highly pragmatized universe that an individual can experience his whole life stranger to his self, accepting a permanent so to speak ignorance of his self by living in the skin of his practical social interactions alike and in conformity, resigned so to speak with the highly typified world he or she share with others as contingencies in his life, without monological revisitations to his interiority avoiding to know him or herself, but even in this cases, we will ever attempt to identify any individual person defined by a monadic single universe from which his single isolated gaze take shape on his external universe, a self-sameness singularity belonging to his unique processing of symbols under the perspective on his isolated single condition.

   On the other side in a level less submerged in the flour of interiority, symbols also translate, far to only be tullfully to the tours through the several stratus and substrates of the self between the know, the unknown and the quest under it, symbols also translate to the self in its own individuated language the meanings implied and supposed to him by the alterity of the social world expressed and symbolized from such individuation.

   Here the usual image to us is that one of the mirror, in front of the mirror the individual acquires an image of himself he never has lonely, from his isolation alone the individual never have an image of his own body, he can’t see himself as the others seen him, in the mirror, even yet alone he has a first impression about how others seen him albeit this is nothing more than an illusion still hence he never attain to fully have a complete image of a full surrounding objetibly of his externality as others usually obtain it, seen by the others, he is an object between the objects, but he can’t attain such an image by himself on him, it is always an idealization reflected in his interiority in the mode of an "as if", meaning "as if" seen by the others, but only seen by himself alone again, this is this what the mirror exteriorize to him as a symbolized dimension, and this is of course, before having an effective mirror in front just a teatralization of the others reflected in the self, something that start as a monologue but with time of individuation acquire a highly differentiated level of processing from which such a phenomenology is less an idealization of the other and becomes transformed by the self, here we have what the concept of interiorization mean when we say interiorizing the social world, something that frequently become provided by irrepetible and unique singularity and beside of renewed senses as soon as retuned now socialized under expressions as the products of internal languages elaborations.

   Now, when we see from outside exteriorized as socialized languages in the social world the effective objective presentation of such language sake by highly elaborated interiorization we lost in the form of expression—substance of expression—the clues to objectibly connect with precision how this language are exactly connected with such an interiority, it is already outside such an interiority and as such exposed to objective rules of decodification.

  But the mirror is also paradoxically the confirmation to the idealized interiority of subjectivity that the coincidence with itself of the identity of the selfsameness monad of the individual and his or her self, is alone again with itself in all its objectivity nor only as confirmed by the isolation of the internal, besides, it is a repetition seen outside reflected in the mirror of exactly what happen regarding otherness as reflected inside internal subjectivity, a way to look to himself "as if seen" by the others, but as something already reflected in the fancy of his own isolation, this now confirmed also as objectivity as the mirror reflect not an immaterial ideal in conscience but a real reflection of the body as objective outside its own.

   The more amazing paradox however is what happen outside when highly internalized social or cultural issues transformed inside from the self are back as socialized exteriorized response in front of the real others. Something allow us to say on this matter that the others are never capable to reconstruct and or have access to how such a visibly individuated way to elaborate objective symbols are connected to the internal processing of the individual self, we don’t have in fact a way to comply that inside by just objects, icons and signs outside exteriorized even when phenomenology is precisely the science we have to try it, we can, of course, do several things, we can take note of our own processing’s through the our own sense of the otherness idealized and internalized and as such made use of a certain sense of universality too, by comparition and thus inferences, use the seizes of the sense of symbols under conscience to imagine and figure out how another, which is now by this question reversed, the one who was an internal subjectivity now seen in outside language as otherness while we are the internals, might or must have to relate motivations, intentionality’s and wishes to say with ways of meaning and symbolize.

   We can also ask them as to have additional supplementary information on what is simply visually seen or hear in a language as well as we can solicit access to self-expressions and other forms of confidential materials, this is more easy for example through workshops cycles when the subjects in question establish an agreement to exchange speaking on their internals and or therapy sessions while difficult if we are constrained by the usual pragmatics of public and medias communications subjected to message, code, reception modes of semiological communication.

    This is in fact a dilemma, symbols on the one hand make sense to the self when reflected into the interiority without yet returning in expressive forms to the outer world, makes sense to the trips of the self through its own stratus and stratifications, but as soon as it is exteriorized as expressive forms as socialized languages to the universe of real others, it starts to be progresibly far to the internal universe sake it. Thus, under intersubjectivity as well as pragmatics of communication of message, code and reception, the symbols lost again that internal source disseminated within polysemy’s and multiple interpretations without a guaranty to be back on the reasons and motives creates it.

    According to somes the only way to guaranty such a sense is through the so-called closed doors forms of communications more usual and frequent within settings of pedagogy without external observers, within certain kind of workshops in which the form of communication is stablished by consensus in agreements by each one of the participants prestablished rationality of communication, we say some kinds, because there is as we all well know semantical variations of the concepts as workshops and labs in which directors and or authorities addresses it toward purposiveness, objectives and forms of taking decisions, without agreements with the participants in nothing related with what the participant want, so only seldom through highly rare and unusual forms of communications such conditions of closed doors are really possible with basis in a real agreement between each one of the participants.

    But let just forget that by the moment and be back in the phenomenology of the self about which I am proposing the possibility of cultural analysis under individualized phenomenology’s.

    One of the major senses of symbols to the self are related with the affective dimensions of it overall if we understand affect from the perspective of fondness related with sentiments, feelings and emotions, something is affective individually speaking when love is the rule of it and when love is the main content evolved in it, the self identify symbols idealized through the inmaterialized form of imagination and according to the affective contents associated with senses and meanings the subject has assigned to it so that the external become interiorized under a certain choice and selective work which usually evolve the habits of the subject in a surrounding affective environment.

   In fact a meaningful number of the objects and environments surround the individual world pass by through the affective dimension to the self-phenomenology transformed inside it according to affects, nothing without affects use to be usually accepted by the individual flour of the interiority and we can attempt and attain to even demonstrate that as soon as affectibly identified by sympathy the self-transform everything in symbols, I will even say at this point that what transform it in symbols is precisely the affect.

   We must thus at this point made a distinction between my sense of the word affection constrained by relations of love and other uses of the semantical senses of this word.

   For example, the spinosa definition of affection is far to our understanding of it.

   Let remember by a moment spinosa well know definition of it

   "Wishes is the essence of man as much as conceived as determined to work something by any given affection in it

    Explanation: he expressed above at the escolio of proposition 9 that wishes is the appetite with the conscience of it and that appetite is the essence of main as much as determined to work what serves to it conservation

    By in the same escolio I foreseen that indeed I don’t recognize any difference between the human appetite and wishes. Thus more or less concient the man of its appetite, this appetite remain, however, one and the same, whence, to avoid tautology, I avoided to explain wishes by appetite, but defining it in a manner that all the struggles of human nature designed with the name of appetite, wishes, impulse and volunteer, comprehend both joining it together, I would might say, in effect, that wishes is the essence of man as much as conceived as determined to work something, but in this definition is not supposed as derived that the soul may be conscient of such wishes and appetite. Whence, with the purposiveness to include the sake of this conscience, I considered necessary to include an addition sentence, as much as determined by an affection given in it. Thus by affection of human essence I understand any disposition of this essence, well innate, well acquires, or by extension, referred to both wishes and appetite at the same time, I understand thus under the denomination of wishes all the struggles, appetites and volitions of man which according to the diverse disposition of man are diverse and seldom opposed in between, that man is drag and carry away and don’t know were is going"

   Nothing as far to my definition of affect than the spinosa one, to spinosa affect was considered in the sense of everything that affect man so affection was almost diluted by him under the idea of the external world incidence on man as everything affecting man and disseminated under wishes and appetite in regard to man human nature.

   When we say affect in contrast to the former, we are meaning something radically different, we are meaning in agreement with Jacques derrida that affect is a selective activity defined by choices and or by preferences constrained and sake, determined and subjected to love, only there were the human being feel love that is transformed into affective and affection in general is nothing else than another name or the more general name we have to define all we choice to be in relation with between those things than mean love to us, anything nor evolving love to the subject is rejected by the self, "the self" is certainly not as selective as "the I" which really reject almost everything, but as belonging to the individual person interior subjectivity and as part of the whole defines the sameness of the person as much as specialized in translating the social world to the internal as much as choosing only what mean love to the subject.

   Back then to the former definition, only through affect the extrinsique is transformed into the intrinsique by the self and only through affects anything processed from the external world is possible to be transformed into symbols, internal symbolism in fact is nothing else but affection.