Thinking science chapter 5 end

As Stephen sustained, representation is itself a repetition under which what is repited is not equal to the represented meaning a nonidentity but at the same time, as repetition, representation supposes the repetition of an identity and a presupposition of identity between representation and the represented , evocation in this sense, encompass and seize in a more complex and richness form the nonidentity evolved within that repetition instead of being in defect as representation in respect to the represented, evocation synchronize an adequative way to work with such non-repetitive repetitions.

    Quoting Stephen,

     "in fact, I think that you are describing our current situation, evocation is the necessary mean to try and work with your concept of non-repetitive repletion or repetitions without identities and it recommend itself according to reasons I will call the pluralization of discourse".

      Now well, precisely by that reason, the discussion of evocation is not limited to only the logical pair with representation, if evocation is the necessary mean to work with non-repetitive repetitions it is related with representation in the sense that representation is itself beyond its illusion of repiting the identity of the represented in it, a non-repetitive repetition without identity in that repetition but without adecuation to that principle which is under representation exceeded and limites.

   While in this form, evocation is the opposite of representation, evocation remark the non adecuation of representation to the synchronicity and simultaneity define the principle of non-repetitive repetition and work itself as the only way to mean that adecuation as that which representation can’t solve something according to which it is the opposite of all the mendacity described by Stephen about the current situation.

   And in this form evocation is indeed depperly related with the issue of true, understand in the sense of the philosophy of sciences this is about the quest of true both epistemologically as well as ontologically, even methodologically and ontologically, ethically.

   Being the habilitation of language evocation need as concept a theoretical more depper reconstruction an effort, endeavor and attain started by Stephen and me in our philosophical dialogue. Why to think that evocation is related with true or at least to consider it more near and adequate to work with it?.

   This is not an easy question to answer precisely in the context and by the reasons discussed by Stephen between other things the separation between reason, common sense, aesthetics and politics relativized by rhetoric.

    It seems to be obvious that evoquing senses presuppose a relation with contents and meanings less controlled, less authoritarian and linear and certainly of rhetoric had relativized the autonomy of reason, common sense, aesthetics and politic as separated worlds it was because the ideology of contents and meanings, stereotypes and prejudices about what to mean or say has imposed itself over the open spirit of quest, true and the humble sense of learning evolved within heuristics and research, whence evocation since being the otherness and alterity of representation it had avenue the possibility to stop representation showing its limits usually related with dominating, evocation instead free the non-coincidence and solves the inadequacy not in the form of perfecting representation but all the opposite, reestablishing other ways around, ways by which things are not substituted by its representation and the last one is considered inadequate to what it represent.

      Under evocation we hesitate and discard the repetition of reality in representation we even discard repiting reality outside it as an identity or a substitution of the world by a language or a delegation, rather, we attaint to seize reality itself and beyond it, considering that reality it self is yet as Hegel sustained contingent and accidental, we attempt to go over reality to find synchronicity and simultaneity as well as what Stephen defined as a sublime of daily life, but even on the side of language, located between genesis and structure, we attempt to seize with evocation another forms of relation between the parts and the wholes of our texts exploring what is proper of evocation, the relations of sense, but evocation is itself sense at the same time and in this respect it is also about the ontology of world and reality itself, evocation return to the identity of repetition while this repetition is already non-repetitive what Stephen defined as the suppression of difference that the fiction of identity suppose.

  And see in this sense evocation seems to be on the side of synchronicity and simultaneity also in a form evolving a certain sense of the ritual something brings us to what is experienced and alive habilitating under it our common sense languages as well.

   Evocation thus yet need of an immense theoretical effort around epistemology, method, telos.

   Evocation is not only a dialectical concept, but also a comprehensive one concept which have adequacy as its main potential.

    If an evocation is a form of sense which habilitate language located between genesis and structure and between the part and the whole of an effective language composition its relation with true is whence concerning with the entails between representation and the objects of it and to how we deliver the relation of part and whole in our compositions and discourses, so it concerns with the classical trues rise being, concept, phenomena, appearance, reality, genesis, dialectique, etc.

  According to Hegel true is that which can’t be separed from its opposites something derrida defined in regard to Hegel as the true of true, Hegel called true only that which identity and coincidence with itself can’t be comprehended without its opposite, for example, he said, we cant understand what the world is itself without understanding what a reflected and a phenomenological world is and in reverse, to understand the reflected phenomenological world e need to understand how world itself is under it and both are moments of the same while being opposites, is impossible, and to get this duplicitous sense is nothing else but the true.

  A father can’t be a father without a son, if we remove the son, the father disappear it become a general man and in reverse, what is upon is upon because some is below if we remover one or the other then upon and belows disappear becoming places in general, this is what true is like.

   But representation as the otherness or opposite of evocation is in the same way explained in the former needed for evocation to be and evocation need for representation to be if we remove one or the other both disappear.

   Now one thing is to understand representation as a reflected dimension meaning a perceptive related with sensible multiplicities and the datas of our senses and its physiological implications and another thing is representation considered as a language more or less near to what it represents in the form of various modalities of realism in respect to reality, the antinomies of realism so to speak.

   In respect to the mere datas of the sense as palpable sensoriality the implications of evocation in front of representation are of distinct results, given that with evocation we are not speaking on substitution or the replacement evolved within referential representation in respect to the objects’ and things evocation adecuation focusses about that it is a process of synchronies and simultaneities irreducible to the linearity’s and sequential characterize the form of representation to reflect it.

  In a few words evocation is more sensible and perceptible to the differences, this what is suppose to be reflect in fact are nothing else than evocations itself, the relation between for example a concrete data of the sense, a flavor, a taste, a touch, a sound, there is being itself in palpable sensoriality at the biological sense as well as a kind of retained memory of it under a certain spectral or specular imagine which co-inhabit the mere biological feeling, but in this form ti is only an evocation like when we later differentiate it under a memory.

   In this sense the so-called reflects of the senses bring within itself a certain repetition or memory which is itself as alive memory evocation.

       Seen in this form evocation comes here to overline that such a repetition is not already the first stimule while it is lively conservated, but an image of a such non-identical to the stimulus itself, something about which we can only evocate, evocation then capture the two senses at the same time, on the one hand the lively nature of it less replaced by something else, and on the other, that the alive spectral memory start a difference from which the illusion of representation as mimesis reflect goes exceeded to a linear form of substitutions, while through synchronic and simultaneity, it is not replaced but different staying however as difference at the level of experience instead of its linear repetition, this another form of repetition start the travel on the way to concepts instead that on the way to the chain of perception, reflects, conscience, and so on, evocation in this sense travel from the avenues of subject and object toward the concept as already discussed in this book.

    This is not a way to say that there is not a certain level of representation under it and there is evocation in the ways for representation to be more or less adequate, but to say that the moments of repetition are less representational exactly as the chain sensible multiplicities, object, concept, subject are both at the same time more abstract and less reflected than the chain of the series, perception, representation, reflect, conscience.

   Logical pairs need each other, they are inclusives, each one contains the other in its own identity while they eliminate each other too, meaning that without evocation in the repetition from palpable sensoriality to representation, representation itself is eliminated, as Stephen expressed, representation depend on evocation, but the opposite is certain too, without representation inside evocation, evocation stay eliminated.

   But only in the separation we perceive the importance of each one and later the mutual need. Within representation we believe in the fiction that the illusion of identity between representation and the represented creates hence believing it as if getting reality in representation when it is an effects of the production of the effects of reality buy the manipulation and control of the special effects of representation, we believe to get reality by indistinguishing imitation with identity, while the illusion of identity created by the effects of imitative mimesis suppress the difference as Stephen sustained, well, evocation we might say is specialized in understanding this difference or in being adecuated to it.

    In the reverse sense without a certain percent of representation evocation alone may derive in a drift without retention since being an open and indeterminate form of sense, all that which made codification possible and the constrains of meanings habilitate forms of communication subjected to pragmatic endeavors of reality can be loosed.

References

Derrida Jacques, Génesis y estructura, de la Fenomenologia, Antropos

Hegel, ciencias de la lógica, Hachete

Tyler A Stephen, Evocation, the Unwriteable, a response to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, sep 9, rice university, 1997