Thinking science chapter 4 continuation

The Door swing between self and the symbolic

©By Abdel Hernández San Juan

Written in english and translated to english by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

"When the subject is constituted in the mind under the effect of principles, the mind apprehends itself as a self, for it has being qualified. But the problem is this: if the subject is constituted only inside the collection of ideas, how can the collection of ideas be apprehended as a self, how can I say “I”, under the influence of those same principles?. We do not really understand how can we move from dispositions to the self, or from the subject to the self. How can the subject and the mind, in the last analysis, be one and the same inside the self?. The self must be both a collection of ideas and a disposition, mind and subject. It is a synthesis, which is incomprehensible, since it ties together in its notion, without ever concealing them, origin and qualification"

Gilles Deleuze, The Problem of knowledge and of ethics, Empiricism and subjectivity

    Once time clear a way the relations between self and acervo –see my book on this title—with its three discussed levels, 1- the relation between the individual and the social, 2- the one between experience, memory and acervo and 3-the self-representation one, clear away too, after untangled the skein of presence plenum presence versus differed presences, thus as the concept sensibly mediation of subject and object, we are ready to return over my theorization of the self now to analyze how work not only the reflect of culture under the phenomenology of the individual self but also the symbolic and symbols in general to the self-interiorized idealizations in regard to the phenomenological genesis of sign and its social exteriorization.

  Ïn fact, I think that the universe of idealization interiority we will focus in this essay is a universe of symbols more than of signs something required to a differenced distinction between symbols and signs occupied the attention of several semiologists before us.

  Differently to signs even after the enlarged of the domains of sign to cover analogic and digital signs in visual levels such as the iconic, signs are usually cutted between the material side of the sign from which denotation arises and the object beyond, no matter if we are speaking on clues, indicial signs and or icons through conventions as it happen in alphabetic language, agreements of prestablished meanings differently even to the relation between name and naming in signs, and considered at the level of the sign seem in derridean terms, as the first form of apparition of us in front of us, an exteriorized mark of our conscience, symbols are not cutted between something and another thing it have taked its place, nor between form and reference, language and referentiality, form and denotation.

    Before well seen from the hermeneusis culture is itself we recognize that taking distance of signs by isolating form, reference and code as something itself, is far to understand how the signs are integrated in the general hermeneusis of culture, and only through this recognition we arrive progresibly to the universe of symbols identifying as just a moment of general symbolism defined by more general relations between language and society, language and culture, culture and nature.

   This is about connotative relations of meaning and meaningfulness, sintagms and paradigms and less on clues, references, denotations and codes, meaning, that the semantic relations between form and content are more openness and less prestablished in between forms and objects.

   But we will not have to extend us much on this distinction of semiotic but instead to stablish the universe of the self to understand how everything corresponding to signs is diluted and or disseminated under a more general symbolism.

    Now well, the analysis of this relation between symbolism and the self-bring us to necessarily survey another zones of the symbolic in front of which symbolism and the self as a relation itself might be cutted as specific to it, meaning distinguishing the autonomy of this relation on the background of other kind of exchanges and traffics of the symbolic in culture unrelated with the self-such as on the one hand, intersubjectivity, on the other, symbols seen as socially exteriorized objectivity as well as symbols considered under the general pragmatic of communication defined by emissary, message, envoy and reception, whence the universe of the self and symbolism constitute an specific area separated from such another dimensions.

  This idea of cutting the zone and or areas of the self-relation with symbolism is not as much related with my usual concept of cutting since cutting as I use to conceive this notion presuppose cutting in culture things according to parameters stablished by us, in this case the cutting activity is just recognizing something already cutted in the nature of that relation beyond our methodological purposiveness while to a certain point we must identify thus that if we don’t establish in anticipation the autonomy of this cut framed under a microsociology perspective instead of a macro it may also be diffused and or unledged and diffused outside the specific area correspond with a relation majorly and mainly defined by the concept and empirical domain of the individual person.

  We are in fact speaking here only about individual persons seen as an isolated monad selfsameness separated from the any other thing in the biological, physical and social world as a single individuality, and considering this notion from two well defined western perspectives, the jean piaget concept of the individual development and learning process as based in process of progressive differentiation meaning that the autonomy of the self-individuation is highly evolutioned since it is differenced from society and the Helbet mead concept of the development of the individual as result of a highly richness relation between the individual self and the social.

   We have here between the isolated single individual and the symbolic a relation between its self and his I that work in a micro level and creates a whole avenue and autonomous serie on how the symbols work.

    First "the I" is alone with his self and the whole horizont which represent to "the I" the social world of the others had relish to be extrinsique and pass by to be intrinsique reflected under the idealization of the interior world of subjectivity phenomenology, the world of the others is here considered only as individuated image and such individuation has transformed that image.

   In the assure process of taking distance on himself "the I" and the self-envoy and receive in between a mutual enrichment and exchange within both, the self-envoy and receive images from "the I" and in reversal "the I" envoy and receive images from "the self" -inside the individual interior subjectivity according to how the self-had individuated the image of the others and created inside that interiority images on how seen himself as if seen by the others, this otherness however is already his own image of the image the others have on him according to how the individuation process processed that images, meaning, on the one hand, that ti is his own image idealized of the others inside his subjectivity as well as the fact that the self is being itself permeated by that relations stablishing the transformation of his alter ego within his self-stim in relation to the social, "the I" envoy to the self a memory image of his own coincidence with himself, meaning a kind of retained, conservated and memorized sense to seize his identity while the self-receive that image and processes it according to how being permeated by a current social environment of culture, the social and values, he has individuated constantly as it is transforming him as single individual meaning the process of becoming.

   But this interiority of the individual is fully made my symbols, let see that from the more diminute space understanding how in the process itself of the formation and taking shape of the interiority as result of the idealization process creates its flour the sense participates in defining it as a symbolism by quoting a Derrida paragraph on how the universe of senses participates symbolized in the taking shape of our inside interior subjectivity and its feelings. Derrida sustained:

        "On one part, the voice unifies the anthropological naturality of the natural sound to the psiquique-semiotique ideality, it articulates, thus, the philosophy of the sprit on the philosophy of nature, and, in the philosophy of the sprit its concept is thus the The Door swing between anthropology and psychology. Between these two sciences we know is inscribed phenomenology of the sprit or science of the experience of the conscience

   On the other part, this phonic relation between the sensible and the intelligible, the real and the ideal, is determined here as a relation of expressivity between an inside and an outside.

   Keeping the inside in itself, even when is envoy to outside, it is by excellence what confers existence, presence, the dasein to the interior presentation, it made to exist, the concept, the meaning. But at the same time interiorize and temporalize the dasein, act of spatial sensible intuition, language exalt the existence itself, it set it in its true and produce thus a kind of promotion of presence. It made the pass by of the sensible existence into representative, intellectual existence of the concept, it is a pass by as this one what defines the moment of articulation transforms the sound in a voice noise in language

   It is in light, the neutral and abstract element of apparition, pure mean of phenomenality in general how nature is related with itself, in light nature is manifested, we can see it, it sees itself, in this first reflexive articulation, the opening of identity is at the same time the opening of subjectivity. light is the first ideality, the first autoafirmation of nature, in light nature become by first time subjectivity

     Correlatibly Sight is the ideal sense, the more ideal one, by definition and as well it indicate its name more than touching and taste

     We might also say that sight gives the sense to theory, it suspends the wishes, let thing to be in reserve or prohibit the consummation. The visible have in common with the sign what Hegel expressed that we can’t eat it

     However if sight is ideal the hearing is more ideal yet even considering the ideality of the light and of the gaze, the objects perceived by the eye, hearing is more ideal yet, it is the more sublime of the senses, as sight it is a part not of the practical’s but of the theoretical senses, but it is even more ideal that the sight, it is the first and more ideal manifestation of the soul, the sound corresponded to interior subjectivity as sound is itself more ideal than corporality which really exist, it renounce even to that ideal existence and become the expression of the interiority"

      Such a quite of Derrida discussion is highly extensive and encompass a discussion about how each one of the sense participates in the taking shape of the idealization process creates our interior subjectivity but following the whole discussion will exceed the focus of this paper task around the relation between the self and the symbols.

    Thus, we have symbols in the taking shape of the interiority of the self from the moment what made its identity as single is in a narrow form related with the process of differentiation of himself in front of another singularities, here the concept of difference is not untangled yet in respect to the skeins of it, but assumed in the clear sense Piaget has regarded it under the analysis of the process of learning creates the evolutionary process of becoming self-defined, an individuality become each time more individualized as much as the flour of his interior world of subjectivity become differenced inside itself and regard to the others, this is what made the pivotal place of the self-inside the subject, the process of giving form to both the sameness of the self-identity with itself and the processing inside it of the others world.

   Whence, it is on the opposite site of how symbols work among intersubjectivity, in this case the symbols are envoys going and returning in the objective, external interaction of the subjects communication, there is of course a moment in which each individual process what he received as said from the other incorporating it to its sameness interiority, but even in this moment there is no time within intersubjective relation and communication as to process it depperly, intersubjective interactions are defined by the velocities of exteriorized processing’s, in this sense what each subject may do is remembering it later alone while no longer intersubjectibly interacting.

   Hence in this case such a memorized later interaction is again incorporated as an image into the idealization process creates the interiority of subjectivity and as such it turns again to be an image the subject creates seen himself as seen by the others or "as if" while through an already idealized image of the alterego, further, "the I" see himself as the self is providing to it a processed image of the interiorized externals interactions with others permeated his becoming, but this becoming are already again transformed from the internal subjectivity, we must probably at this point recognize that through the time usually available during intersubjective interactions, the individual subject fastly incorporates the sayings and reactions of the others, but without a response is required by the contingencies of the pragmatics of the interaction itself and by the way there is not time to the subject to elaborate its responses, within intersubjective communication the subject don’t have the sufficient time to process and interiorize the symbols among the universe of his individuation and this is the main reason to exclude effective intersubjectivity in the analysis of the well-defined zone characterize the relation between the self and the symbols.

  Within the self the subject is no longer interacting but alone with itself, he now have all the time needed to interiorize and process the memories of the permeability defined the pass by of the external through the strainer of his internal world, this is now a monologue instead of a dialogue and as such everything regarding others is already transformed in symbols and idealized ideals of the as if.

   Within intersubjective communication we have two external dotes, it is like in a ball game one shoot the ball the other one receive it and shoot it again but now with enuntiative sayings as sending and receiving symbols, it is also like in a phone call dialogue, one enunciate a sound and the other one have to response fastly, certainly there is a moment when each one have a certain time to elaborate while listening but as soon as the other silence appear an answer should be foreseen, so that the source, the rise, the genesis that phenomenologically process the symbols is completely different if we compare the time for processing that individuation provide to the subject already alone with his self, now all the experience is no longer interacting outside, but idealized within the interior world, everything regarding symbols start then to be processed under an autonomous avenue to the symbolic and as such the analysis of the weaves between symbolism and the self is required of an attentive focus in its unique phenomenology.

  Under this autonomous dimension symbols functions as self-intelligibility addressed toward the sameness of the self-meaning as readings of himself we use to call ways to know best our self or ways to go or visit our self as self-readings, trips, travels or internal journeys or more precisely as travecies or routes to the deep interiority and identity of the self, this work as a recognition by "the I" in front of the social something "the I" receive and process through the self as the self-contain the individuation process which both interiorized but also idealized and transform the permeability of the internal to the external, experience, acervo, backgrounds, social and cultural symbolized universe of the others, here symbols are routes, tours whose task is to attain ways to catch a glimpse, to make out dimly, to search, to discern, to scan, to rummage, to scrutinize or examine carefully, to explore and unveil, something bring us to the relation between hermeneutic, self-psychoanalysis and archaeology.

   Hence the cultural contents of symbols through this autonomous zone of the weaves between the self and symbols, usually work in two similar but differentiated dimensions, one of this dimensions can be identified as immaterial from the moment we are not speaking on spell objects or images of the outer work such as for example affective objects, images or icons of affective relevance to the subject, but only with, like in alphabetic language, immaterial symbols of things, like words are, here the symbols are plenty in abstractions, transformed as idealized synthesis of their meanings by the effect of sound spectra’s and or memories of the visual, and usually accompanied by kinds of self-monologues narratives or narrative correlates creates a chain of the meaning associated to such symbols spectra’s, but there is not yet here the recurrence to outer objective objects and icons, perhaps and before well, routes of trips to the self-accompanied by the narrative chain of meanings spectra’s associated to certain symbols, this work similarly to daily soliloquies in remembering and memory, like for example, when the subject narrate to himself the main things done during the day at night in the bed reconstructing by fragments moments of what he said to others, what he hear or what he retained as well as the chain of things it activated within his subjectivity about his memories, experiences and certainties, while not as much reconstructing something but in a similar form revisiting by fragments the self.

    Another must be defined as objectual since now the trips are not made with the fancy or the general use of imagination, but in regard to concrete outer objects, each subject usually have a collection of objects, icons, and image he or she associate usually through self-narratives to his own experience, this collection of objects use to have specific affective values, this can happen with ordinary daily objects surround the subject habitat and life, this zone tend to be highly evolutioned and developed when the objects in question are no longer passive objects of a routine surround but mostly objects elaborated expresibly so that the so-called trip or travel to deeper moments of the self can be addressed and explored outside associating narratives of experience with highly elaborated objects, in this case instead of a relation between hermeneutic, archaeology and self-psychanalysis we have the major intervention of semiotic.

   From the moment the outer objects are not only related by the subject through self-narrative to his memories and collection but objective meanings under codes in a culture, the trip under the self ever characterized by the world of otherness filtered and transformed by the idealization process of individuation, might be defined as a semiotic trip which consist about relating the semantique levels of the objects, images and icons itself with the semantique levels such objects activates in a associative network with symbolisms of the self, at this point semiotic is encompassed and mixed with hermeneutic, archaeology and self-psychoanalysis in a form that remember ways explored outer by barthers earlier as for example, his analysis of hearing.

   Now as obvious we don’t have here a psychoanalyst as an objective person outside the individual person but the individual person itself become his own psychoanalyst, a semiological trip whose task is not about returning someone from a disease to a normal situation, but a normal sane subject with a good health who however is committed to do this travels in order to know himself better, to go in deep about his own symbolic universe, in a few words, a subject committed to be each time more a best person as possible.

   This issues I know by experience seems to be sometimes missunderstanded because the pragmatic sense of life contingencies seems to feel it as strange, why to go in deep if all we need as sane persons is to act according to the practical contingencies of our life, well, we believe, as critical subjects, that every person is a collection of experiences and this experiences cumulated during life are not available at the same time to the presence of the subject zone of operations in the pragmatic contingencies of life, in this sense, all that cumulated dimension use to be abandoned by the pragmatically incorporated operational subject and as much as this accumulation is abandoned as much as the subject become unconcient of his own deeper self, but overall the main importance of this exploration is given by the major fact that the self itself reflect a process of constant permeability according to be a subject constantly becoming another so that without this exploration the subject stay at the skin level unknowing himself each time less and less, here we have the ordinary common sense question, who I am?, who I am becoming?, I know myself ? which have as individualized correlate the more general question about who we are?.

  This unknown disatended and usually hidden zone to the subject appears in life as limitations of the person when in front of certain challenges he or she recognize to be limited and or uncapable, from interpersonal relations to social work and or situations, by this reason the subject use to be usually limited to comply himself, to have access, to comply this zone, the subject need a language, without a language which can only be obtained through quest the subject can’t indeed to comply it, and to made or take shape of that language there is a hard work to be done.

   We are speaking here on an area visited only by those who being persons committed with self superation through reading books and the idea of never stopping the commitment to study outside and beyond formal studies, recognize the necessity of knowing the self as part of life, maybe defined as usual between some kind of artists as those depperly committed with the richness and complexities of process while we can’t forget that it’s a zone that appear as major to any kind of subjects in certain moments of life, something about which there is today a whole literacy even highly commercial of self-help covering areas from how to be efficient regarding business and enterprises, to how to assume pregnancy and the education of our sons, this literature contain a lot of material on self-tripas.