glynn - 2014 - horizons of identity

8/12/2019 Glynn - 2014 - Horizons of Identity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/glynn-2014-horizons-of-identity 1/513

of 514 Horizons of Identity

HORIZONS OF IDENTITY

by

Andrew Glynn



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: What is Self-Identity?................................................................................................6

Introduction: Why Discuss Science in the context of the ntolo!y of the Self?...........................2"Introduction: #he $usiness of %hiloso&hy and the Self.................................................................'2

Introduction: #he (eanin! of Identity..........................................................................................')

Introduction: *n +xa,&le Dialectic as %ers&ectial.....................................................................""%reie: #he Set of *ssu,&tions..................................................................................................6

#he Self as Syste,.........................................................................................................................6

#he Syste, of Self.........................................................................................................................0'#he Self and the Su1ect................................................................................................................0

%redis&ositions and the Dis&osedness of the Self..........................................................................)2Syste,ic $ehaiors of the %syche or Self.....................................................................................)"

3eality in General as Syste,s of Syste,s.....................................................................................)#he Self as 4ayered 5nderstandin!...............................................................................................'

Sense-ertainty..............................................................................................................................'

%erce&tion......................................................................................................................................7Si,&le onsciousness...................................................................................................................."

#he 8e!atiity of the Su1ect as +x&erience of 3eality as Sche,a............................................97

#he #ruth of Self-ertainty..........................................................................................................99#he (ythical %syche....................................................................................................................927

(orality and the (ythical %syche...............................................................................................926

#he (eta&hysical %syche............................................................................................................9'#he *rtifice of the #heoretical (ode of +x&erience...................................................................97

#he (oe,ent fro, Self-onsciousness to *1solute ;noin!.................................................979

#he Identity of ;noer and ;non: *ristotle< *=uinas and He!el............................................979

ertainty and #ruth of 3eason.....................................................................................................976Deelo&in! the >uestion of the Self............................................................................................97)

Deter,inis, and 8ecessity.........................................................................................................90'

#he Self as $ody..........................................................................................................................900



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '

#he 3ational *ni,al....................................................................................................................9)9

#he Self as *thlete: *thleticis, *s I,a!inatie %roection and Whole $ody *ctualization.....9)"

#he Self and the o!ito...............................................................................................................96*n!st and the 3eealin! of the Self as 3eality............................................................................9)

#he Inental Su1ect....................................................................................................................29

#he Self and $ein! $eyn!@........................................................................................................2)4oner!anAs Insi!ht into Insi!ht....................................................................................................229

#he Su1ectie #urn in BizeC.......................................................................................................272

#he Self as Scientific...................................................................................................................270#he (aterial ntolo!y of (odern Science.................................................................................270

#o&olo!ical 3ecursie 3elations as *rchety&al 3elations..........................................................2)

#he ailure of $otto,-5& +x&lanation.......................................................................................26

%hiloso&hy for an E*!e of DeathE: #he riti=ue of Science and #echnolo!y in Heide!!er and 8ishitani.......................................................................................................................................'6

* riti=ue of losin! the Ga&: %heno,enolo!y and 4o!ical *nalysis.......................................'90

#echnolo!y and the Su1ect of (odern Science..........................................................................'20

#he %ro1le,s ith (odern os,olo!y......................................................................................'79#he Hy&er-ocus on +olution in Defendin! (odern Science...................................................'7

#he %ro1le,s ith Genetic *cco,,odation #heory..................................................................'"0#he F(ind$lindA #heory of *utis, as an +xa,&le of the $lindness of o!nitie Science.......'67

*utis, and #e,&orality: 8on-er1al 3es&onse to Hu,an oices.............................................'0

#he 3eelation of 3eason in He!el.............................................................................................'0)#he Self as 3eli!ious...................................................................................................................')"

8on-$elief ersus *theis, and *!nosticis,..............................................................................')"

8on-$elief ersus *theis,..........................................................................................................')"

......................................................................................................................................................')" 8ae *theis, as +x&ounded 1y 3ichard DaCins....................................................................'))

#he *reas *ffected 1y o,&lexity #heory and %ro1a1ility #heory...........................................')

8on-$elief s. *!nosticis,.........................................................................................................''#he (eanin!s of the Word GodJ...............................................................................................')

;arl 3ahner and God as the Infinite Horizon..............................................................................7

#he Self and +il.........................................................................................................................76#he *ncient once&tion of +il:.................................................................................................76

#he *ncient once&tion of +il: %lato........................................................................................7

#he Self and +il: #he *ncient once&tion of +il: *ristotle....................................................72

#he *ncient once&tion of +il: ItAs 4ate or, in %lotinus.......................................................72'#he atholic once&tion of +il.................................................................................................72

Schellin! and the (eta&hysics of +il.........................................................................................779

#he ri!in of Hu,an +il...........................................................................................................777Why $elief is the %ro1le,...........................................................................................................77"

#he (eanin! of hristian +schatolo!y.......................................................................................7"

ro, the #hanatic to the +rotic...................................................................................................7"6#he Self as Itself..........................................................................................................................760

+rotic $ein!.................................................................................................................................70

%ostie: He!elAs onclusion to the 4o!ic< 3einter&reted.........................................................70'

#he Social Self: #he Social Self as a&italist.............................................................................706




+x&erience of (astery and Seritude in the eudal Syste,.......................................................706

$eyond #he (aster/Slae Dialectic: +rotic nershi&..............................................................70

Will s. Gelassenheit< or Will to Gelassenheit?...........................................................................7)"#he Social Self as a&italist: * Short Deconstruction of a&italist Ideolo!y.............................79

ro, E5to&ianE to EScientiKcE Hu,anis,.....................................................................................7"

Self-Identity and Self-Identification: Identifyin! *s..................................................................."9#he Self as %lace: 4ocality and Identity......................................................................................"0



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / "




Introduction: What is Self-Identity?

“In how far dierence has its origin in the nature of

identity the reader may discover for himself when he is at-tentive to the harmony prevailing between event and is-sue.

othing in this sphere is possible to prove! but muchcan be hinted. "

#eidegger! $artin % &. 'ssays in $etaphysics: Identityand (ierence %)indle *ocations +,-+,&. . )indle 'di-tion.

The core question to be rised is the question o! wht we

"en by Sel!#identity$ how we e%&erience nd 'now oursel(es s

Sel!#identicl) this includes understndin* how we cn lso be

Sel!#di+erent$ tht is$ how we h(e !reedo", In ter"s o! our e%#

&erience o! oursel(es s sel(es$ throu*hout the "yrid o! e%&eri#

ences we h(e$ the (rious situtions we -nd oursel(es in$ nd

e(en throu*h our bility to be .other/ thn our Sel! in s&eci-c "o#

"ents or situtions$ the Sel! &&ers Sel!#identicl nd lwys

."ine/, Heide**er/s insistence on the ."ineness/ o! the Sel!$ or

Dsein$ is crucil insi*ht into how we e%&erience oursel(es s

e%&eriencin* the world, The Sel! is deter"ined s e%istin* by




h(in*#been its own history while it si"ultneously &ro0ects itsel!

in !uturl "nner$ thus bein* the in#between o! &st nd !uture

tht is not the instntneous .now/ but the indeter"inte ti"e o!

&rticulr "o"ent, The notion tht one inherits deter"inte

&ossibilities !ro" which one cn choose wht one is to beco"e

runs into di1culty$ thou*h$ not becuse this choice isn/t (il#

ble$ but becuse it &&ers to be lredy chosen by the e%istin*

Sel!$ lthou*h tht choice cn be ne*ted by the I#Sub0ect, 2ith#

out tht choice lwys h(in* lredy been "de the Sel! would

&&er to be unble to deter"ine whether it ws bein* .its/ Sel!

or it ws bein* .not#its#Sel!/ with &ositi(e ttributes$ s o&&osed

to the &urely ne*tin* not#Sel! o! the I#Sub0ect, The !cticl Sel!

is lwys ble#to#be#wre o! whether it is in !ct bein* .its own/

or it is bein* directed otherwise, 3ineness thou*h "ens u#

thenticity$ which rises the question o! nrrti(e nd the .who/ o!

the nrrtor, In uthentic bein*#"y#Sel! I " the uthor o! "y e%#

istence, In inuthentic bein*#onesel! the .one/$ the .they/$ be#

co"es the uthor o! "y e%istence$ the nrrti(e is structured by

doin* wht .one does/ , 3y e%istence is Sel!#e%&erienced uthen#

ticlly or inuthenticlly s nrrted te"&orlity stretched be#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / )

tween history nd &ro0ection$ t lest in !or"l wy, 4oth &o#

tentil .uthors/ re the Sel!$ but the Sel! cn be "y#Sel! or the

they#Sel!$ which is !ounded not on "y own &ro0ection o! "ysel!

te"&orlly but on &ro0ections o! others5 deter"intions o! who I

!cticlly "$ &ro0ections tht .one/ hs by (irtue o! initition into

&rticulr set o! sub#societies, Authenticity thus hs to be dis#

tin*uished !ro" honesty$ sincerity$ or *enuineness$ which re

trits o! the resultin* nrrted Sel!$ not the "ode o! the .who/

tht nrrtes, The Sel! cn nrrte n honest$ sincere$ *enuine

Sel! on the bsis o! its &ro0ections o! others5 e%&ecttions$ i,e, in#

uthenticlly, On the other hnd socio&th inc&ble o! tellin*

the truth "y h(e been uthenticlly nrrted s tht socio#

&thic Sel!,

Yet the co""unl or socil Sel! retins its &ri"cy$ the u#

thentic indi(idul Sel! cn only be "odi-ction o! it$ since the

&ossible nrrti(es re lr*ely inherited !ro" one5s initil

thrownness into &rticulr historicl &lce, An uthenticlly

shred Sel! with &ositi(e &ro&erties$ substntil shred Sel!$ is

only &ossible i! the sub0ectity o! the indi(iduls in(ol(ed is

dro&&ed, A *rou& o! I#Sub0ects cn only be sel!#conscious$ w'#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity /

wrd$ nd sus&icious o! one nother,

The "in !eture o! co*ito is its insubstntil chrcter6

/It cannot be spo0en of positively1 no sooner than it is!its function is lost.2 345 6ogito is not a substantial entity!but a pure structural function! an empty place - as such! itcan only emerge in the interstices of substantial commu-nal systems. 7he lin0 between the emergence of cogitoand the disintegration and loss of substantial communalidentities is thus inherent.

Slavo8 9ie0! 7olerance as an Ideological 6ategory

The .uni(ersl doubt/ o! Descrtes rises !ro" the sus&icious

nture o! the I#Sub0ect$ which "ens the I#Sub0ect s certin ws

lredy &osited s the *ol o! doubtin*, As clcultin*$ 0ud*in*

&rocess$ not n entity but ne*tion o! the substntil co""unl

Sel! s well s the indi(idul Sel! tht "intins itsel! s &rt o!$

thou*h distinct !ro"$ the shred Sel!$ the I#Sub0ect ccelertes

the disinte*rtion o! the substntil co""unl syste"s tht *i(e

"enin* to the shred Sel!$ nd si"ultneously disinte*rtes the

"enin* o! the indi(idul Sel! tht is in itsel! "odi-ction o!

the co""unl Sel!, As &ure ne*tion the &rticulr I#Sub0ect lso

beco"es the true 7ni(ersl$ re&lcin* the co""unl shred

identity with &rticulr .I/ tht in itsel! e%ists nd cts s uni#




(ersl$ &ublic$ h(in* no &ositi(e indi(idul &ro&erties, Si"ult#

neously the content o! the shred co""unity beco"es only c#

ce&tble s &ri(te idiosyncrsy, 2ithout &ositi(e content$ how#

e(er$ the uni(erslity o! the I#Sub0ect is only ne*ti(e uni(ersl#

ity nd s such cnnot &ro(ide choice !or the shred Sel!$ but

only "et#choice$ "ode o! choosin* tht &&ers to !ree us

!ro" bein* !ully deter"ined culturlly$ n bility to Sel!#deter#

"ine, As ne*ti(e thou*h this Sel!#deter"inin* choice cn only

be not choosin*, 2e beco"e deter"ined s this or tht de&end#

in* on the shi!tin*$ chn*in* conte%ts we e%&erience without de#

cidin* on ny,

How is it tht we 'now$ throu*h di+erent e%&eriences nd

"odes o! bein*#deter"ined$ tht it is the s"e Sel! e%&eriencin*

nd bein*#deter"ined$ tht we in !ct h(e n identity beyond

the &urely !or"l ne*ti(e identity o! the I#Sub0ect8 2e re

wre when we re bein* our sel(es nd when we re not while

in situtions where we re not si"&ly the I#Sub0ect$ where there

is &ositi(e &heno"enl content to both the ."e/ nd the

.not#"e/$ rther thn the .not#"e/ bein* si"&ly the ne*ti(e "o#

"ent o! the .I/, 2ht$ thou*h$ is the Sel! tht is re!erred to i"#




&licitly s .true/ when we beco"e wre we re not bein* tht

Sel!8 How do we e%&erience its relity &recisely when$ in !ully

in(ol(ed wy$ we re not tht Sel!$ yet lso ot its ne*tion in the

I#Sub0ect8 I! we re &ro0ectin* tht Sel! on te"&orl hori9on to#

wrds deth$ how do we &ro0ect u&on n inde-nite hori9on8 And

wht hori9on re we &ro0ectin* the not#Sel! tht we re !cticlly

bein* in certin "o"ents8 I! the unity o! the Sel! is bro'en u&$ s

it &heno"enolo*iclly &&ers to be$ how re we lwys wre o!

which Sel! is true or !lse8

There h(e been ."o"ents/ durin* "y own li!e where$ !or di!#

!erent resons$ I ws not .bein* "ysel!/, I wsn/t$ thou*h$ si"&ly

bein* inuthentic in the sense o! &ro0ection o! "y own s to

wht others e%&ected !ro" "e$ s in Heide**er/s descri&tion o!

Ds 3n :The One$ or The They;, I ws bein* (ery s&eci-c Sel!$

in !ully in(ol(ed wy$ while "intinin* wreness tht it ws

not "y . true/ Sel!, This wreness wsn/t sub0ecti(e in the sense

tht it only &&ered when I loo'ed t thin*s theoreticlly or eth#

iclly$ but cco"&nied e(ery ction$ e(ery word$ e(en thou*h I

ws bein* tht .!lse/ Sel! in n i""edite$ in(ol(ed wy, 2ithout

ny !orethou*ht "y ctions$ s&eech etc, were &recisely tht &er#




son tht I ws si"ultneously wre o! not bein*6 the &&ro&ri#

te words tht &erson would sy in discourse c"e !ro" "y

li&s with no .ctin*/$ in the sense o! consciously thin'in* bout

how they would &&er to the listener$ "y body "o(e"ents were

in &er!ect line with how tht &erson would "o(e$ yet they

weren/t how the . true/ "e would "o(e, 2ithout stndin* bc'

nd nly9in* nythin*$ howe(er$ I ws wre consistently tht I

ws not bein* *enuinely who I ", This &re#sub0ecti(e wreness

o! .how/ we re bein* cco"&nies e(erythin* we do whether

*enuine or not$ uthentic or not :nd the ter"s re not equi(#

lent . one cn be *enuinely inuthentic or uthenticlly !lse nd

(ice (ers;,

This wre Sel! !unctions$ s Heide**er describes in 4ein*

nd Ti"e$ in n .in(ol(ed/ wy$ hndlin* situtions without sub#

0ecti(e "edition, It is lso bodily Sel!$ s 3erleu#<onty &oints

out in necessry ddition to Heide**er/s in(esti*tions, The

wre Sel! doesn/t &rticulrly se&rte body nd "ind$ nor sub#

0ect nd ob0ect, Those bstrctions re the wor' o! wht I will re#

!er to s the .I#Sub0ect/$ becuse it re!ers to itsel! s .I/ nd be#

cuse it is in(entl in nture$ i,e, the Sel! in(ents the I#Sub0ect in



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9'

res&onse to &rticulr 'inds o! e(ents$ nd discrds it once it is

no lon*er needed, 2ht He*el lredy sw s the !und"entl

ne*ti(ity o! the Sub0ect ori*intes !ro" it/s bein* &ure &rocess

o! the Sel! with no inde&endent no"inl e%istence$ nd cn only

&osit such no"inl e%istence s ne*tion to$ n .*inst/,

An ob0ection to this (iew o! the Sel!$ e(en s &reli"inry

s'etch$ co"es !ro" the co*niti(e sciences nd neurolo*y, How#

e(er the ni(e "terilis" on which their (iews re bsed in(li#

dtes their results$ nd the neuro#&sycholo*y tht tte"&ts to

build on tht cn be nothin* "ore thn &seudo#science$ lon*

with socio#biolo*y nd e(olutionry &sycholo*y$ which h(e the

s"e untenble bsis, A syste"ic understndin* o! the Sel! :in#

cludin* wht we re!er to s &syche or "ind; &ro(ides &ro&erly

"terilist conce&tion o! so"ethin* &heno"enolo*iclly non#"#

teril$ without requirin* &osit o! n dditionl non#"teril

soul or s&irit, I will ssess the ssu"&tions on which those res

o! study re bsed nd the results they obtin lter with &rticu#

lr res&ect to their inter&rettions o! the ori*in o! utis"$ nd t

the other e%tre"e$ the *round o! e%tre"e thletic bility,

As n in(esti*tion tte"&tin* to understnd rther thn e%#




&lin the Sel! s we e%&erience it$ this is not scienti-c study in

the sense o! n tte"&t t e%&lntion !ro" ori*in, 2hile it does

loo' t the de(elo&"ent o! "ind in the indi(idul within society$

directly inter&retin* tht de(elo&"ent in e(olutionry ter"s

would$ li'e ll e(olutionry &sycholo*y$ result in nothin* "ore

thn .0ust#so/ &seudo#scienti-c story, 2hile n e(olutionry ori#

*in is ssu"ed$ the current theories o! the "echnics o! e(olu#

tion re the"sel(es n e%"&le o! the !ilure o! ni(e "teril#

is" to success!ully e%&lin nythin*, 7sin* teleolo*y by &ositin*

it s .only/ "et&hor$ while si"ultneously denyin* it$ isn/t si"#

&ly "ens o! "'in* .hrd/ science co"&rehensible, Re"o(in*

the .s# i!/ &resent in e(ery ."odern/ scienti-c e%&lntion ren#

ders it non#e%&lntion, Tht there is so"e .hrd/ core o! sci#

ence behind the "et&hors in scienti-c e%&lntion is nothin*

"ore thn the obscurntis" o! scienti-c co""unity tht s#

&ires to be &riesthood, This &rticulr con!usion in the sciences

rises !ro" "isunderstndin* o! &recisely how teleolo*y itsel!

!unctions$ nd until He*el/s understndin* o! teleolo*y is &&lied

to "instre" science s !und"entl &rt o! scienti-c thin'#

in*$ science will re"in no "ore thn n ccountin* !or wht hs



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9"

lredy been disco(ered in s&eci-c nd &rtil "nner throu*h

technolo*y,

At certin &oint I be*n to (iew the Sel! s set o! lyered$

e"er*ent syste"s, Althou*h t the be*innin* I stted "y *ree#

"ent with Heide**er/s stte"ent tht the Sel! is lwys ."ine/ $

neither !or "e nor !or Heide**er does tht i"&ly n isolted$ in#

di(idulistic$ s'in bounded entity, The Sel! is societl in ori*in6 s

society beco"es "ore co"&le%$ "ore co"&le% lyers o! the Sel!

h(e e"er*ed, This &ers&ecti(e$ lon* with s&eci-c e%&eriences

o! h(in* di+erent s&ects o! the Sel! e"er*e throu*h "y own

de(elo&"ent$ led "e bc' to Heide**er/s question .2ho is

Zrthustr8/ but now s&eci-clly in ter"s o! the Sel! s e"er#

*ent, Zrthustr is -rst described s the con(lescent, He

could be (iewed s con(lescin* !ro" the illness o! bein* the

=st 3n s "n hs hereto!ore been, 4ut e(en i! this ws the

(iew$ wht hd h&&ened to Zrthustr where he no lon*er

counted s the =st 3n8 The other "enin* tht see"ed si"ul#

tneously necessry in order to understnd the "enin* o!

Zrthustr ws Zrthustr s con(lescin* !ro" n ccident$

!ro" so"ethin* tht hd h&&ened$ un!oreseen nd in so"e




sense not &ossible to &re&re !or$ no "tter how "uch &&rent

&re&rtion hd been done, There &&ered corres&ondence

with Niet9sche s Zrthustr$ the He*el o! the <heno"enolo*y$

the Heide**er o! (o" Erei*nis$ nd nu"erous other uthors$

&inters$ "usicins$ stru**lin* to crete .wor'/ in Heide**er/s

sense o! the word s so"ethin* tht re(els$ wor' tht would

s&eci-clly &ro(o'e the e%&erience necessry to understnd the

wor's the"sel(es in the "ore ordinry sense o! creted rti!cts,

Heide**er brnded (o" Erei*nis .!ilure s wor'/$ which cn

only be understood in the sense tht he considered wor' s

di+erent !ro" boo'$ or tretise$ or conce&tul e%&liction,

As wor' (o" Erei*nis cnnot &ro(o'e the e%&erience out o!

which it is written, He*el/s <heno"enolo*y !ils in the s"e wy

in tht it cnnot &ro(o'e the e"er*ence o! bsolute 'nowin*

necessry to !ully understnd the =o*ic tht !ollows it in &ost

conce&tul "nner,

The co"&le%ity o! the Sel! rises throu*h initition into co"#

&le% society$ but while the &otentil !or e"er*ence o! di+erent

lyers is de&endent on tht society nd the e%tent o! one/s initi#

tion$ the de*ree o! e"er*ence tht occurs re"ins only &oten#




til tht "y be reli9ed or not$ nd nothin* cn be done to &ro#

(o'e ny s&eci-c e"er*ence t &rticulr "o"ent, The di1#

culty in(ol(ed in tte"&tin* to shre n understndin* o! the

e"er*ent Sel! is n inherent one, The (ery structures o! dis#

course nd inter&rettion re de&endent on the nture o! the

Sel!$ nd only to the de*ree tht we shre the s"e nture o!

Sel! cn !ull e%&erience o! nother/s Sel! be shred throu*h dis#

course nd inter&rettion in trns&rent$ i""edite wy,

At the s"e ti"e the e"er*ent Sel!$ to lr*e de*ree$ is l#

redy shred Sel!, Ech o! us$ des&ite h(in* sli*htly di+er#

ent &ers&ecti(e tht is ours nd unique$ e%&eriences the Sel! nd

its world in "ny o! the s"e wys, The shred world is 'ey

&heno"enon in understndin* the nture o! the shred Sel!, In

certin sense$ world s wht is retined !ro" our e%&eriences$

whether &ersonl or lerned !ro" others$ is the s"e s the Sel!,

Tht the Sel! is si"ultneously shred !or the "ost &rt nd l#

wys ."ine/ only &&ers to be contrdiction6 the &&ernce

rises !ro" the underlyin* equtin* o! ."ineness/ nd .o! the

I#Sub0ect/ , How world nd Sel! re the s"e in certin sense is

di1cult to thin', On the one hnd it/s si"&le enou*h to show



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9)

how we understnd both s the totlity o! e%&eriences we h(e

hd nd retined, On the other hnd we e%&erience the Sel! s

.in/ the world in n in(ol(ed$ co&in* wy, In ter"s o! this in(ol(e#

"ent with thin*s .in#the#world/ we lso e%&erience oursel(es in

thin*ly wy$ s one thin* "on* other thin*s$ s Sel! "on*

other sel(es$ nd yet in bein* tht Sel!#"on*#others s tht

which o&ens world itsel! s &lce$ s so"ethin* &ossible to be .

in/ to be*in with, <rt o! the di1culty lies in the wy we h(e l#

redy s&tili9ed world nd the wy we section world into &lces

&rior to thin'in* o! how bein*#in is itself e%&erienced, 2hen I

dri(e the cr nd tl' on the &hone I cn be closer$ in ter"s o!

&lce$ to the &erson on the &hone thn I " to the *ershi!t$ but

&lce in tht instnce cn/t be s&tili9ed in the usul wy, 2hen

&eo&le tl' bout . &ersonl s&ce/ they re &recisely discussin*

non#s&tili9ed &lce$ where so"eone cn be lenin* *inst you

on the subwy without bein* nywhere ner your . &ersonl

s&ce/ $ while so"eone on the other side o! lr*e roo" cn be

(ery !orcibly in(din* tht .s&ce/ , As &lce$ s&eci-clly our

own &lce$ .&ersonl s&ce/ cn/t be s&tili9ed in the usul wy,

The reltion o! this Sel! to the I#Sub0ect is -nl thin* tht




needs to be in(esti*ted, Since the I#Sub0ect is &ri"rily in(ol(ed

durin* theoreticl or ethicl 0ud*"ent$ it hs been e"&hsi9ed$

sei9ed on$ in &lce o! the Sel!$ &rticulrly since Descrtes$ nd

hs do"inted discourse on the Sel! to such de*ree tht in t#

te"&tin* to ccount !or the non#sub0ecti(e beh(ior o! the Sel! in

its e(erydy in(ol(e"ents series o! Sel!#contrdictory entities

such s the .unconscious/ nd .subconscious/ h(e been in(ented,

The !ilure o! these in(entions lies in the si"&le !ct tht we re

de"onstrbly wre o! the contents nd ctions o! the su&&osed

.unconscious/ nd .subconscious/$ or cn beco"e wre o! the"

t ny ti"e$ nd tht n wreness o! those contents s ."ine/ l#

wys cco"&nies the"$ e(en when we beco"e wre o! so"e#

thin* we were &re(iously not &yin* ttention to, For e%"&le

one "i*ht be en*rossed in boo' nd not &yin* ttention to

bc'*round "usic$ s !r s co*niti(e science would &ut it$ it is

only &resent to our unconscious or subconscious, 4ut i! we re

"de wre o! it$ &erh&s becuse so"ethin* in the lyrics re#

ltes to wht we re redin* or !or so"e other reson$ nd we

re !"ilir enou*h with the "usic tht hs been &lyin*$ it/s

usully not di1cult to re"e"ber the lst hl! do9en son*s or




"ore tht hd &lyed$ nd the wreness o! those son*s tht c#

co"&nied the" t the ti"e they &lyed is lwys &rt o! tht re#

"e"berin*, The &ro&er "enin* o! the unconscious is tht

which$ s the shred Sel! o! society$ beh(es s Sel! without

Sel!#wre#consciousness,

#ere one should ta0e note of a certain parado;: it isprecisely when “I spea0"< when I perceive myself as theagent of my speech< that! eectively! “the big =ther

spea0s through me!" that I am “spo0en!" since my speechacts are totally regulated by the symbolic order in which Idwell. - 9ie0! Slavo8

7he only way for me to bring my position of enunciationinto words is to let myself be surprised by what I say! toe;perience my own words as a case of “it spea0s in>

through me." - 9ie0! Slavo8

The >it> is the Sel!$ only strn*e to the I#Sub0ect tht cnnot

&&ro&rite the Sel!$ yet it is the Sel! tht s&e's "ost o! the

ti"e$ I5" not wre o! wht I5" *oin* to sy &rior to syin* it, It

"y sur&rise "e$ but li'ely not$ since it is$ !ter ll$ >"y> Sel!

tht s&e's,




I! the bein* o! hu"n bein* hs been t lest &reli"inrily e%#

&licted in 4ein* nd Ti"e$ nd this is the bein* o! the Sel!$ wht

is the "ode o! bein* o! the I#Sub0ect8 A clue lies in its need to

re#&resent wht ws initilly &resented to the Sel!, The I#Sub0ect

is the "ode in which we nturlly &osit .relity/ behind .&&er#

nces/$ the initil cle(*e o! 4ein* nd Not#4ein* tht Heide*#

*er identi-es s the root o! "et&hysicl thin'in*, Howe(er this

cle(*e is inter&reted$ the cle(*e itsel! is !und"entl,

He*el/s coll&se o! the cle(*e "o(es the site o! essence to the

&lce <lto !ered "ost$ in the redu&liction o! &&ernce :s in

rt; where &&ernce is &recisely seen s &&ernce, Heide*#

*er de"onstrtes in The Ori*in o! the 2or' o! Art nd The ?ues#

tion @oncernin* Technolo*y tht wor' re(els in &rticulr

"nner6 restricted nd si"&li-ed "nner$ nd yet in this "n#

ner re(els so"ethin* not re(eled in the &&ernce itsel!, It is

this si"&li-ction tht llows rt to re(el the bein*$ or essence$

o! thin*, Fr !ro" bein* the .rel/ behind &&ernce$ the es#

sentil is lwys si"&li-ction o! &rticulr &&ernces, The

I#Sub0ect$ then$ is the &ri"ry wor' which "'es &ossible wor's

o! rt$ the wor' o! technolo*y etc, In redu&lictin* e%&erience to




re&resenttion$ it si"ultneously redu&lictes the Sel! to the I $

but both the re&resenttion nd the I itsel! re rdicl si"&li-c#

tions o! e%&erience nd the Sel!, This si"&li-ction *i(es us 0ust

the essentil !etures o! sitution$ both in the "et&hysicl

sense o! essence nd the co""on "enin* o! rele(nt bsics,

2ithout this si"&li-ction we would be unble to "'e ny sort

o! ti"ely 0ud*"ent$ since the &r"eters o! ny sitution 'nown

to the Sel! re &heno"enlly co"&le%,

Si"ilrly$ the . I#Sub0ect/ reduces thin*s nd wor's to their

"ini"l con-*urtion$ the ob0ect, There re no ob0ects$ 0ust s

there is no ob0ecti(ity$ other thn s n i"&ossible &osit o! the

-ctionl sub0ecti(ity o! the I, Thin*s re lwys "enin*!ul$ nd

we e%&erience the" s such e(en when we don/t initilly under#

stnd their "enin*, 2or's lwys re(el "enin* in s&eci-c$

restricted "nner, Ob0ecti(ity is n bstrction !or wht is relly

the shred world) inso!r s it is shred$ there is shred "enin*

nd truth, ust s the &ositin* o! the I#Sub0ect lwys in(ol(es

the "et&hysicl notion o! relity behind &&ernce tht !unc#

tions s the sy"bolic order structurin* "enin*$ the &ositin* o!




ob0ecti(ity lwys i"&lies &ers&ecti(e tht cn see . e(erythin*

t once/ , In !ct e(ery cli" to be ble to &ro0ect rel#

ity#s##whole$ whether theolo*icl or cos"olo*icl$ i"*inti(e

or "the"ticl$ i"&lies tht &ers&ecti(e$ which cn only be the

&ers&ecti(e o! *od,

The I#Sub0ect nd sub0ecti(ity itsel! lwys i"&lies the .&lce/

o! *od$ the *urntor o! the sy"bolic order$ whether the &lce is

belie(ed to be e"&ty or not, 2hile "enin* still hs n &riori

structure !or the Sel!$ which llows it to i""editely reco*ni9e

!or e%"&le tble s tble$ the Sel! itsel! hs no in(est"ent in

tht structure, The sy"bolic order cn chn*e de&endin* on the

sitution nd how the shred world is &ercei(ed$ nd is e%&osed

(i wor's$ such s wor's o! rt$ i,e, by redu&liction o! &&er#

nce s &&ernce$ not by so"ehow *oin*#o(er to non#e%is#

tent relity behind &&ernce, The I#Sub0ect$ &rtly due to its

own lc' o! substntility nd the !er tht cco"&nies it :the

&rnoid e*o;$ is in(ested in the belie! structure tht includes the

bi* Other$ the *urntor o! the sy"bolic order$ the belie! struc#

ture tht$ des&ite e(ery theist &rotest$ i"&lies t the (ery lest

the &lce o! *od, Tht belie! structure underlies e(ery "et#




&hysicl conce&tion$ includin* e(ery ide o! science s well s

e(ery ide o! reli*ion, As result$ since scienti-c thin'in* is it#

sel! bsed on "terilis" tht hs s&iritulis" s its necessry

counter&rt) when the s&iritulis" is crossed out science -nds it#

sel! inc&ble$ &rticulrly when it co"es to understndin* how

so"ethin* non#"teril cn h(e "teril ori*in,




Introduction: Why (iscuss Science in the conte;t of the=ntology of the Self?

2hile I h(e (rious dis*ree"ents with 4diou/s wor'$

&ri"rily surroundin* his conBtion o! syste"s nd sets$ I

" in *ree"ent tht the !our cornerstones o! &hiloso&hy

re science$ &olitics$ rt nd lo(e, These re the corner#

stones becuse the ontolo*y underlyin* the bsic ssu"&#

tions o! ech cn only be questioned by returnin* to &hiloso#

&hy$ nd in(ersely becuse ontolo*y cn only be 0ud*ed

bsed on its *ree"ent with the obser(ble &heno"en tht

ech !ocuses on, O! course$ they re lso the cornerstones

o! ny ontolo*y o! the Sel! s the bsic concerns o! the Sel!,

Gi(en the &re#e"inence o! science tody :nd the di1culty

o! deter"inin* the ontolo*icl i"&lictions o! &ost#"odern

scienti-c notions &rticulrly e"bodied in quntu" "e#chnics; n intersection o! ontolo*y with &ost#"odern sci#

ence &&ers to "e to be necessity !or both, Delin* with

the other three cornerstones re "ore cce&ted s&ect o!

ny ontolo*y o! the Sel!$ but delin* with science t -rst &#

&ernce see"s either &roble"tic :intersectin* ontolo*y

nd the e"&iricl; or unnecessry :*i(en tht science$ to

this &oint$ is unble to e(en &ro&erly rise the question o!

the Sel!$ "uch less nswer it;,




The ide$ s stted bluntly by Hw'in* in The Grnd De#

si*n$ tht science hs .re&lced/ &hiloso&hy$ "erely de"on#

strtes lc' o! understndin* on the &rt o! "ny scien#

tists o! the nture o! both science nd &hiloso&hy,

7his is where Stephen #aw0ing goes wrong when!at the very beginning of his bestseller 7he rand

(esign! he triumphantly proclaims “philosophy isdead." With the latest advances in @uantum physicsand cosmology %$-theory&! he claims! so-called e;-perimental metaphysics has reached its apogee.Apon a closer loo0! of course! we soon discover that

we are not @uite there yet< almost! but not @uite. Burthermore! it would be easy to re8ect this claimby demonstrating the continuing pertinence of phi-losophy for #aw0ing himself %not to mention the

fact that his own boo0 is deCnitely not science! buta very problematic popular generaliation&: #aw0-ing relies on a series of methodological and ontolog-ical presuppositions which he ta0es for granted.=nly two pages after ma0ing the claim that philoso-phy is dead! he describes his own approach as“model-dependent realism!" based on “the idea thatour brains interpret the input from our sensory or-gans by ma0ing a model of the world. When such amodel is successful at e;plaining events! we tend toattribute to it D the @uality of reality"1 however! “iftwo models %or theories& accurately predict thesame events! one cannot be said to be more realthan the other1 rather! we are free to use whichever model is most convenient." E If ever there was a

philosophical %epistemological& position! this is one%and a rather vulgar one at that&. ot to mentionthe further fact that this “model-dependent realism"is simply too wea0 to do the 8ob assigned to it by

#aw0ing! that of providing the epistemological frame for interpreting the well-0nown parado;es of@uantum physics! their incompatibility with com-




mon-sense ontology. #owever! in spite of all theseproblematic features! we should admit that @uan-tum physics and cosmology do have philosophicalimplications! and that they do confront philosophy

with a challenge. 4 9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egel and the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p.++&. orton. )indle 'dition.

Another rther ob(ious e%"&le o! the intertwinin* &r#

ticulrly o! quntu" "echnics with &hiloso&hy is the !ct

tht Heisenber* ws ble to o(erco"e the &roble"s other

&hysicists were h(in* co"in* u& with wor'ble quntu"

"echnics due to his !"ilirity$ obtined !ro" his !ther$

with Aristotle nd to lesser de*ree He*el, 2hile Heisen#

ber* ws ssisted *retly by his ssocition with 4ohr$ nd

4ohr/s insistence tht his "odel o! the to" ws "erely

"odel nd i! it didn/t wor' it should be i*nored$ Heisen#

ber*/s dul cce&tnce o! Aristotle/s &ro&ositions tht s&ce

ws n illusion$ nd the trid o! &ossibilits$ &otenti nd

ctulits$ the "iddle ter" o! which hd been dro&&ed by

science$ ws crucil in the de(elo&"ent o! quntu" "e#

chnics,

C the in-nite is not so"ethin* outside the series o!

-nite nu"bers$ but the in-nity o! this (ery series, The

li"it tht se&rtes the in-nite !ro" the -nite is i"#




"nent to the -nite one cn e(en sy tht the

"the"ticl in-nite is nothin* but this li"it, In di!#

!erentil clculus$ this li"it s such is utono"i9ed$

rendered inde&endent6 when we clculte the slo&e

o! the stri*ht line tht is tn*entil to the cur(e t

*i(en &oint$ we e+ecti(ely clculte the slo&e :s&til

direction; o! *i(en &oint o! the cur(e$ the s&til di#

rection o! so"ethin* whose s&til len*th is reduced

to the in-nitely s"ll$ to 9ero, This "ens tht$ in the

result o! di+erentil clculus$ we h(e quntitti(ereltionshi& between two ter"s : stri*ht line nd

cur(e; whose quntity is reduced to 9ero : &oint;$

tht is$ we h(e quntitti(e reltionshi& which re#

"ins !ter the quntity o! the two relt is bol#

ished) but when we subtrct the quntity o! n entity$

wht re"ins is its qulity$ so the &rdo% o! di+eren#

til clculus is tht the quntitti(e reltionshi& e%#

&ressed in its result !unctions s qulity6 the

so#clled in-nitesi"ls e%&ress the (nishin* o! the

sides o! the rtio s qunt$ nd wht re"ins is their

quntitti(e reltion solely s qulitti(ely deter#

"ined, And since$ !or He*el$ ti"e is the subltion

:ne*tion o! the ne*tion; o! s&ce$ we cn lso sy

tht teleiosis is the inscri&tion o! ti"e into s&ce in

the sense o! s&ce#ti"e$ o! ti"e s nother :!ourth;

di"ension o! s&ce6 teleiosis su&&le"ents the three




di"ensions which deter"ine the s&til &osition o! n

ob0ect with the (irtul nd te"&orl di"ension o! its

s&til "o(e"ent, A &urely s&til de-nition which

i""obili9es its ob0ect &roduces non#ctul bstrc#

tion$ not !ull relity) the un-nished :ontolo*iclly in#

co"&lete; chrcter o! relity which co"&els us to in#

clude the (irtulity o! teleiosis in the de-nition o! n

ob0ect is thus not its li"ittion$ but &ositi(e condi#

tion o! its ctul e%istence,

Zi9e'$ Sl(o0 :#J#K;, =ess Thn Nothin*6

He*el nd the Shdow o! Dilecticl 3terilis" :&,

LJ;, Norton, Mindle Edition,

4rentno/s notion o! teleiosis is$ o! course$ reinter&ret#

tion o! Aristotle/s notion o! &otenti, How &otenti reltes

to (irtulity is nother &roble" tht needs to be resol(ed$but the require"ent o! the notion o! &otenti$ !or e%"&le in

order to understnd the quntu" Zeno e%&eri"ent$ is inter#

twined with 4rentno/s use o! teleiosis &recisely to sol(ed

Zeno/s ori*inl &rdo%, He*el/s coll&se o! the "the"ti#

cl or &otentil in-nite nd the "et&hysicl in-nite is 'ey

&rt o! ny solution o! these &&rent &rdo%es$ nd si"ul#

tneously con-r"tion o! (rious s&ects o! &ost#"odern

ontolo*y,

Science is the study o! the rel$ howe(er it is only in

ter"s o! the Sel! s the coll&se o! 'nower nd 'nown tht




ny set o! .rels/ constitute *i(en reality , Relity is onto#

lo*icl$ nd de&endent on the e%istence o! Sel!#wre

.rel/$ which e%ists &recisely s the Sel!,

Finlly$ the o(ersi"&li-ction$ still &resent in He*el nd

4rentno$ o! ti"e s one di"ensionl needs to be su&&le#

"ented with Heide**er/s insi*ht tht te"&orlity is not one

di"ension o! !our di"ensionl s&ce$ but tht it is the

three di"ensions o! ti"e tht &er"it the &ri"ry e%&eri#

ence o! &lce to be di"ensionli9ed s three di"ensionl

s&ce,2ithin this conte%t theolo*y$ in &rticulr the &ost#"od#

ern theolo*y o! Mrl Rhner$ lso beco"es rele(nt to ny

ontolo*y o! the Sel!, Rhner/s synony" o! God with the

.in-nite hori9on/$ when seen in the conte%t o! the coll&se o!

the "et&hysiclly bsolute in-nity with the "the"ticl

&otentil in-nity could sol(e the &&rent discre&ncy be#

tween Heide**er/s notion o! 4ein* s -nite with Rhner/s

notion o! God s in-nite, 2e do in !ct e%&erience ny

*i(en hori9on s si"ultneously -nite in ctulity but &oten#

tilly in-nite, I! Rhner/s in-nite hori9on is lwys in ctu#

lity -nite$ re(ertin* bc' to his notion o! the synony"y o!

the in-nite hori9on with God would i"&ly tht God cn only

be s &otenti$ tht the ctuli9tion o! God would in !ct

coll&se the in-nity into -nite bein*$ which o! course is

the "ytholo*y o! @hristinity, This lso corres&onds with

Rhner/s notion tht God is not bein*$ t lest in the ter"s



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '9

in which we understnd bein*$ which echoes Heide**er/s

ontolo*icl di+erence between 4ein* nd bein*s, As &ure

&otenti$ God would corres&ond to &otentilly in-nite Buc#

tution o! cretion nd destruction$ the Sel!#ne*tin* ne*#

tion o! He*el/s (oid s the *round o! e%istence nd the ori#

*in o! creti(ity itsel!, Heide**er/s insistence tht the onto#

lo*icl di+erence between 4ein* nd bein*s is not equi(#

lent to the di+erence between God nd bein*s "y be re#

lted to Heide**er/s understndin* o! .the *ods/ in the ori*#

inl sense s the lwys &ssed&st bestowers o! *i!ts$ to#*ether with his identi-ction o! @hristinity with the "et#

&hysicl error o! conBtin* 4ein* with the hi*hest bein*,




Introduction: 7he usiness of Jhilosophy and the Self

There re di+erent &tterns o! e%&erience$ o! which we "o(e

throu*h so"e or ll o! durin* our li!e6

The biolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience

The scienti-c theoreticl &ttern o! e%&erience

The co""on sense &r*"tic &ttern o! e%&erience

The socio#&oliticl dr"tic &ttern o! e%&erience

The rtistic &ttern o! e%&erience

The reli*ious ideolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience

Ech o! these hs the s"e &&ernces to drw on s relity$

but inter&rets those &&ernces di+erently, In ech cse wht

is clled 5thin*5 nd considered rel s o&&osed to n &&er#

nce is deduced throu*h du&liction or re#&resenttion o! &#

&ernce,

This is "ost ob(ious in the rts$ where the re&resenttion :o!



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ''

&&ernces the"sel(es in &intin* nd scul&ture$ o! dr"tic

li(in* in thetre nd -l"$ etc,; llows us to see the &&ernce

s &&ernce nd in so doin* understnd it$ !or instnce we e%#

&erience dr"tic li(in* s dr" &recisely when it5s re&re#

sented in the thetre or in -l"$ not when we5re i""editely li(#

in* it, Howe(er the other &tterns o! e%&erience cco"&lish the

s"e thin* in di+erent wys, @o""on sense re#&resents "ulti#

&le &&ernces o! the s"e thin* throu*h "e"ory to !or" n

ide o! the thin*, The 5ob0ects5 o! science re "et&hors !or the

understndin* o! how thin*s &&er to ech other rther thn to

us$ stri&&ed o! their 5&sycholo*icl5 co"&onents such s "enin*,

The socio#&oliticl dr"tic &ttern o! e%&erience re#&resents it#

sel! s n ctor in the socio#&oliticl dr" o! the world$ nd

re#&resents &&ernces s thin*s in ter"s o! their rele(nce to

the dr", The reli*ious ideolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience uti#

li9es the re#&resenttion o! ides s belie!s in order to &osit

thin*s tht re not 'nown nd o!ten not 'nowble,

O! these &tterns o! e%&erience$ besides the un'nowble

5thin*s5 o! the reli*iousideolo*icl &ttern the 5ob0ecti(e thin*s5




o! science h(e the lest cli" to (lidity$ becuse ny cli"

"ust be (eri-ed e"&iriclly$ nd "ny scienti-c ob0ects cnnot

be (eri-ed e"&iriclly$ t lest not directly, As well$ the

"et&horicl (iew&oint o! ob0ecti(e science is itsel! not e"&iri#

clly &ossible, The best tht cn be sid !or it is tht s co"#

"unity scientists &&ro%i"te shred relity s "uch s n in#

di(idul one$ which is the !und"entl "enin* o! the irrtionl

sub0ecti(e#ob0ecti(e s&lit, The rtistic &ttern o! e%&erience is

(lidted in the cretion o! rtistic wor's$ nd doesn5t need e"#

&iricl (eri-ction o! wht it considers rel, The socio#&oliticl

&ttern is (lidted by one5s bility to n(i*te the socio#&oliticl

dr" in which one is e"bedded, The biolo*icl &ttern is (li#

dted throu*h sur(i(l, The co""on sense (iew is (lidted by

our bility to i""editely reco*ni9e the "enin* o! thin*s within

the *i(en world we e%&erience$ nd thus to *et lon* !or the

"ost &rt without theoreticl$ sub0ect#led inter(ention,

The worst &roble"s occur when thin*s tht re (lid within

one &ttern o! e%&erience re !oisted on nother s i! they re#

tined their (lidity, 2orld#(iews re "de u& o! such hod*e#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '"

&od*es o! 5thin*s5 nd inter&rettions tht co"e !ro" "ulti&le

&tterns o! e%&erience without discri"intion, 7nquestioned s#

su"&tions re lso !reely used nd e%&loited within &tterns o!

e%&erience where they re co"&letely in(lid nd e(en irrele#

(nt, An e%"&le o! the !or"er re &hysicists !oistin* un(eri-#

ble "et&hors into co""on sense e%&erience o! relity$ "'in*

the 'ind o! cli"s tht we don5t 5ctully touch nythin*$ we

ho(er5, E%"&les o! the ltter re the reli*ious ideolo*icl s#

su"&tions within the sciences tht led to the ssu"&tion tht

relity#s##whole cn in ny wy be &ro0ected :i! in !ct there is

ny such thin*$ *i(en lc' o! si"ultneity;) biolo*icl deter"in#

is" s continuin* ssu"&tion "on* *ret nu"ber o! biolo#

*ists lthou*h scienti-clly its n e%&loded theolo*icl conce&t)

no"inlis" s scienti-c ttitude without the God tht ori*i#

ntes the "enin*s we lwys lredy e%&erience in the world)

the re&roduction o! the c&itlist !ntsy o! the !rictionless econ#

o"y in Dw'ins5 >Sel-sh Gene>$ etc,

The business o! &hiloso&hy is to question the *rounds o! such

cli"s$ i,e, their ontolo*icl sttus or "ode o! bein*, This lso




requires !ull questionin* o! the ssu"&tions tht not only un#

derlie ideolo*ies nd belie!#syste"s$ but underlie the hy&otheses$

theories$ e%&eri"ents nd inter&rettions o! results in the sci#

ences$ the hidden ideolo*ies tht "'e *i(en wor' o! rt 5rel#

istic5 due to bis des&ite its !und"entl i"&robbility$ the bsic

ideolo*icl stnces tht underlie irrtionl socio#econo"ic &oli#

cies$ etc, This requires criticl (iew o! e(ery &ttern o! e%&eri#

ence in ter"s o! its cli"s to (lidity$ &rticulrly ny cli" to

(lidity outside its own s&here,

@ertinly &hiloso&hy is not i""une to ideolo*ues &osin* s

&hiloso&hers$ ny "ore thn the sciences or the rts or the so#

cio#&oliticl s&here is i""une to the s"e disese, Ideolo*ues in

&hiloso&hy$ howe(er$ cn only in(ent world#(iews or &o&ulri9e

those tht lredy e%ist$ nd in doin* so cn be e%&osed by their

willin*ness to deter"ine so"ethin* tht is not deter"inble to

tht de*ree *i(en ctul e%&erience,

The hu"n sciences h(e to ttin criticl stnd&oint lon*

with &hiloso&hy$ nd e(en the nturl sciences need to be "ore




criticl$ to &re(ent their "isuse by co(ert ideolo*ues$ but since

hu"n bein*s re by no "ens &ure intellect$ ll these to*ether

cnnot deter the bis o! co""on sense !ro" dri!tin* towrds less

co"&rehensi(e (iew&oints nd "ore con!or"ity with the socil

residue, E(en co""on sense &r*"tis" only !unctions s

bc'dro& to the 0oy$ sorrow$ lu*hter nd ters o! the li!e o! the

dr"tic Sel!, To relly +ect the *enerl tendency to decline

o(er the lon*er cycle culture hs to be he(ily in(ol(ed, The

di1culty in totli9ed sitution such s current *lobl c&itl is

tht the dr"tic Sel! hs lredy turned wy !ro" tht totlity

nd *one bc' to wht it cn co"&rehend # the s"ller nd e(en

"ore bised ethnic$ reli*ious nd socil *rou&s tht it "o(es be#

tween throu*hout *i(en dy in current society, In so"e wy

this set o! s"ll (iew&oints hs to lso be "de ccountble to

"ore co"&rehensi(e (iew&oint c&ble o! &&recitin* nd &re#

&rin* !or the e(entulities o! the lon*er societl cycle,




Introduction: 7he $eaning of Identity

In the state of being oneself there is embodied the rela-

tionship “with." 7hus we have a mediation! a connection! asynthesis: a uniCcation into a oneness. It is owing to thiscircumstance that throughout the history of occidentalthin0ing identity appears with the character of unity. ev-ertheless! this unity is by no means the 8e8une emptinessof what! in the absence of internal relations! remains inpersisting monotony. #owever! western thought neededmore than F,,, years before this relation with itself%which is present in identity and was hinted already at an

early date& appeared deCnitely and well developed as aprocess of mediation!

#eidegger! $artin % &. 'ssays in $etaphysics: Identityand (ierence %)indle *ocations +H4-+G,&. . )indle 'di-tion.

How do we understndin* this bein* with onesel! s "edi#

tion8 Ob(iously identity in *enerl cnnot only h(e (lidity in

ter"s o! n wre bein*#with#onesel! in the wy we understnd

sel!#conscious bein*#with#onesel!,

The ontolo*icl i"&lictions o! quntu" "echnics "y be o!

so"e hel& here, It/s no ccident tht the notion o! qunt s in#

scribed in relity$ which in turn led to the de(elo&"ent o! qun#

tu" "echnics$ &&ers &recisely with He*el$ si"ultneous to




his de(elo&"ent o! the ide o! "edition s the &rocess in which

bein* beco"es both in#itsel! nd !or#itsel!, Howe(er these i"#

&lictions h(e to be t'en to their !ull e%tent$ not li"ited to the

initil @o&enh*en inter&rettion$ nd certinly not renor"li9ed

throu*h ides li'e the "ny uni(erses theory or other tte"&ts

to (oid the uncnny i"&liction tht so"e sort o! &roto#co*ni#

tion$ &roto#&erce&tion$ indeed 'ind o! &rototy&e o! relity s

&rtilly sy"bolic, is necessrily inscribed into e(ery rel thin*,

Knton 9eilinger: “7he search for interpretations dier-ent from the 6openhagen interpretation very often is moti-vated by trying to evade its radical conse@uences! that is!an act of cognitive repression on the part of the pro-posers." +E Bormulated by 'velyn Bo; )eller! this notion of “cognitive repression" refers to the “unwillingness to letgo of the basic tenets of classical physics: the ob8ectivityand 0nowability of nature." +4 6an we not also apply herethe notion of diraction? (oes not the 6openhagen inter-pretation wor0 as a 0ind of obstacle! a point of impossibil-ity! causing epistemological diraction! that is! giving riseto a multiplicity of conLicting interpretations attemptingto “renormalie" its e;cess! to re-inscribe it into the tradi-tional epistemological and ontological space?

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egeland the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p. +4&. or-ton. )indle 'dition.




%+& Within the symbolic order! possibility as such pos-sesses an actuality of its own1 that is! it produces real ef-

fects< for e;ample! the father2s authority is fundamen-tally virtual! a threat of violence. In a similar way! in the

@uantum universe! the actual tra8ectory of a particle canonly be e;plained if one ta0es into account all of its possi-ble tra8ectories within its wave function. In both cases! theactualiation does not simply abolish the previous panoply of possibilities: what might have happened continues toecho in what actually happens as its virtual bac0ground.

%F& oth in the symbolic universe and in the @uantum

universe! we encounter what *acan calls “0nowledge inthe real": if! in the famous double-slit e;periment! we ob-serve an electron2s tra8ectory in order to discover throughwhich of the two slits it will pass! the electron will behaveas a particle1 if we do not observe it! it will display theproperties of a wave< as if the electron somehow 0newwhether it was being observed or not. Is such behavior notlimited to the symbolic universe in which our “ta0ing our-selves to be M" ma0es us act li0e M?

%H& When @uantum physicists try to e;plain the collapseof the wave function! they resort again and again to themetaphor of language: this collapse occurs when a @uan-tum event “leaves a trace" in the observation apparatus!when it is “registered" in some way. We obtain here a rela-tionship of e;ternality< an event becomes fully itself! itrealies itself! only when its e;ternal surroundings “ta0e

note" of it< which echoes the process of symbolic realia-tion in which an event fully actualies itself only throughits symbolic registration! its inscription into a symbolicnetwor0! which is e;ternal to it.




%G& Burthermore! there is a temporal dimension to thise;ternality of registration: a minimum of time alwayselapses between a @uantum event and its registration! andthis minimal delay opens up the space for a 0ind of onto-

logical cheating with virtual particles %an electron can cre-ate a proton and thereby violate the principle of constantenergy! on condition that it reabsorbs it @uic0ly enough!before its environment “ta0es note" of the discrepancy&.7his delay also opens the way for temporal retroactivity:the present registration decides what must have happened< for e;ample! if! in the double-slit e;periment! an elec-tron is observed! it will not only %now& behave as a parti-cle! its past will also retroactively become %“ will havebeen"& that of a particle! in a homology with the symbolic

universe in which a present radical intervention %the riseof a new $aster-SigniCer& can retroactively rewrite the%meaning of the& entire past. FH Jerhaps! then! insofar asretroactivity is a crucial feature of the #egelian dialectics!and insofar as retroactivity is only thin0able in an “open"ontology of not yet fully constituted reality! the referenceto #egel can be of some help in bringing out the ontologi-cal conse@uences of @uantum physics.

#ow far should we go with this parallel? Is it 8ust an ap-pro;imate metaphor? (oes it bear witness to the fact thatour entire comprehension of reality is already over deter-mined by the symbolic order! so that even our grasp ofnatural reality is always already “structured li0e a lan-guage"? =r should we ris0 a step further and claim thatthere is something which strangely recalls %or points to-wards& symbolic structures already present in “physical"

reality itself? If we do draw that conclusion! then the en-tire “spontaneous philosophical ideology" of the gap thatseparates nature from culture %a form of ideology oftenclearly discernible in *acan himself& has to be abandoned.

Kccording to this “spontaneous ideology!" nature stands for the primacy of actuality over potentiality! its domain isthe domain of the pure positivity of being where there are




no lac0s %gaps& in the strict symbolic sense1 if! however!we ta0e the ontological conse@uences of @uantum physicsseriously! then we have to suppose that the symbolic order pre-e;ists in a “wild" natural form! albeit in what Schelling

would have called a lower potency. We thus have to posit a0ind of ontological triad of @uantum proto-reality %thepre-ontological @uantum oscillations&! ordinary physicalreality! and the “immaterial" virtual level of Sense-'vents.

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egeland the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p. F+&. or-ton. )indle 'dition.

I! the -rst le(el o! He*el/s inter&rettion o! the consciousness

o! the Sel!$ sense#certinty$ &roceeds$ s in so"e wy it "ust$

!ro" sense#e(ents$ nd those re the"sel(es bsed$ throu*h or#

dinry &hysiclity$ on quntu" Buctutions which the"sel(es

h(e (irtulity tht cn only be described s sy"bolic in

&roto#lin*uistic sense$ then &rototy&icl bein*#with#itsel! hs to

obtin in e(ery constituted rel, The &roble" which clssicl

&hysics cnnot bsorb e%ce&t by its tret"ent s n &&ro%i"#

tion tht only &&ers (lid on the scles we &rticulrly e%&eri#

ence is lso the !und"entl ssu"&tion o! "echnis"6 the bil#

ity o! rel thin*s to interct directly, The &roble" with direct in#

terction rises s result o! relti(e si"ultneity in the te"&o#




rl sense, I! there is no bsolute si"ultneity$ e(en t the le(el o!

sin*le qunt there is no co""on ."o"ent/ tht two di+erent

quntu" rels shre$ nd thus no "o"ent t which direct inter#

ction could t'e &lce,

One o! the !und"entl ironies o! "echnis" nd the "ech#

nistic deter"inis" tht it i"&lies$ the s&ontneous ideolo*y o!

"odern science &rior to quntu" "echnics :lthou*h lredy

clled into question by Drwinis" &ro&erly understood;$ is tht

the "ost co""on "et&hor o! "echnistic cuslity$ the billird

bll "et&hor$ is itsel! in relity not due to the direct interction

the "et&hor is su&&osed to *enerli9e, I! e(en so"ethin* s &#

&rently si"&le s the cusl e+ect o! one bll hittin* nother in

relity i"&lies &roto#&erce&ti(e c&bility in order to interct

indirectly without i"&lyin* the inter(ention o! so"e other bein*$

then not only does "echnistic$ te"&orlly sequenced cuslity

:nd deter"inis"; !ll &rt$ it !lls &rt within its own

"et&horicl e%&liction,

Tht "ost scientists$ e(en "ost &hysicists tody$ still subscribe

to the ideolo*y o! "echnistic cuslity de"onstrtes not only

the ttrcti(eness o! its bse ssu"&tions e(en when e(identilly




it doesn/t wor'$ but lso the lc' o! Be%ibility in questionin* b#

sic ssu"&tions tht is n un!ortunte &rt o! the (ery "indset

tht ttrcts the "0ority o! scientists to the sciences in the -rst

&lce, The &r*"tic$ co""on sense ty&e o! indi(idul li'ely to

be ttrcted to the sciences$ &rticulrly s they re tu*ht t

lower eductionl le(els$ intrinsiclly hs di1culties with ides

tht &&er &rdo%icl within tht (ery &r*"tic e%&erience o!

thin*s$ nd there!ore i"&ly n in(lid ssu"&tion in the co""on

sense tht underlies tht &r*"tis",

The ide tht e(ery rel .thin*/ hs wht "i*ht be described

s &roto#&erce&tion nd &roto#co*nition$ tht the *& between

&&ernce nd its redu&liction is not &sycholo*icl rti!ct$

but is inscribed in relity itsel!$ rises initilly !ro" the i"&lic#

tion in quntu" "echnics tht n electron so"ehow .'nows/

wht ener*y le(els re (ilble, The i"&lictions ontolo*iclly

cn be t'en s !r s relti(e loclity$ where in(rince is

!unction o! &hse s&ce$ not s&ce#ti"e$ such tht s&ce#ti"e is

in !ct de&endent on$ s &ro0ection o!$ *i(en rel$ nd di+er#

ent between di+erent rels$ resultin* in lc' o! s&til si"ul#

tneity tht corres&onds to the lc' o! te"&orl si"ultneity




noted bo(e, The correltion with the ontolo*icl ide o! &rl#

l% relity is intri*uin*,

We propose a deepening of the relativity principle ac-cording to which the invariant arena for non-@uantumphysics is a phase space rather than space-time. (escrip-tions of particles propagating and interacting inspace-times are constructed by observers! but dierentobservers! separated from each other by translations! con-struct dierent space-time pro8ections from the invariantphase space. onetheless! all observers agree that inter-actions are local in the space-time coordinates con-

structed by observers local to them. 7his framewor0! inwhich absolute locality is replaced by relative locality! re-sults from deforming energy-momentum space! 8ust as thepassage from absolute to relative simultaneity results

from deforming the linear addition of velocities. (ierentaspects of energy-momentum space geometry! such as itscurvature! torsion and non-metricity! are reLected in dif-

ferent 0inds of deformations of the energy-momentumconservation laws. 7hese are in principle all measurableby appropriate e;periments.

The s&ecultion$ necessry in 3#Theory$ o! the uni(erse s

holo*r&hic &ro0ection$ i"&lies tht ny o! to the th &ower

solutions "y be correct, =oo& quntu" theory$ bsed on the

s"e insi*ht s quntu" "echnics itsel!$ tht s&ce is si"&ly

un!or"ed "tter$ there!ore &&ers both "ore ob(ious nd less

&roble"tic solution, Howe(er loo& quntu" theory necessi#

ttes the bndon"ent o! bsolute loclity in !(or o! loclity

which$ while in(rint in &hse s&ce$ in e%&erientil s&ce#ti"e




would not be in(rint$ nd in !ct would be s obser(er de&en#

dent s te"&orl sequences,

*oop @uantum gravity %*N& is a theory that attemptsto describe the @uantum properties of gravity. It is also atheory of @uantum space and @uantum time! because! ac-cording to general relativity! the geometry of spacetime isa manifestation of gravity. *N is an attempt to merge andadapt standard @uantum mechanics and standard generalrelativity. 7he main output of the theory is a physical pic-ture of space where space is granular. 7he granularity is adirect conse@uence of the @uantiation. It has the same

nature of the granularity of the photons in the @uantumtheory of electromagnetism or the discrete levels of theenergy of the atoms. ut here! it is space itself which isdiscrete.

$ore precisely! space can be viewed as an e;tremely Cne fabric or networ0 OwovenO of Cnite loops. 7hese net-wor0s of loops are called spin networ0s. 7he evolution of aspin networ0 over time is called a spin foam. 7he pre-dicted sie of this structure is the Jlanc0 length! which is

appro;imately +,PHE meters. Kccording to the theory!there is no meaning to distance at scales smaller than the

Jlanc0 scale. 7herefore! *N predicts that not 8ust matter!but also space itself has an atomic structure.

There is thus !urther i"&liction tht bein*#with#itsel! is not

"erely te"&orl &heno"enon$ but is lso s&til &heno"e#

non6 si*ni-cnt s&ect o! bein*#!or#itsel! rther thn si"&ly be#

in*#in#itsel! is tht it is &recisely the co"bintion$ s be#

in*#with#itsel!$ tht &ro&erly deter"ines loction in both s&ce

nd ti"e$ i,e, tht s&til#te"&orl loction is Sel!#deter"ined by




ny rel (i the "edition o! its "ini"l di+erence with itsel!

s&tilly nd te"&orlly, Thus si*ni-cnt &rt o! the notion o!

identity hs to include this s&til#te"&orl Sel!#deter"intion s

n ontolo*icl s&ect o! identity$ &recisely the ontolo*icl s&ect

tht si"ultneously deter"ines di+erence s *rounded in iden#

tity s "edited, Tht e(en qunt o! s&ce hs to be seen s

systemic : networ' tht e(ol(es; i"&lies tht s&ce#ti"e is n

e%&erience nd e%&ression o! &hse s&ce tht is Sel!#deter"ined

syste"iclly,

I! neither te"&orl nor s&til si"ultneity e%ists then not

only is there no co""on qunt o! ti"e$ but no co""on qunt

o! s&ce in which direct interction could occur, Interction s

indirect$ then$ "ust be itsel! deter"ined by rel appearing in

so"e sense to nother rel nd bein* registered! perceived in

tht &&ernce,

I! e(ery rel cn be understood s syste"ic$ e%&lntion !ro"

ori*in beco"es &roble"tic, The tte"&ts to wor' out the &re#

dicti(e (lidity o! ny quntu" *r(ittionl theory by wor'in*

out the i"&lictions bc'wrds !ll &rt within s&in networ's

becuse ny &st stte o! the syste" hs to ssu"e the syste"




lredy constituted in so"e wy$ nd there!ore cn h(e no e%#

ternl ori*in, Any rel hs to &osit its own syste"ic di+erence

!ro" the rest o! relity in order to &osit its identiclly with itsel!$

it/s bsolute loclity in s&ce nd ti"e, This "ini"l di+erence

"ust there!ore be inscribed into the identicl s identicl$ nd

throu*h this "ini"l di+erence the bility nd necessity o! rel

to Sel!#deter"ine in "edited wy beco"es &ossible,

O! course$ i! these "odels in !ct h(e the ontolo*icl i"&lic#

tions described$ they h(e to h(e so"e s&ect o! ontolo*icl re#

lis", Since we cnnot !ully de"onstrte tht they do h(e onto#

lo*icl relis"$ the best tht cn be tte"&ted is to de"onstrte

tht they don/t contrdict obser(ed e(idence nd ny ontolo*icl

i"&lictions tht re necessry to tht e(idence, In this e%"#

&le$ the co"&le%ity o! inscribin* wht we h(e tended to thin' o!

s &urely hu"n bilities$ or t lest &urely bilities o! those

thin*s we dee" biolo*icl$ cnnot contrdict the e(idence$ esily

re&etble$ tht billird blls nd the li'e do in !ct beh(e s

hrd thin*s tht roll nd tht +ect ech other in deter"inte

wys when hit *inst one nother,

2ithin the "odel tht includes &roto#co*ni9nce nd




&roto#&erce&ti(ity the indirect interction o! billird bll on n#

other "ust &ss$ lon* with s&eci-c "ount o! 'inetic ener*y$

deter"inte direction in which tht ener*y must be e%&ended$

within the *r(ittionl nd other constrints +ectin* the sec#

ond bll :tht it is restin* on billird tble with s&eci-c in#

hibitory !riction$ !or instnce;, The notions o! &roto#co*ni9nce

nd &roto#&erce&tion do not i"&ly ny berrtion !ro" deter"in#

istic beh(ior$ since si"&le thin*s do in !ct beh(e$ t lest t

the scles tht we e%&erience$ in deter"inistic "nner, Tht

quntu" &robbility is in(ol(ed "erely chn*es the ide tht it is

impossible to beh(e ny di+erently to inCnitely improbable$

*i(en the "ssi(e nu"ber o! indi(idully close to in-nite i"&rob#

bilities tht would ll h(e to occur in sin*le *i(en interction

!or thin*s to beh(e otherwise,

This Sel!#deter"inin* s&ect o! thin*s$ s well$ does llow !or

thin*s to be e%ternlly deter"ined by technicl "ens$ in ter"s

o! bein*#"de$ nd to be deter"ined by syste"s t hi*her *en#

er tht *i(en syste" cnnot &ercei(e$ in whte(er wy we un#

derstnd this &roto#&erce&tion to occur,

In the two "in bo(e wys$ then$ it stis-es the non#contr#




dictory &rinci&le in ter"s o! those thin*s tht we e%&erience s

beh(in* in "echnistic wys, The "odel "ust lso show so"e

d(nt*es o(er "echnistic deter"inis", O! course the initil

d(nt*e is tht it llows !or the obser(tions nd &redictions o!

quntu" "echnics itsel!$ tht re not llowed !or within "ech#

nistic deter"inis", Howe(er there re other$ less rcne d(n#

t*es to it tht re i"&ortnt !or our understndin* o! the hu"n

Sel! nd Sel!#Identity, 2ithin this continuu" !ro" the si"&le to

the co"&le% the "odel lso &ro(ides bse !or understndin*

such thin*s s stron* e"er*ence$ Sel!#or*ni9tion nd Sel!#o&ti#

"i9tion o! syste"s$ which we h(e both obser(ble e(idence o!

nd "the"ticl descri&tion o!$ s well s the co"&le% histori#

cl inter&ly o! nture in the !ull Drwinin understndin* o!

e(olution$ s o&&osed to the "echnistic renor"li9tion o! Dr#

win 'nown s Neo#Drwinis"$ tht in its renor"li9tion !ils to

ccount !or the creti(e inter&ly o! nture as historical$ nd re#

lies on rndo" li"itin* !ctor to e%&lin this creti(ity$ which is

too we' to cco"&lish tht ts',

In &hiloso&hicl ter"s$ the "odel introduces bc' into &hysics

the notion o! &husis tht hd been dro&&ed since the ti"e o! Aris#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / "9

totle in !(or o! (iewin* e(erythin* s ori*intin* (i techne,

This ltter s&ect o! &hysics u& to quntu" "echnics$ biolo*y

u& to Drwin$ etc$ is the !und"entl error tht "'es "echnis#

tic deter"inis"$ nd ll o! the science tht rests on it$ intrinsi#

clly cretionist$ since nythin* (iewed s ."de/ i"&lies

"'er, The result o! this ssu"&tion !ro" the &ers&ecti(e o! the

non#belie(er is &recisely the sitution o! "ost "odern theists

without so&histicted theolo*icl understndin*6 their tte"&t t

non#belie! !ils$ nd beco"es theolo*icl r*u"ent s to the

nture o! the cretor#bein* tht their ssu"&tions necessrily

d"it to nd tht they there!ore continue to belie(e in$ des&ite

their e%&licit intentions nd their loud &rotesttions to the con#

trry, Tht the sin*ulrity &osited s the ulti"te ori*in o! rel#

ity hs the necessry ttributes o! the *od o! the &hiloso&hers is

not ccidentl$ since with the ssu"&tion o! techne s ori*in

those re the necessry ttributes o! the ulti"te ori*in, Only

with the reintroduction o! &husis$ lbeit in "nner tht &ro#

(ides better &redicti(ity !or si"&le Sel!#ori*intin* relities lon*

with "the"ticl descri&tion o! Sel!#de-nin* entities$ cn the

in-nite re*ress o! &ositin* cretor#bein* o! so"e 'ind be




(oided, An ccount o! how "otion is &ossible within relti(e lo#

clity s well s within the stndrd relti(ity o! "otion without

the need !or Aristotle/s un"o(ed "o(er$ is in !ct the underlyin*

necessity tht &ro"&ts us to &osit &roto#&erce&ti(e bility on

the &rt o! e(ery rel thin*,

An irony in this reinter&rettion "de necessry by quntu"

&hysics is tht Ruther!ord/s stte"ent to the e+ect tht &hysics

is science$ the rest is st"& collectin*$ &ro"&ted s it ws by

belie! tht "echnistic deter"inis" could e%&lin e(erythin* in

totli9in* "nner$ -nds its truth in the (ery bndon"ent o! tht

belie! within &hysics itsel!, Since the "0ority o! other disci#

&lines within the sciences continue with tht in(lid ssu"&tion

:"on* others;$ they re in(lid as science! nd re "erely belie!

bsed clssi-ction syste"s, 2hile so"e o! their "odels do st#

is!y the rther si"&listic ontolo*y 'nown s "odel#bsed rel#

is"$ tht ontolo*y is not &ower!ul enou*h to inter&ret the

&hysics tht underlies the (rious "odels in che"istry$ biolo*y

nd other disci&lines$ nd is there!ore in(lid !or those disci#

&lines s well, Atte"&ts t renor"li9in* quntu" "echnics to

red"it the ssu"&tions o! "echnistic deter"inis" ine(itbly



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / "'

cco"&lish no "ore thn be**in* the questions rised by the

co"&ellin*ly ccurte obser(tions nd &redictions o! quntu"

"echnics,

The &rinci&le o! identity$ then$ e%&ressed *enericlly s APA$

is not s si"&le s it -rst &&ers6

7he identical! in *atin idem! is called in ree0 to autQ.7ranslated into the erman language to autQ is called dasSelbe! the Same. If someone should 0eep on stating the

same! let us say! “the plant is a plant!" he would spea0 tau-tologically. In order for anything to be the same! however!only one of its 0ind is re@uired at any one time! and nottwo! as would be the case with e@uality. 7he formula K R Kdeals! however! with e@uality. It does not designate K asthe same. #ence! the well-0nown formulation of the princi-ple of identity conceals precisely what the principle en-deavors to state! which is! that K is K! or every K is itselfthe Same.

#eidegger! $artin % &. 'ssays in $etaphysics: Identityand (ierence %)indle *ocations +F,-+FG&. . )indle 'di-tion.

7he more ade@uate formula for the principle of identity K is K states! therefore! not only that every K as such isthe same. ather! it states that every K as such is thesame with respect to itself. In the state of being oneselfthere is embodied the relationship “with." 7hus we have amediation! a connection! a synthesis: a uniCcation into aoneness. It is owing to this circumstance that throughout




the history of occidental thin0ing identity appears with thecharacter of unity.

#eidegger! $artin % &. 'ssays in $etaphysics: Identityand (ierence %)indle *ocations +HE-+H&. . )indle 'di-tion.

In renderin* APA s A is A$ with the si"ultneous understnd#

in* tht we re not delin* with one thin* si"&ly$ but one thin*

s two$ s "edited with itsel!$ the "ini"l di+erence with itsel!

tht is inscribed in nythin* tht is beco"es &&rent$ nd with

it the "ens by which di+erence is lwys lredy inscribed into

identity, In ter"s o! the Sel! s the who o! hu"n bein*$

Sel!#Identity lwys lredy contins Sel!#Di+erence s neces#

sry &rt o! its &ossibility,




Introduction: Kn ';ample (ialectic as Jerspectival

In ter"s o! critiquin* He*el/s &ercei(ed idelis" the "o(e#

"ent o! his dilectic hs been &ostulted s unrel$ l"ost ."*i#

cl/ in the wy &ositi(e outco"e lwys &&ers s the third

ter" to sublte the o&&ositions o! the -rst two,

The ."*ic/ thou*h is nothin* e%ternl$ ctully nothin* in the

sitution relly chn*es$ other thn the &ers&ecti(e o! the the

thin'er thin'in* the ori*inl o&&osition, The !ilure o! the n#

tithesis is

the perspective-changing event that creates the insight into

precisely how a change in perspective is both necessary and

fruitful.

As n e%"&le$ the "0ority o! "e"bers o! the @tholic

@hurch sees the @hurch s co""unity o! belie(ers,, For "ny

@tholics$$ the rise o! theis" is the deth#'nell !or true

@tholic @o""unity, Yet the well 'nown &oly"th nd theolo#

*in 4ernrd =oner*n$ in letter to other ecclesisticl

thin'ers round the world$ &osed the question re*rdin* the rise

o! theis" "on* the intellectuls in society in ter"s o! wht




ws positive !or the @hurch, Initilly =oner*n$ li'e "ost theolo#

*ins$ hd seen it s s &urely ne*ti(e$ s n obstcle, The

we'est &r t o! his brillint boo' Insi*ht ws the concludin*

section where he doesn/t try to .&ro(e/ the e%istence o! God$

!utile e!!ort in ny cse s hd been seen s !r bc' s Aquins$

but in si"ilr "nner to Aquins %to de"onstrte it s not irr#

tionl, 4ut yers !ter the &ubliction o! Insi*ht =oner*n no

lon*er (iewed the rise o! theis" s n obstcle to the @hurch/s

reson !or e%istin*$ but &ositi(e condition o! the &ossibility o!

the @hurch reli9in* its true rison d/Qtre$ which ws si"&ly to

be co""unity s co""unity$ with no reson !or bein* co"#

"unity other thn lo(e,

Subcultures re *enerlly !ounded on ne*ti(e$ lc', The

@hurch$ s the ori*in o! ll the christin churches$ ws o! course

no di!!erent$ !oundin* itsel! initilly on the lc' o! cce&tnce :to

the &oint o! "urder; o! @hristin belie(ers, In *inin* cce&tnce

within the Ro"n E"&ire to the &oint o! bein* the stte reli*ion

the @hurch ws !ced with the issue o! h(in* reson to con-

tinue s the @hurch # i,e, i! christin reli*ion is so snctioned by

the stte tht belie(in* is necessity$ the @hurch s co""unity



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ")

Si"ultneously$ the @hurch !ound itsel! in si"ilr &osition$

t lest in cde"ic circles$ s it hd been &rior to the !ll o!

Ro"e$, The @hurch hd lerned the lesson o! not tryin* to i"#

&ose d(nced "et&hysicl thin'in* on those not redy !or it$

but insted to do&t n inclusionry stnce tht llowed @hurch

techin* to be "in*led with locl belie!s nd custo"s$ with the

ide tht the &otentil cde"ics within the &o&ultion would

*rs& the di!!erence between the "et&hysicl theolo*y o! the

@hurch itsel! nd the hn*o(er o! locl "ytholo*ies, The success

o! this &olicy$ thou*h$ led to n e%clusi(ity nd e(entully

ossi-ction o! thou*ht in ecclesisticl cde"ic circles$ with the

&redictble result tht truly new insi*hts were !rowned u&on by

the conser(ti(e ele"ents who held "ost o! the @hurch/s &oliti#

cl &ower,

The subltion$ lthou*h brely reco*ni9ed t the ti"e$ ws the

failure o! the @rusdes nd the !llout o! tht !ilure, The rel

!ilure o! the crusdes ly in the dilecticl ntithesis tht oc#

curred to those$ &rticulrly "e"bers o! the Mni*hts Te"&lr$

who succeeded in *ettin* to the holy lnd$ nd in &rticulr to

the to"b belie(ed to h(e been tht o! esus, This holy *ril#li'e




success "et with the i""edite nd &ower!ul ntithesis tht$

li'e the tourists (isitin* Herclitus in the ho&e o! disco(erin*

so"ethin* unique$ thin'er .t wor'/$ nd !ound only shi(erin*

old "n wr"in* hi"sel! o(er the sto(e$ the Te"&lrs !ound only

n uninterestin* hole in the side o! s"ll hill$ not the s&iritul

wonder tht hd been e%&ected, Fro" the dilecticl chn*e in

&ers&ecti(e rose the ide$ ori*inlly lost in the trnsition !ro"

@hristins s the not#All$ e%cluded !ro" Ro"n society$ to led#

ers o! the s"e society$ tht the deth o! esus ws not the &oint

# it ws n irrele(nt incident tht ended the &ersonl li!e nd

techin*s but not the li!e o! the techin*s the"sel(es, $The in#

(ention o! the resurrection ws no "ore thn children/s story

tht$ in bein* belie(ed$ bec"e &ositi(e obstcle to n under#

stndin* o! the "enin* o! @hristinity itsel!, As in e(er y eru&#

tion o! thou*ht$ historiclly$ the thou*ht o! the Te"&lrs ws

&ushed by culturl "in*lin*$ in their cse with the "ore o&en

"inded "e"bers o! Isl"$ the sect o! Isl" 'nown s Su-s",

Su-s belie(ed tht there ws truth nd !lsity in ny techin*$

but tht it ws *enerlly "ore d(nt*eous !or the o&en

"inded$ while considerin* ny thou*ht tht they c"e cross$ to




sty within the techin*s they hd been initited into$ since their

i""edite !"ilirity$ i! questioned &ro&erly$ would ssist in the

deter"intion o! wht ws (lid nd wht ws in(lid within

those techin*s,

Initilly the i"&ct o! this disco(er y ws &ri"rily on the

Mni*hts Te"&lr the"sel(es$ nd their tte"&ts to &ro"ote their

&ers&ecti(l chn*e led to the" bein* brred !ro" the @hurch

by the conser(ti(e ele"ent tht would ne(er be ble to co"&re#

hend$ "uch less cce&t tht not only were the bse belie!s o! the

@hurch "ythicl$ but tht belie! in the "yth ws itsel! the obst#

cle tht &re(ented @hristinity !ro" bein* &ro&erly @hristin,

2ithin the @hurch$ now bere!t o! the Mni*hts Te"&lr :who

!ounded their own brnd o! @hristin su-s";$ the ossi-ction o!

the Aristotelin insi*hts o! Aquins into unquestionble do*"$

bec"e stron*er, This ossi-ction$ thou*h$ ine(itbly &roduced

its o&&osite in those who didn/t cce&t the @hurch/s techin*s t

!ce (lue, The bubonic &l*ue hd stren*thened the *ri& o!

"ythicl thin'in* on the *enerl &o&ultion throu*h !er, The

"ulticulturlis" o! S&in hd been turned on by ntionlists

within the S&nish *o(ern"ent nd the resultin* Inquisition hd




led to "ssi(e *enocide o! non#S&nish residents on the &re#

te%t o! heresy, 2hile the @hurch is o!ten bl"ed !or the S&nish

Inquisition in !ct it ws crried out by the seculr uthorities$

with the @hurch hel&less to &re(ent it e%ce&t in indi(idul cses

where they could chllen*e the seculr (erdict o! heresy throu*h

their reli*ious uthority$ denyin* tht &rticulr indi(idul ws

in !ct heretic, The ssu"&tion tht the Inquisition ws crried

out by the S&nish @hurch ws ssisted by its identi-ction by

those o&&osed to the @hurch to the Inquisition in Ro"e$ which

ws de!ensi(e court i"ed t &re(entin* the &oliticl under#

"inin* o! the @hurch !ro" within by &oliticlly cti(e &rotestnts

&osin* s @tholics, The Itlin Inquisition did !orce those tech#

in* &rotestnt belie!s s @tholic to &ublicly recnt :not the

techin*s the"sel(es$ but their su&&osed *ree"ent with

@tholic doctrine;, Howe(er it ws not res&onsible !or *enocide$

in &rticulr since those chr*ed in *enerl were educted$ tr(#

elled ecclesisticl "e"bers o! the @hurch itsel!$ nd were si"#

&ly ssu"ed to h(e &ic'ed u& "ist'en ides in their tr(els

throu*h &rotestnt countries, Once those ides were recnted

the &eo&le in(ol(ed *enerlly reco(ered their ecclesisticl




stndin* nd were ble to continue s be!ore$ with the c(et

tht they stuc' to ides tht were not in direct conBict with

@hurch techin*,

One o! the "0or di1culties crried o(er by the @hurch/s ini#

til recstin* o! itsel! s the e"bodi"ent o! ci(ili9tion durin*

the dr' *es ws tht ci(ili9tion itsel! ws lwys thou*ht in

Ro"n wy, The e(entul successors to the Mni*hts Te"&lr$ the

esuit Order$ ori*inlly tu*ht &lurlist hu"nis" tht un!ortu#

ntely$ li'e ll hu"nis"s$ is !und"entlly Ro"nis", The

ntionlist :seculr; hu"nis" tht !ollowed re"ins !und"en#

tlly Ro"nis"$ nd thus i"&eril$ e(en :i! not es&ecilly; in its

"odern liberl !or"$ which !or the "ost &rt hs ressu"ed the

&lurlist stnce o! the ori*inl esuit !or"ultion nd not the

lter ntionlist stnce o! the seculr hu"nists be*un in Frnce

in the th @entury,

<rotestntis" itsel!$ lthou*h (ried in its "oti(tion between

theolo*icl re(olt *inst the @hurch/s lc' o! &ublic conde"n#

tion o! the "ythicl belie!s o! the &ublic$ to ntionlist o&&osition

to the interntionl &ower o! the @hurch o&ertin* in their &r#

ticulr countries :=uther re&resents the !or"er$ while Henry III




the ltter;$ creted s&lit within the @hurch between conser(#

ti(es who *enerlly *reed with the ntionlists$ rdicls who

!elt the @hurch/s techin*s needed to be questioned$ nd the

"instre" @hurch tht ws &ri"rily in de!ensi(e &osture

*inst both, Ironiclly the &rticulr techin*s o! =uther were

&ublicly chllen*ed in debte by none other thn Henry III$ who

side !ro" bein* Min* o! En*lnd$ ws lso tlented nd 'nowl#

ed*eble theolo*in, =uther/s de!et in the debte$ "ore &re#

cisely his own reli9tion tht Henry hd better theolo*icl

cse$ led to =uther/s &ersonl insnity$ &ro"&ted by the *uilt o!

dee&ly reli*ious "n h(in* tu*ht heresy, The bre'wy

church tht bers his n"e is nerly s close to the Ro"n

@hurch$ belie!#wise$ s the &urely &oliticlly "oti(ted n#

*lo#ctholic church !ounded by Henry III when the then <o&e$

cu*ht in &oliticl (ise between Henry nd the Min* o! S&in$

sided with the "ore &ower!ul S&nish "onrch to &rotect the

@hurch/s own &oliticl interests, =uthern$ An*licn nd @tholic

theolo*ins h(e hd constnt$ !riendly discussions bout @hris#

tin belie!s !or substntil &eriod,




A*inst this bc'dro&$ the ine(itble dilecticl ntithesis

rose in the !or" o! I*ntius o! =oyol, I*ntius$ "iddle clss

"n o! *ood !"ily herit*e$ be*n his dult li!e s soldier in

the e"&loy o! the locl rchdu'e, A!ter ner !tl in0ury in bt#

tle !orced I*ntius to s&end lon* &eriod bedridden$ studyin*

theolo*y to &ss the ti"e$ I*ntius be*n to question both the

&olitics nd reli*ious belie!s o! the S&nish uthorities$ ques#

tionin* tht ws intensi-ed by re(eltion o! understndin* si"#

ilr to tht o! Au*ustine, 4oth "en/s ccount o! their re(eltion

bers no ctul reli*ious content$ interestin*ly$ but I*ntius ws

"ore wre thn Au*ustine s to the non#reli*ious e%&erience o!

ctul re(eltion, He then decided to t'e de*ree in theolo*y

in <ris$ nd while doin* so sub0ected his own re(eltion to e"#

&iricl testin*$ to de"onstrte to hi"sel! tht the

insight gained was in fact based on true premises! and there-

fore was a true insight.

7&on returnin* to S&in$ where while no lon*er t its hei*ht

o! "onstrosity$ the Inquisition re"ined in e!!ect$ I*ntius ws

ccused o! heresy no less thn !our ti"es$ but the @hurch/s inter




(ention &re(ented the S&nish uthorities !ro" t'in* ny ction

*inst hi", I*ntius reco*ni9ed the si"ilrity o! re(eltion to

the e&i&hny tht co"es when &rticulr &ieces o! 'nowled*e in

*i(en re suddenly co"e to*ether into reltionl under#

stndin* o! the whole re, Re(eltion$ &ro&erly understood$ ws

si"&ly "ore intense nd co"&rehensi(e !or" o! e&i&hny,

Since e&i&hny is co""only s li'ely to be !lse s true$ de&end#

in* on how the reltions between isolted &ieces o! 'nowled*e

!or"$ I*ntius tu*ht tht .di(ine/ re(eltion$ while &ossible$ hd

to be de"onstrble by reson nd e"&iricl test$ or t the (er y

lest not contrdictor y to 'nowled*e *ined in the ltter "n#

ner,

Awre o! the !te o! the Mni*hts Te"&lr$ I*ntius deter"ined

to !ound his own order o! the @hurch tht could question the u#

thority o! the Do"inicn order$ ori*inlly deri(ed !ro" the in#

si*hts nd understndin* o! Aquins but h(in* since !or*otten

the "enin* o! do*" s the intrinsiclly doubtble, As result

o! his &ersonl chris" :no less thn three wo"en too' (ows o!

&er&etul obedience to =oyol; he ws ble to !ound the Society

o! esus$ better 'nown s the esuit Order, Since his own e%&eri#




ence o! re(eltion hd been &ro"&ted by intense study under

*ruelin* &ersonl conditions$ &r t o! the initition o! esuit ws

the co"&letion o! his .s&iritul e%ercises/, A*inst the *rowin*

&rotestnt e(n*elis"$ nd clls !or si"ilr doctrinl e(n*elis"

by @tholics to the &eo&les o! non#christin cultures$ I*ntius

*(e the esuits ."issionry/ require"ent to e(n*eli9e by .eco#

no"ic nd technicl ssistnce only/, esuits were not to s&e'

bout their belie!s to non#christins$ nd to 'ee& silent when lo#

cl custo"s were o!!ensi(e to their @tholic sensibilities, In order

to &re(ent the !te o! the Mni*hts Te"&lr$ esuits were not to

see' ecclesisticl o1ce$ only *reein* to do so on the insistence

o! "0ority o! those in !(or !ter their initil re!usl, A non#&o#

liticl order with no ctul ecclesisticl &ower would be less

li'ely to rise the ire o! the "ore conser(ti(e ele"ents o! the

&oliticl s&ects o! the @hurch, The in!"ous esuit (ow o! obedi#

ence to the &&cy in relity only concerns one s&ect o! e#

suit/s li!e$ tht o! where they were to &ro(ide socil ssistnce, In

ti"e where$ in!or"tion wise$ ll rods still led to Ro"e$ the in#

!or"tion s to where ssistnce ws "ost needed ws lible to

be !ound in Ro"e$ nd since it is lwys &ersonlly "ore ttrc#




ti(e to do socil wor' loclly$ obedience to the &&cy/s 'nowl#

ed*e o! where it ws "ost needed would &re(ent the nturl

&re0udice to ssist your own$ lthou*h others "i*ht be "ore in

need,

Tht the current <o&e$ <o&e Frncis$ is the -rst esuit <o&e in

@hurch history$ nd tht he ws &ushed into runnin* when the

&re(ious hed o! the @hurch$ <o&e 4enedict$ bec"e the -rst

<o&e to resi*n durin* his li!eti"e$ u*urs well !or the @hurch

o(erll in continuin* its dilecticl &th &st the (rious "ens

by which it could be sidetrc'ed !ro" its bsic reson !or e%ist#

in*, 3odern esuit theolo*y$ &redo"inntly throu*h the inBu#

ence o! Heide**er nd He*el on to& theolo*ins such s Rhner

nd =oner*n :the !or"er direct student o! Heide**er;$ hs

bndoned "uch o! the Ro"nis" inherent in its notion o! hu#

"nis" nd inte*rted tht hu"nis" with so"e o! the &oliticl

cti(is" inBuenced by libertion theolo*y, 3uch o! this hs only

s&red to the @hurch s whole in s"ll wy$ but the chris"

o! Frncis$ nd the ti"eliness o! his "ess*e !ro" socio#&oliti#

cl &ers&ecti(e$ "y be o! *ret ssistnce in hel&in* those tht

re interested understnd the nture o! the @hurch outside the




su&erstitions tht it doesn/t itself belie(e$ but llows ech di+er#

ent *rou& or culture o! @tholics to "intin s &rt o! their cul#

turl herit*e,

The @hurch$ s hs been srdoniclly noted by (rious &eo&le

who were "ore correct thn they reli9ed$ is the ulti"te cor&o#

rtion, <ublic cor&ortions in business ter"s !il when they "is#

understnd their &ro&er *ol is si"&ly to continue, I! they be#

lie(e the c&itlist ideolo*y tht they re to "%i"i9e &ro-ts$ the

result is ine(itble bn'ru&tcy :or *o(ern"ent bilout;, The

@hurch/s business is not to s&red belie!$ rther to continue s

&lce o! co""unity tht is not +ected by belie! or its lc', Only

in bein* tht ty&e o! co""unity cn the @hurch s(e itsel! !ro"

the dissol(in* nture o! c&itlist cid$ which hs destroyed so

"ny co""unities bsed on shred belie!$ nd "intin co"#

"unity bsed on shred &r%es :@tholics rrely e(er discuss

their ctul belie!s$ e(en with ech other$ !or *ood reson;,




Jreview: 7he Set of Kssumptions

7he Self as System

The Sel!$ li'e other e%&erientil .thin*s/$ cn -rstly be seen$

"odeled$ s syste"ic or*ni9tion, It is throu*h syste" tht

bein*s chie(e "ore or less stble endurin* nd in such endur#

in* cn be sid to .be/, Other thn techniclly .creted/ syste"s

tht re intentionlly or*ni9ed by n e%ternl entity$ syste"s &#

&er to rise throu*h Sel!#or*ni9tion nd e"er*ence, The

question o! the *round o! Sel!#or*ni9tion nd e"er*ence is

!und"entlly the s"e question s the question o! .why there

re thin*s t ll rther thn nothin*/, 2ithout Sel!#or*ni9tion

nd e"er*ence resultin* in thin*s tht cn be (iewed syste"i#

clly$ there would be nothin* tht could endure su1ciently to be

sid to .be/ in ny "enin*!ul sense, Those syste"s tht re or#

*ni9ed by n e%ternl entity re de&endent t second hnd on

the Sel!#or*ni9tion o! the entity res&onsible,

Syste"s re deter"inte or indeter"inte or*ni9tions o!

other syste"s t lower scle, There is no intrinsic di+erence




between syste" nd .subsyste"/ other thn the scle &er#

s&ecti(e one chooses to (iew s rele(nt, Syste"s cn be sid to

be subsyste"s in second sense$ in tht their bility to endure is

de&endent on the hi*her scle syste"s in which they t'e &rt, A

syste" is not "erely set o! syste"s howe(er$ which could be

ny rbitrry collection$ but is !unctionl, <recisely wht is

"ent by .!unctionl/ will be e%&lored !urther below$ but short

de-nition is tht deter"inte &otentils cn be disinhibited nd

thereby ctuli9ed by s&eci-c e(ents,

Syste"s cn be si"&le or co"&le%$ closed or o&en$ deter"inis#

tic in liner "nner$ lo*rith"ic$ e%&onentil$ or chotic "n#

ner$ rndo" "nner$ or "y be co"&letely nondeter"inistic,

2hile there "y be "teril substrte$ de&endin* on how "#

teril is de-ned$ there "y be lyers o! scle t which the en#

tirety o! the syste" is "de u& o! non&hysicl e"er*ent !etures

o! s"ller scle &hysicl syste"s, In these cses the e"er*ent

syste"s cn the"sel(es &roduce e"er*ent !etures tht or*ni9e

into !urther syste"ic lyers, Recursion nd reBe%i(ity cn e%#

&lode the co"&le%ity o! such lyered "odel s one ssesses it

t e(er#hi*her lyers o! e"er*ence, E"er*ent syste"s cn be




nondeter"inistic e(en when the "teril substrte itsel! is deter#

"inistic$ becuse the e"er*ent syste" beco"es the deter"in#

tion o! the substrte$ &recisely s it is substrte only !ter the

e"er*ence o! the "etsyste", 2ht is deter"ined t &rticu#

lr le(el cn only &&er s !ortuitous t the le(el below,

The &&ernce o! si"&le cuslity :e1cient$ "teril; does

not !unction in the s"e "nner !ro" lower to hi*her scle

s it does !ro" hi*her to lower$ in tht deter"intions !ro"

hi*her scle cn directly deter"ine the beh(ior o! lower scle

syste"$ but lower scle syste"s/ e+ects on syste" in which they

t'e &rt is !und"entlly un&redictble,

E(ery thin*$ howe(er inter&reted or "odeled is$ in the !ound#

tionl sense$ rel, Thin*s re (ery "uch li'e the "onds o!

=eibni9$ but turned inside out, The inside o! thin* cn only be

&osited by n entity whose "odlity in(ol(es bein* &riori out#

side, To*ether the su" o! e%tnt rels does not result in rel#

ity#s##whole$ uni(erse, Insted indi(idul relities cross$ o(er#

ly nd "er*e with ech other in dyn"ic "nner,

To conce&tuli9e this dyn"ic relity s "odel$ relity is

nlo*ous to rilwy "de u& o! n un'nown nu"ber o! di+er#




ent intersectin* ril lines tht re the"sel(es lwys chn*in*$

bein* e%tended$ bein* shortened$ switched to di+erent direc#

tions, No sin*le sttion hs ccess to "ore thn !ew lines nd

the sttions the"sel(es re built nd de"olished on constnt

bsis, There is no &ers&ecti(e outside the rilwy, Indi(idul re#

lities "y be in sttion$ or t ny &oint on ny trin on ny

line$ nd the relity they cn be wre o! is de&endent on their

s&til nd te"&orl &ers&ecti(e, The rilwy is so lr*e tht no

indi(idul within their li!es&n cn tr(erse it, Althou*h "ulti&le

indi(iduls shre "uch o! wht is &ercei(ed$ no two indi(iduls

cn h(e &recisely the s"e &ers&ecti(e, The !urther &rt ny

two *i(en indi(iduls re$ s well$ the "ore distinct their relity

will be, In our &ro0ections o! relity#s##whole$ or cos"olo*y$ the

theories consistently strt to !il the lr*er the relity technolo*y

is c&ble o! re(elin* beco"e,




7he System of Self

The "ost ob(ious &eculirity o! the Sel! is tht it is rel tht

is wre$ nd wre in &rticulr "nner$ "nner which en#

bles it to constitute *i(en set o! rels s relity, Another &e#

culirity o! the Sel! it is itsel! not !ully deter"inble$ lthou*h it

deter"ines the s&ects tht re &rt o! it,

At certin le(el nd ty&e o! or*ni9tion relity cn beco"e

wre in "ulti&le wys tht re de&endent on the wreness o!

lower scle or*ni9tion, The initil st*e o! wreness could be

re!erred to s senstion, The wreness o! senstion is wre$

but not o! ny &rticulrs or e(en o! nythin* in *enerl, It is

si"&ly +ected in reBe%i(e wy by its en(iron"ent, Senstion

s such is e+ecti(ely only recti(e, <erce&tion is n wreness

tht is directed in ter"s o! wht it beco"es wre o!, @onscious

wreness is the -rst le(el o! wreness tht is wre o! relity,




Howe(er it does not yet deter"ine tht relity s relity, sel!#con#

sciousness is wre o! itsel! nd relity$ initilly o! itsel! s &t o!

tht relity, ReBe%i(e$ dult sel!#consciousness cn &roduce the

I#Sub0ect tht deter"ines relity &heno"enlly s the not#Sel!$ s

e(erythin* it e%&eriences tht is o(er *inst itsel!, Mnowin*

wht the Sel! is wre o! is -rst &ossible t the le(el o! sel!#con#

scious wreness, sel!#consciousness cn beco"e reBe%i(e in

s&eci-c "nner$ such tht consciousness itsel! is wre o! the

&rocess o! Sel!# consciousness nd cn obser(e its own sel!#con#

sciousness t wor', The result is wht we see s the .dult/ Sel!$

c&ble o! ethicl deter"intion$ theoreticl conte"&ltion nd

conce&tuli9tion throu*h the &rocess o! the I#Sub0ect, The

I#Sub0ect is the in(entl ori*in o! the s&lit between .sub0ecti(e/

nd .ob0ecti(e/ 'nowin*$ n bstrction tht contrdicts itsel!,

@onsciousness s the .sub0ect/ is si"ultneously n .ob0ect/ !or

tht I#Sub0ect, The 'nowin* o! non#reBe%i(e Sel!# consciousness

:the childli'e or "ytholo*icl Sel!; nd reBe%i(e sel!#conscious#

ness :the dult Sel!; is reltionl in the sense tht it is the 'now#

in* o! relity in reltion to the Sel! which is distinct !ro" relity$

lthou*h in the ltter cse it is lso &rt o! the relity it distin#




*uishes itsel! !ro", Senstion is lwys senstion o! so"ethin*$

but it cn/t deter"ine .wht/ it is senstion o! s&eci-clly, <er#

ce&tion cn direct towrds .wht/ but cn/t deter"ine it s

&rticulr .wht/ nor deter"ine wht it .is/ in itsel!$ only the !ct

tht it is, @onsciousness is wre o! relity s .wht there is/

without se&rtin* itsel! !ro" wht there is, It cn distin*uish

di+erent thin*s tht re without bein* ble to deter"ine in wht

wy they re &recisely wht they re$ nor is it c&ble o! obser(#

in* itsel! in the &rocess o! beh(in* towrd thin*s$ it si"&ly be#

h(es towrd other thin*s, sel!#consciousness -rst redu&lictes

&&ernce throu*h ln*u*e$ where thin*s no lon*er si"&ly &#

&er$ but re redu&licted in such wy s to re(el wht they

&&er s, ReBe%i(e sel!#consciousness se&rtes itsel! in re#

&et o! the initil redu&liction o! e%&erience (i the &rocess o!

sub0ecti(ity$ the cretion o! the I#Sub0ect s si"&listic du&licte

o! the initil bility to obser(e itsel!$ ledin* to contrdiction$

becuse in its initil bility to obser(e itsel! it obser(es itsel! s

&rt o! wht it se&rtes itsel! !ro" s the I#Sub0ect, Throu*h

this se&rtion thou*h it is ble to obser(e its own decision "'#

in* nd 0ud*e its "oti(es !or its beh(iors, i the I#Sub0ect the




Sel! cn there!ore be ethicl in s&eci-c sitution rther thn

si"&ly !ollowin* :or not !ollowin*; lid down rules,

The Sel! is lso$ by nd lr*e$ shred Sel!, Althou*h in ech

cse the Sel! is ."ine/$ risin* s it does throu*h initition into

society$ t the outset it is deter"ined by tht society, The Sel!$

thou*h$ s syste"$ is ne(er !ully deter"ined$ nd indi(idution

initilly &roceeds by ne*tion) s&ects o! the societl Sel! re re#

0ected durin* dolescence$ cretin* the .indi(idul/ Sel!, Indi(id#

ution "y be "ore or less e%tensi(e$ but it is !ro" whte(er

le(el o! indi(idution tht in !ct is chie(ed by ne*tion tht

&ositi(e &ro0ections o! the Sel! re "de, These &ro0ections re

the"sel(es lwys &ro0ections o! re&etition o! &rticulr &os#

sibility$ but s they re encted in new circu"stnces the re&eti#

tion ne(er results in the identicl ctuli9tion, The "ost co"#

"on ty&e o! indi(idution is indi(idution throu*h the choice o!

&rticulr societl role # !or the "ost &rt indi(iduls re wht

they do$ nd indi(idute (ery little beyond tht, Hence the co"#

"on&lce tht the -rst question s'ed u&on "eetin* so"ebody is

to do with their 0ob$ their role in society, Fro" tht 'nowled*e$

co"bined with 'nowled*e o! the indi(idul/s &rticulr societl




bc'*round$ &rticulrs bout *i(en &erson cn be ssu"ed$

nd "ore &rticulr indi(idutions &ercei(ed r&idly by (irtue o!

the di+erence between the &resu"ed nd ctul indi(idul be#

h(ior,

This "odel$ s &reli"inry loo' t the Sel!$ is de(elo&"en#

tl "odel, Howe(er this shouldn/t be t'en to i"&ly continuous

de(elo&"ent$ or tht the de(elo&"ent o! the indi(idul du&li#

ctes the &rocess o! e(olutionry de(elo&"ent other thn in

loose$ nlo*icl wy, The de(elo&"ent o! the indi(idul Sel!

:which is lwys si"ultneously the shred Sel!; dis&lys both

continuity nd rdicl ru&tures, The teleolo*y which is o!ten de#

nied but tcitly &resu&&osed in ny de(elo&"entl "odel$

whether tht o! e(olution or indi(idul beco"in*##Sel! does

ori*inte in whte(er st*e is currently the .lst/$ &recisely be#

cuse tht st*e deter"ines &rior st*es as prior $ s &recursors

to itsel!, As n e%"&le$ in *enetic theory it is$ o! course$ i"&ossi#

ble to h(e the &ers&ecti(e o! *ene$ not si"&ly becuse *ene

doesn/t h(e n wre &ers&ecti(e$ but becuse tht &ers&ecti(e

could not e%ist, A *ene is only *ene when it is &osited s &re#




cursor to n s&ect o! the Sel!$ i,e, deter"ined s wht it is !ro"

our &ers&ecti(e,

=oo'ed t syste"iclly$ Godel/s Theore" throws wrench into

ny tte"&t to describe the Sel! in co"&letely deter"ined "n#

ner, The only co"&lete descri&tion o! the Sel! is not &ossible

within tht syste"$ nd since we h(e no "et#syste" (ilble

in which tht descri&tion could be deter"ined$ the descri&tion

cn only e(er be &rtil,




7he Self and the Sub8ect

The Sel!$ s it beco"es wre o! itsel!$ is lwys wre o! itsel!

s it is in &rticulr sitution, A "o"ent beco"es situtionl

when the understndin* one hs is !orced to chn*e due to n

e(entl eru&tion in the world o! e%&eriencin*, The e%&erience o!

conBict between the relities n e(ent de"onstrtes s rel nd

one/s &rior understndin* is the ori*in o! the wreness o! one#

sel! s Sel!, One notices onesel! s other in te"&orl sense$

other to Sel! tht hs chn*ed in consonnce with its world$

while t the s"e ti"e retinin* its identity$ t the (ery "o"ent

o! such chn*e, In res&onse to e(entl chn*e$ which is not

si"&ly rerrn*e"ent o! the sitution$ but new sitution in

tht the "enin* o! thin*s within the sitution hs chn*ed$ the

reBe%i(e Sel! in(ents the I#Sub0ect in order to ssess the situ#

tion nd co"e to 0ud*"ent,

The I#Sub0ect$ !r !ro" bein* the Sel! in its ctulity$ is in(en#

tl$ risin* in res&onse to the e(entl nture o! sitution, It is




rdicl si"&li-ction o! the Sel!$ one tht cn ssess sitution

usin* only !ew &&rently co*ent &rticulrs$ those *i(en to it

by the Sel!$ nd co"e to ti"ely decision, 2e e%&erience its in#

(ention in the . ste& bc'/ out o! our en*ross"ent in whte(er we

re in(ol(ed with nd detch"ent to n obser(tionl stnce,

Since we do this when theori9in* s well s when "'in* ethicl

decisions$ we theoreticlly "ist'e this deri(ti(e &rocess s be#

in* the Sel!$ when it is si"&ly &rocess o! the Sel! when &sychol#

o*i9in*,

2hile the "o"ent o! Sel!#identi-ction rises !ro" sense o!

otherness to onesel!$ the "nner o! Sel!#descri&tion rises out o!

one/s sense o! otherness to !cticl other or others$ within the

indi(idul nd s *rou&, Indi(idution to unique Sel!$ beyond

indi(idution to the Sel! s &rt o! distinct *rou&$ or !urther in#

di(idution s result o! ccidentl &ersonl &ri(ile*e$ cn be

(iewed s h(in* !eudl structure$ s He*el "odeled it,

2ithin !eudl syste"$ "e"bers o! the elite clss cn chie(e

&ositi(e !reedo" in reltion to the lnd they own but do not h(e

to wor'$ while the ser! si"ultneously e%&eriences ne*ti(e



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / )9

!reedo" in the lc' o! ownershi& o! the lnd he wor's, In both

cses this !cticl !reedo" &ro(ides the o&&ortunity !or n own#

ershi& o! the Sel! s the I#Sub0ect, The ."ineness/ inherent in the

Sel! is dis&lced into the I#Sub0ect, In the (ery sense o! the s"e#

ness in di+erence between the "ster nd ser!$ the wreness o!

co""on bein* o! hu"nity is &ossible$ nd with tht wre#

ness the &erce&tion o! &ossible o(erco"in* o! the di+erence,

The notion o! the indi(idul s distinct !ro" the socil Sel! tht

occurs in the initil ne*tion o! &rticulr inheritnces is lso the

ori*in o! the &otentilly ntisocil Sel!$ "ni!estin* s thou*h the

indi(idul is so"ehow stuc' in "ode o! the Sel! tht hs nei#

ther re"ined child nor beco"e n dult, The liention o! the

I# Sub0ect is the &riori !or the bility to t'e ownershi& o! tht

Sel!, Howe(er tht ownershi& only occurs initilly s ownershi&

o! the I#Sub0ect$ which obscures the !ullness o! the Sel! nd the

&ro&er "enin* o! ownershi&,




Jredispositions and the (isposedness of the Self

The Sel! is lso lwys e%&erienced s li"it$ s&eci-clly the

li"it o! the sitution$ which is lso lwys there!ore li"it situ#

tion, The sitution is e%&erienced &ri"ordilly in "teril !sh#

ion$ which requires tht the Sel! be dis&osed to relity tht the

Sel! sub"it to relity such tht s&eci-c relities cn "tter to

the Sel!, 2hile the Sel! is ne(er !ully deter"ined$ the wys in

which it is deter"ined rise !ro" its e%&erience o! its li"its, =i"#

its re e%&erienced s hori9ons$ nd it is in ter"s o! our e%&eri#

ence o! hori9ons tht the Sel! cn &ro0ect itsel! s its Sel! in &r#

ticulr wys,

Tht thin*s$ e(ents$ &ersons cn "tter to the Sel! i"&lies tht

the Sel! is &redis&osed to concern, Ech Sel! hs s&eci-c &redis#

&ositions$ in !ct$ to be concerned with s&eci-c relities, One/s

&redis&ositions ct s the li"it o! one/s sub"ission to relity) one

cn only be dis&osed to sub"it to s&eci-c s&ects o! relity nd



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / )'

llow the" to "tter$ to en**e one/s concern nd disinhibit c#

tuli9tion o! one/s deter"inte &otentils,

<redis&ositions cn be "odi-ed$ to *reter or lesser de*ree

in di+erent indi(iduls$ by the indi(idul/s own will$ nd it is in

this wy tht !reedo" o! the will$ nd there!ore the indi(idul$ is

&otentil o! the Sel!, A*inst the reductionis" o! the nturl

sciences$ substrtes o! the Sel! tht the"sel(es h(e no

Sel!#wreness ct in ccordnce with the Sel!/s will$ since !ter

its e"er*ence it beco"es the deter"inin* entity, This is chie(ed

"terilly by the hi*her lyers o! the syste" Sel!#&roducin* the

e(ents tht disinhibit the ctuli9tion o! the si"&ler syste"s/

&otentils in s&eci-c wy, In this "nner the Sel! cn disinhibit

the "o(e"ent o! one o! its le*s in such wy s to initite wl'#

in*$ or 'ic'in* !ootbll, At "uch hi*her le(el$ by "odi!yin*

the s&ects o! relity tht one is dis&osed to let "tter$ one cn

to de*ree control wht one is concerned with, The hi*hest le(#

els o! the syste" o! Sel! re c&ble o! "odi!yin* e(en wht the

Sel! is wre o!$ intensi!yin* the control one hs o(er one/s con#

cerns, A si"&le e%"&le o! this is in the ct o! !or*ettin*, As hs




been obser(ed by "ny &eo&le re"e"berin* is &ssi(e$ !or*et#

tin* is cti(e, The Sel! !or*ets in order to not be concerned with

so"ethin*$ to h(e it no lon*er "tter in the wy it would were

it to continue to be re"e"bered,

The "teril ori*in o! wreness nd concern results in n

wreness tht is !und"entlly oriented to wht is &r*"tic to

the Sel!, E(en curiosity$ which busies itsel! with &&rently .use#

less/ cti(ity$ is only wre o! those thin*s tht re use!ul !or re#

lie(in* the burden o! boredo",



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / )"

Systemic ehaviors of the Jsyche or Self

I! the Sel! e%ists s recursi(ely de(elo&ed syste" there ou*ht

to be co""on syste"ic issues or &roble"s tht e%hibit in s&eci-c

wys ccordin* to the nture o! the syste", One o! the "in

&roble"s o! de(elo&in* syste"s is 'nown s . @o"&le%ity @ts#

tro&he/$ when co"&le% syste" hs too "ny interde&endencies

between subsyste"s the syste" s whole coll&ses, @o"&le%ity

ctstro&he is "the"ticlly (ery &redictble$ nd !r "ore

li'ely thn not in rndo"ly de(elo&in* syste"s$ hence it too'

lon*er to de(elo& the -rst "ulticellulr or*nis" tht didn/t su!#

!er tht !te thn it too' to de(elo& li!e itsel!,

I! the "odel o! the Sel! s such recursi(ely de(elo&ed syste"

is n &&ro&rite "odel$ n o(erly inte*rted e%"&le should

su+er the &roble" o! co"&le%ity ctstro&he$ nd in !ct obser#

(tionlly it does$ we si"&ly h(en/t loo'ed t the sy"&to"s s

bein* t root syste"ic coll&se brou*ht on by o(er#inte*rtion,




The e%"&le I/" re!errin* to is 'nown s Schi9o&hreni, The

o(erly inte*rted &syche o! the schi9o&hrenic tte"&ts to recon#

cile s&ects o! &rll% relity tht si"&ly cn/t be inte*rted

within its -nite &ur(iew$ resultin* in i"*inti(e but ulti"tely

!ruitless tte"&ts to .understnd/ or .e%&lin/ connections be#

tween e(ents tht re si"&ly not co"&rehensible s whole, The

.nor"l/ "ind co"&rt"entli9es such irreconcilble s&ects

nd brely re*isters the contrdictions inherent$ but the schi9o#

&hrenic is unble to &er!or" such co"&rt"entli9tion nd

hence in(ents .resons/ nd .e%&lntions/$ howe(er !r!etched$

tht could so"ehow brid*e the *&s in relity they e%&erience,

This is o! course still the erly st*e o! co"&le%ity ctstro&he o!

the Sel!$ s the <syche bre's down the syste"s it hs to& le(el

control o(er lso be*in to bre' down, It is the bre'down o! the

"ind tht results in the lter bre'down o! brin nd other &hys#

icl structures,

I! this is the root o! schi9o&hreni s syste"ic ctstro&he$

how does this +ect other !or"s o! ."entl illness/8 The instbil#

ity nd e(entul bre'down o! the schi9o&hrenic doesn/t lwys




result in co"&lete bre'down$ the syste" o! the <syche will t#

te"&t to re#stbili9e itsel! in nu"ber o! wys, Syste"s re

"ore "the"ticlly stble nd robust when they h(e dul or

"ulti&le set o! oscilltin* sttes rther thn sin*le stble stte$

so s result shi!t to "ulti&ly oscilltin* stte o! bein* is n

&otentil reco(ery !or n o(er#inte*rted &syche be*innin* to de#

scend towrds co"&le%ity ctstro&he, This result sounds re#

"r'bly li'e wht is e%&erienced in the illness 'nown s bi&olr

disorder or "nic de&ression, The di+erent sttes re not .bnor#

"l/ sttes within the "nic#de&ressi(e/s &rticulr syste"$ but

re the nor"l sttes o! n oscilltin* syste",

It "i*ht be ob0ected tht$ !ter ll$ schi9o&hreni s thou*ht

disorder nd "nic de&ression s "ood disorder re rther

di+erent illnesses, Howe(er the thou*ht sy"&to"s :delusionl

sy"&to"s &rticulrly; o! the schi9o&hrenic "y be n tte"&t

to "intin syste" tht is coll&sin*, 3ood discloses the o(er#

ll stte o! the bein* we cll the Sel!$ nd the schi9o&hrenic dis#

&lys "oods tht re r&idly shi!tin* !or ti"e s the syste"

stte r&idly chn*es$ e(entully beco"in* si"&ly Bt$ brely



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ))

there$ s the syste" is no lon*er ble to "intin itsel! su1#

ciently to e%&erience itsel! throu*h "ood, This is not the s"e s

the &llid lc' o! "ood tht &sses !or nor"lcy$ which in itsel! is

&ositi(e &heno"enon) the Bt de"enor o! "ny schi9o&hren#

ics is lc' o! n e%&ected &heno"enon,

3nic#de&ressi(es$ howe(er$ while they "y lso be on occ#

sion delusionl :!ter ll they h(e lso *one throu*h the ty&e o!

o(er#inte*rtion tht leds to schi9o&hreni;$ re quite o!ten

wre o! the delusionl nture o! their delusions, The oscilltion

&re(ents the syste" !ro" de*enertin* in the "nner o! schi9#

o&hrenic,




eality in eneral as Systems of Systems

In (iewin* thin*s s thin*s$ nd e(en "ore so in the reduction

o! thin*s to ob0ects$ the inherent dyn"is" in nythin* tht cn

&ro&erly be sid to be is lost, At the s"e ti"e$ !ully deter"ined

syste"s cn be seen s entities tht h(e distinct "enin*$ nd

in &r*"tic !shion cn "tter in s&eci-c$ &redictble "n#

ner, For thin*s to be inner worldly thin*s they "ust be deter#

"inble in so"e wy, Our unco(erin* o! relity$ our will to 'nowl#

ed*e$ is t root will#to#deter"ine,

The "terilis" o! substnce !lls &rt e(en within &hysics$

the science tht initilly "ost &ro"oted it$ since &hysics "odels

the "ost bsic &rticles s i""teril, Accordin* to the current

quntu" "odel bse &rticles cn only endure in ny "enin*!ul

wy when they !or" syste" . otherwise they si"&ly &&er nd

dis&&er in rndo" wy, 2ht we 'now s . e(olution/ is !ro"

the &ers&ecti(e o! the &hysicl "odel o! relity &rticulr cse




o! *enerl tendency o! syste"s to Sel!#or*ni9e nd Sel!#o&ti#

"i9e$ tendency tht is itsel! i"&ossible to *round, S&ce#ti"e$

the lws o! &hysics$ nd other s&ects o! relity once thou*ht

!oundtionl re ll e"er*ent !etures o! syste"s,

The Sel! cn be "odeled s n onion o! Sel!#enclosin* syste"ic

lyers$ which de(elo& s e"er*ent !etures o! *i(en syste"ic

lyer Sel!#or*ni9e into incresin*ly co"&le% syste"ic !or"#

tions, He*el/s descri&tion o! the Sel! in the <heno"enolo*y o!

S&irit s dilecticl de(elo&"ent tht lwys includes nd de#

ter"ines wht it su&ersedes c&tures this e"er*ent &heno"enon

re"r'bly well$ where ech lyer beco"es &rt o! the syste" it

&roduces nd is itsel! deter"ined &ost !cto by the syste" it &ro#

duces s &recondition,




E%cursus , Outline o! the <heno"enolo*y o! S&irit

The !ollowin* is loo' t The <heno"enolo*y o! S&irit s n

ccount o! the de(elo&"ent o! the Sel!,, He*el/s "ethod &ro#

ceeds by re o! study$ rther thn te"&orl !or", Howe(er it

is the "ost sustined ccount we h(e o! the de(elo&"ent o! the

Sel!,

The <heno"enolo*y hs been described (riously s

&ro&edeutic wor' ledin* to bsolute 'nowled*e$ or wor' tht

be*ins with bsolute 'nowled*e, In sense it is both, As the de#

ter"inin* syste" !or He*el$ the &re(ious syste"s cn only be de#

ter"ined !ro" the &ers&ecti(e o! bsolute 'nowled*e$ becuse it

is only !ro" tht stnd&oint tht the &re(ious syste"s &&er s

teleolo*icl &recursors, At the s"e ti"e it is &ro&edeutic

wor' in tht it tte"&t to &re&re the reder !or the Science o!

=o*ic$ which in ter"s o! the wor' itsel! does be*in with bsolute

'nowled*e,

The !ollowin* is written in the !or" o! de(elo&"ent, 4y neces#

sity it is si"&listic$ nd cn be inter&reted s the de(elo&"ent o!

the indi(idul Sel! or the de(elo&"ent o! the shred Sel!$ &ri"r#




ily becuse the indi(idul Sel! is only !rction o! the shred

Sel!,




7he Self as 6umulative

Inso!r s we e%&erience oursel(es s sel(es$ they contin e(#

erythin* we h(e retined !ro" our e%&erience6 senstions$

thou*hts$ "e"ories o! situtions$ etc, This e%&erientil retention

is cu"ulti(e,

Succession is the basis for %and possibly the en-tirety of& any correct view of time! and the most

pure %and apriori& way through which we e;peri-ence succession is the act of reasoning itself. 7hisobservation is an important one! as it sheds light onthe internal nature of 71 enuine 7ime is essen-tially how we deal with new information! new stimu-lus! new movement and therefore it must be some-thing more than a mode of perceiving the outsideworld. 7ime is a process internal to us that we havemisinformed by associating it with the e;ternal no-tion of cloc0-time. 7he lasting eects of our e;peri-ences lived while recogniing 7 do not e;ist assome sort of @uantity! or useful commodity! that wehold on to! that we can pinpoint with words. In-stead! the @uality of the progression is seen throughits impact on the 6S T

7om roth %F,,-,F-F,&. What $a0es Uou 7ic0? Kn

'ssay on enuine 7ime. %'ssays on 7he $ind& %)in-dle *ocations FE,-FE4&. #aw0! Beather! Nuill In0.. )indle 'dition.

Groth is ri*ht to !ocus on our e%&erience o! ti"e$ &rticulrly




our e%&erience o! succession$ s crucil to the de(elo&"ent o!

the Sel! in cu"ulti(e "nner$ lthou*h co"&lictions rise

when delin* with &eo&le such s those with utis" whose sense

o! te"&orlity is rdiclly di+erent !ro" the "0ority,

Groth is lso loo'in* in the ri*ht direction when he notes tht

our bility to &y ttention :or not; to ny s&eci-c e%&erience

*rnts us the !reedo" to beco"e 5our5 sel(es, In this he is &oint#

in* to the s"e &heno"enon tht led Heide**er to deter"ine

the "enin* o! hu"n bein* :Dsein; s @re,

it must be admitted that the way an individual is af- fected by factors outside of him has a great deal todo with what2s inside of him1 that is: the @uality ofmy e;perience might seem to be caused more bythings outside of me! but my reaction to thosethings! the very reaction that results in an e;peri-ence-@uality! is one speciCc to my 6S. It is speciCcto my nature and my character. Uet my nature issomething I have little or no control over and mycharacter is largely the result of my own e;perienceand considerations. #owever! if the 6S merelycomes to be through the interplay between the ten-dencies I am born having and the @ualities my e;pe-rience! and if the @ualities of an e;perience as it

happens result from a certain interplay between sit-uational factors and my 6S! then one could arguethis: initially I was born without character1 there-

fore man is not a free agent at all. ut he would bewrongV $an is BreeV So something is missing inwhat I have said so far! and I am going to address itnow. $any do argue that one2s character is really




only a product of his nature! his upbringing! and hise;perience. 7hese people choose to ignore one ofthe basic things that ma0e me a man: my ability tochoose how much attention to devote to certain ar-

eas of my life as they unfold. Kttention is the 0ey tomy freedom! because in choosing to pay careful at-tention to things as they unfold around and withinme I allow myself to react thoughtfully to my situa-tion. Jaying attention to events as they occur notonly allows me to react better to the situation athand1 it also allows me eectively control the inLu-ence of that situation on my 6S.

7om roth %F,,-,F-F,&. What $a0es Uou 7ic0? Kn 'ssay on enuine 7ime. %'ssays on 7he $ind& %)in-dle *ocations F4-FTE&. #aw0! Beather! Nuill In0..

)indle 'dition.

The ob(ious di1culty with the si"&le notion o! the cu"ulti(e

Sel! is tht our e%&erience o! the Sel! nd our e%&erience o!

2orld &&er to be identiclly de-ned$ yet si"ultneously we e%#

&erience our Sel! s bein*#in#the#2orld, 2hile our bein*#in$

whether in &lce$ 2orld$ ti"e$ s&ce$ etc, is itsel! &roble"tic

notion$ the ide tht Sel! nd 2orld re the s"e see"s intrinsi#

clly in(lid$ since it &&ers to led ine(itbly into soli&sis"

tht e(erydy e%&erience con!ounds,

Groth5s descri&tion$ thou*h$ is written !ro" &urely indi(id#

ulistic &ers&ecti(e, In relity$ "uch i! not "ost o! our 5e%&eri#




ence5 is *rnted to us (i our initition into society$ nd thus both

Sel! nd 2orld re initilly shred l"ost co"&letely, In indi(id#

utin*$ e(en$ initilly we do so (i the ne*tion o! the ne*ti(e

0ud*"ents o! the I#Sub0ect$ re0ectin* s&eci-c inheritnces !ro"

our society$ lon* be!ore we re ble to &roduce &ositi(e &ro0ec#

tions tht h(e ny indi(idution, This initition &roduces wht

we e%&erience s the 5eternl &st5$ tht ws lwys so"ehow

&st$ since it &receded our e%istence$ nd yet is retined s the

"ost si*ni-cnt &ortion o! the &resent &st, Groth5s ide o! t#

tention s crucil to !reedo" hs to be su&&le"ented by reten#

tion we re !ree to retin or not s&eci-c e%&eriences nd situ#

tions$ t lest in our wre li(es$ since in non#wre wy we do

retin e(en those thin*s we h(e ostensibly re0ected,

It is in the "nner in which e%&eriences nd situtions re re#

tined tht di+erentite Sel! nd 2orld, 2hile the contents o!

ech re the s"e$ they re retined (i narratives tht re di!#

!erent, Our story o! our Sel! is not the s"e s our world#histori#

cl story$ nor is it told in the s"e "nner, Throu*h this di+er#

entition o! nrrti(e we si"ultneously di+erentite the shred




!ro" the indi(iduted Sel!$ lthou*h in "ost cses$ &rticulrly in

the "odern 2estern world$ we (stly o(erstte the di+erence,




7he Self as *ayered Anderstanding

Sense-6ertainty

Sense#@ertinty "'es *ood sense s the be*innin* o! rel#

ity/s beco"in* Sel!, Howe(er it is not &recisely wre in our

sense, A bein* whose deter"inin* syste" o! Sel! cn be &osited

s the -rst Sel!$ in ter"s o! its Sel!#di+erentition by the cretion

o! boundry between its Sel! nd relity, Howe(er initilly its

Sel! is identicl to relity, 4y the li"it o! the boundry it is ble

to !or" itsel! s se&rted relity !ro" the relity round it$

which beco"es en(iron"ent by (irtue o! tht Sel!#di+erentition

!ro" it, The distinction between &lnt nd ni"l sel(es in ter"s

o! Sel!#"o(e"ent turns out to be untenble,

Sense#@ertinty is bstrct in tht it only di+erentites itsel!

!ro" relity$ s&ects o! the ltter re uni(ersl nd thus co"#

&letely bstrct in tht they re not distin*uishble$ nd

Sense#@ertinty there!ore is not c&ble o! ny !or" o! intention#

lity,




Jerception

<erce&tion is the si"&lest !or" o! intentionlity, This is not in

ny sense n wre intentionlity but si"&ly tendency to direct

itsel! towrds or wy !ro" s&eci-c s&ects o! its en(iron"ent,

2hile other di+erentited s&ects o! relity re"in bstrct$ s

in sense#certinty$ s &erce&tion is only ble to distin*uish ttrc#

tion !ro" re&ulsion, 2ill is not &resent$ s the "et&hysicins be#

lie(ed o! ll bein*s$ since ttrction nd re&ulsion re cted out

by disinhibitin* uto"tic tendencies, In &erce&tion only the uni#

(ersl$ bstrct s&ects o! relity re distin*uished in ny "n#

ner, It lso hs no sense o! its Sel!$ only si"&le bility to be dis#

inhibited by s&ect o! relity tht ttrct or re&ulse,




Simple 6onsciousness

@onsciousness$ unli'e sense#certinty or &erce&tion$ is ble to

will itsel! towrd or wy !ro" s&ects o! relity, These s&ects$

li'e those o! sense#certinty nd &erce&tion$ re not yet con#

creti9e s entities but si"&ly s&ects o! relity$ thus its reltion

to the other re"ins bstrct$ lthou*h not &er!ectly uni(ersl$

s in &erce&tion$ becuse it is ble to distin*uish di+erent s#

&ects o! relity beyond si"&le ttrction nd re&ulsion, As re#

sult o! this bility to distin*uish$ in the "ost bsic "nner &ossi#

ble si"&le consciousness is ble to &osit s&ects o! relities s

concrete entities tht re distinct,




The <heno"enolo*y o! S&irit s Re(eltion o! Re(eltion

He*el/s <heno"enolo*y o! S&irit tte"&ts to ser(e the s"e

&ur&ose tht ws lter tte"&ted by Niet9sche in his Zrthustr

nd Heide**er in the 4eitr*e, Indeed in certin sense the

S&iritul E%ercises o! I*ntius =oyol lso -t into this series o!

tte"&ts to re(el the nture o! re(eltion, In order to !ully un#

derstnd bsolute 'nowin*$ or the eternl recurrence$ or enown#

in*$ or the re(eltion o! @hristinity in I*ntius/ s&eci-c sense$

one hs to h(e under*one the e%&erience o! re(eltion o! the

"enin* o! re(eltion itsel!,

These re(eltions$ by in(ol(in* the re(eltion o! the nture o!

re(eltion itsel!$ cn no lon*er be inter&reted s .di(ine$ lthou*h

they "y re"in in n ltered sense .onto#theolo*icl/,

He*el/s e%&erience o! the "enin* o! re(eltion e%husted the

&ossibilities o! the conce&tul e&och :reli*ious#"et&hysicl#sci#

enti-c; s reco*ni9ed in di+erent wys by 3r%$ Niet9sche nd

Heide**er,

The &ur&ose o! the <heno"enolo*y o! S&irit$ is to rise con#

sciousness to sel!#consciousness nd onwrd to the &th where




consciousness in *enerl -nds the bsolute Notion, He*el sid

this bout his "ethod nd tht "ens the Notion s well, He

notes$ . The "ethod itsel! by "ens o! this "o"ent e%&nds itsel!

into syste",/ :Science o! =o*ic$ E,T,$ &, K;, He*el rrely wrote

bout his syste"$ so this i"&ortnt ide is distincti(e lin'

"on* the Notion$ the "ethod$ nd the syste", He*el clerly

sid tht the . , , , the bsolute "ethod$ which hs the Notion !or

its soul nd content, , , :Science o! =o*ic$ E,T,$ &,KL;, Thin'

bout the nture o! the bsolute "ethod,/ 2ho tody would cli"

to h(e . the bsolute "ethod8/ :Ferrer$ ;

7he absolute method moves self-consciousness towardsthe path where consciousness in general Cnds the abso-lute otion! a systemic understanding.

7he method itself by means of this moment e;pands it-self into a system.2 %Berrer! F,,F&

The .syste"/ is not -nlly o! He*el/s "'in* but o! his e%&eri#

ence, Only so"eone whose e%&erience o! the re(eltion o! the

"enin* o! re(eltion beco"es syste"ic could "'e such

cli",




7he purpose of the Jhenomenology of Spirit is to get usto the standpoint of the circle of circles! namely! the pure!absolute! eternal! spiritual! ensouled reLected into itself

otion.

#egel commented in a personal way! “I Cnd the distinc-tive mar0 of %the& Science in the Self-movement of the o-tion. . . / .

7his plainly points to the importance that the otionhas for #egel2s system. 7he Cnal goal for #egel2s is theabsolute otion1 this is his methodology! movement! andthe content of his metaphysical system.2 %Berrer! F,,F&

The Notion is not n bstrct notion o! ny thin*, It is the b#

solute Notion$ o! which there is lwys only one # the re(eltion

o! the "enin* o! re(eltion s syste"ic understndin* o! the

Sel!, This understndin* o! the Sel! s relity re"o(es the rel#

tionlity o! sel!#conscious 'nowin*$ hence is bsolute 'nowin*,

. . . 7he purpose of the Jhenomenology of Spirit is byanalogy li0e Jlato2s allegory of the cave in the epublic. Itis the movement from the shadows out of the cave into thesunlight. 7he purpose of the Jhenomenology of Spirit is to

bring us to an absolute beginning. 7he Jhenomenology ofSpirit is the ladder to the absolute beginning as the Sci-ence of *ogic. 7he third point is the Jhenomenologybrings the system to the point of the absolute otion!which are both the methodology and the movement of

#egel2s metaphysical system.2




/ Why would #egel have started with sense certainty ashe did in the Jhenomenology of Spirit? #ow are the pat-terns of consciousness! self-consciousness! eason! Spirit!in their Self-unfolding a concern of Jhilosophy? 7he edu-cation of consciousness through history to Jhilosophy isimportant! but it is not Jhilosophy . . . / %Berrer! F,,F&

The nlo*y is ccurte in the sense tht the lle*ory o! the

c(e is the e%&osition o! the e"er*ence o! reBe%i(e sel!#con#

sciousness throu*h &idei, He*el reco*ni9es the e"er*ence o!

understndin* s Sel!#or*ni9ed syste"$ or in He*el/s ter"$

.The Science/, The beyond ws new to He*el in U$ due to the

e%&erience co""e"orted in the &oe" Eleusis$ dedicted to the

&oet Holderlin,

. . . 7o overcome historical alienation in thoughtthrough a conceptual comprehension of this dialecticalmovement. 7his philosophical overcoming of alienationma0es possible a reconciliation or /acceptance2 of the dy-namic! Self-reproducing! but at the same time Self-super-

seding contradictions of modernity.2 / In this way the Jhattempts to lead us! as philosophically educated but unsat-isCed modern individuals! to philosophical Self-0nowledgein absolute Spirit. Identity and dierence! I shall argue!remain operative concepts for this dialectical movement!particularly in the chapters on consciousness and self-con-sciousness. #egel2s overall aim in the Jh is thus to over-




come the dierence of consciousness and formalism ofself-consciousness through the intersub8ective unity ofSpirit which preserves both dierence and identity2 %Sin-nerbrin0! F,,F&

Dilectic is "erely the . rtionl/ e%&lntion o! the re(eltion

o! re(eltion, O(erco"in* the di+erence requires the &reser(#

tion o! both identity nd di+erence in the di+erence between

the",

#egel describes the Jh as depicting the /coming-to-beof Wissenschaft as such or of 0nowledge2 / Wissenschaft or philosophical Science! according to #egel! refers to theSelf-organiing system of speculative 0nowledge! whoseintroduction consists of phenomenology itself. Such a sys-tem -comprising *ogic %not naive! simple logic! but logic

as the interplay between 0nowing and reality&! the philoso-phy of ature! and philosophy of Spirit is the appropriatee;pression of absolute 0nowing as the system of reLe;-ively understanding-understanding in its all-at-onceness1 itis the vision that goes beyond the Self and eality! whichcontradicts itself where the Self becomes the realityloo0ed at. It is / 7he most sublime 6oncept and the onewhich belongs to the modern age and its religion2 %Jh

FF>FE&. Anderstanding %as absolute eist& has moved be-

yond the unity and immediacy of ethical life and faith inancient and medieval life worlds! but also beyond the for-mal Self-reLection that deCnes the life world of the 'n-lightenment.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,,&




He*el e%&resses the o(erco"in* o! erlier e&ochs in the trn#

sition to the new, Those li!e worlds h(e literlly ended, He*el

hi"sel! .h&&ened to e%&erience/ the end o! the world in the

sense o! the "et&hysicl#rtionl#theolo*icl world o! his &rede#

cessors,

#egel says that the rationality of history /is not a pre-supposition of study1 it is a result which 3he adds withoutapology5 happens to be 0nown to myself because I already

0now the whole.2

%*ischer! n.d.&

Spirit has not only lost its essential life1 it is also con-scious of this loss! and of the Cnitude that is its own con-tent

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

This ntici&tes nd deser(es co"&rison with Heide**er/s

.-nitude o! bein*/ nd .bndon"ent by bein*/ s e%&erienced

throu*h :the e(ent o!; Erei*nis,

/ather than successfully developing consciousness tothe standpoint of reason! #egel Cnds in post-)antian ide-alism a reversion to the standpoint of reLection throughthe elevation of either the sub8ective or ob8ective pole ofthe /absolute identity2. %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&




For He*el$ then$ Sel!#wre#consciousness "ust de(elo& nd

o(erco"e its own li"ittions$ rther thn bein* &osited s sub#

0ect or .bsolute identity/, Identity or the I#Sub0ect is indeed

non#substntil$ but not bsolute$ only bsolute 'nowled*e o! the

bsolute Notion throu*h bsolute "ethod chie(es wht Mnt$

Schellin* nd others i"ed t, .He*el/s criticis"$ directed

obliquely t Schellin*$ is tht conte"&orry &hiloso&hy !ils to

.*i(e di+erence its due/, This di+erence is si"ultneously "ulti#

&licity nd the corres&ondin* inbility to !ully deter"ine *i(en

thin*,

%It&. . . fails to comprehend the comple; interplay of form and content! identity and dierence! sub8ect and ob- 8ect! which deCnes rational actuality. 6onse@uently! thereis a failure to construct an organic system of reason inwhich these antitheses are reconciled within a Self-com-prehending unity. %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

7he /comple; interplay2 is the Self as reality itself!which /plays because it plays2! together with the interplaybetween 0nowing and the 0nown. ut the failure is not toconstruct an organic system %a contradiction in terms inany case& but to e;perience Self-comprehending unity as a/system of reason2.




/ 7his thesis can be 8ustiCed only by performing the e;-position of the system itself1 that is! by demonstrating thesuspension of the opposition between substance and sub-

8ect within Self-0nowing Spirit.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

Here is the cru% o! the *ol o! the <heno"enolo*y$ lon* with

tht o! Zrthustr nd the 4eitr*e, It "ust not si"&ly de"on#

strte but provo0e the e%&erience o! tht sus&ension, This is the

"enin* o! Heide**er/s stte"ent tht the 4eitr*e .!iled to

chie(e &recisely the !or" tht I require s 2or',/ A 2or' !or

Heide**er re(els so"ethin* beyond itsel! in s&eci-c "nner$

s in the wor' o! rt$ or the wor' o! technolo*y,




7he egativity of the Sub8ect as ';perience of eality asSchema

One i"&ortnt sense o! wht He*el clls the . Sub0ect/ is !ree

cti(ity or si"&le ne*ti(ity$ . doublin*/ "o(e"ent o! Sel!#&osit#

in* tht sets u& nother in o&&osition to itsel!$ ne*tes this o&&o#

sition$ nd then returns to itsel! in its Sel!#identity tht hs inte#

*rted otherness,

:Sinnerbrin'$ ;

The Absolute is thus essentilly result) it is the 2hole in

the co"&lete &rocess o! its historicl un!oldin* nd culturl

Sel!#

recollection in bsolute S&irit,

:Sinnerbrin'$ ;

He*el .h&&ens/ to 'now bsolute S&irit in history becuse he

.h&&ens/ to 'now the whole, It is not result o! nythin* other

thn s&eci-c e%&erience tht .h&&ened/ to He*el,

.The &heno"enolo*icl e%&osition i"s to led the &hiloso&hi#

clly nd culturlly situted indi(idul . !ro" his uneducted

stnd&oint/ to s&eculti(e Science$ the ether o! . &ure Sel!#reco*#




nition in bsolute otherness/ :<hG L/U;, The loss o! identity$

the e%&erience o! dire"&tion nd liention tht *enertes the

need o! &hiloso&hy$ is trns-*ured$ He*el cli"s$ by the

Sel!#reco*nition o! liented sub0ecti(ity in the ulti"te$

Sel!#*roundin* !or" intersub0ecti(e S&irit$ n"ely s&eculti(e

&hiloso&hy, At the end o! this &hiloso&hicl#historicl odyssey$ the

n/(e consciousness co"es to reco*ni9e itsel!$ indeed return to

itsel!$ in the &hiloso&hicl Sel! consciousness o! S&irit in its his#

toricl culturl de(elo&"ent,/

. 7nli'e ncient wisdo"$ He*el/s &heno"enolo*y see's to be

not only the lo(e o! wisdo" but lso . science o! wisdo"/

:Sel!#or*ni9in* syste" o! wisdo"; itsel!$ the &hiloso&hicl co"#

&rehension o! the e%&erience o! the whole,

.Such cli"s to 'nowled*e$ "oreo(er$ re ne(er *i(en in their

!ull co"&le%ity but need to be de(elo&ed throu*h the . dilecticl

e%&erience/ o! testin* (rious &tterns o! 'nowin* nd truth,

He*el thus sys o! &hiloso&hicl Science tht it "ni!ests itsel!

historiclly nd culturlly in n underde(elo&ed !or"6 . in co"in*

on the scene it is not yet Science in its de(elo&ed nd un!olded




truth/ :<hG /VU;, 2ht we shll obser(e in the course o! the

<hG is &recisely how &hiloso&hicl 'nowled*e de(elo&s itsel! into

reBe%i(e$ Sel!#*roundin*$ nd conce&tully rticulted 2hole,

:Sinnerbrin'$ ;

He*el e%&lictes throu*h dilectic$ but the "o"ent o! the .r#

ticulted 2hole/ is &re#*i(en in s&eci-c e%&erience,

O(erco"in* A&&ernce (s, the In#itsel!

/#egel underlines in this conte;t the ontological senseof consciousness as a relation to otherness that is also aSelf-relation: / 6onsciousness simultaneously distinguishesitself from something! and at the same time relates itselfto it2 %Jh E>F&. 6onsciousness is a bipolar relation com-prising the two moments of being-for-another and be-ing-in-itself! or 0nowing and truth: 0nowing designates thebeing of something for consciousness1 while truth is thisbeing-in-itself that consciousness 0nows to be posited out-side itself. ecause consciousness itself posits the distinc-tion between 0nowing and truth in each conCguration!consciousness itself provides the standard for the Self-e;-

amination of 0nowledge.

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&




7he Self-reLe;ive /relation2 between Self! Self as other!and Self as itself is posited by consciousness itself in aspeciCc mode of e;perience. 6onsciousness provides theability! through its reLe;ive systemic comple;ity! of pro-

ducing the emergent Self-organiing system of 0nowing!or understanding understanding itself! understanding therevelation of the meaning of revelation.

In this sense! consciousness comprises a hermeneuticunity of 0nowing and truth! concept and ob8ect. 6onscious-ness ta0es something or other to be the in-itself or the ob-

8ect! while 0nowledge is the being of the ob8ect for con-sciousness. Where e;amination shows that these momentsof 0nowing and truth do not correspond! our usual e;peri-

ence is that consciousness must alter its 0nowledge so asto conform to the ob8ect. 7he phenomenological e;peri-ence! however! is @uite dierent: 0nowledge and ob8ect

form a hermeneutic unity in which a change in our 0nowl-edge of an ob8ect implies a change in the ob8ect of our0nowledge. What consciousness previously too0 to be thein-itself turns out to have been only an in-itself for con-sciousness1 consciousness in turn posits a new standard of truth according to which ob8ects are now understood. 7his

Self-testing of 0nowledge thus results in a transformationin the hermeneutic pattern of 0nowing and truth.2

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

7his /hermeneutic unity of 0nowing and truth! conceptand ob8ect2 is an ideological posit that /ta0es something or

other to be the in-itself or the ob8ect2. 7hrough ideology/0nowledge and ob8ect form a hermeneutic unity in whicha change in our 0nowledge of an ob8ect implies a changein the ob8ect of our 0nowledge.2 =ur /Self-testing of 0nowl-edge2 %ideology& /thus results in a transformation in thehermeneutic pattern of 0nowing and truth.2




/ . . . ';perience involves a dialectical movement of re- Lection that produces a new ob8ect and Cgure of con-sciousness through determinate negation: the productivenegation of content that produces another determinate

content necessarily related to its predecessor. / %Sinner-brin0! F,,F&

7&on "eetin* so"eone new !or instnce$ ideolo*y :s &re0ud*#

"ent; unites 'nowin* with relity until .the &roducti(e ne*tion

o! content/ :ne*tion o! the &re0udice; dis&ro(es s&ects o! this

ideolo*y nd thus .&roduces nother deter"inte content/

throu*h the "odi-ction o! tht ideolo*y nd new unity o!

'nowin* nd relity,

7his process of determinate negation! an untrue modeof 0nowledge itself produces a more comple; conCgura-tion of consciousness as a deCnite result. 7his result is /the nothing of that from which it results2a result that con-

tains what was true in the preceding 0nowledge2 %Jh4+>T&. 7he goal of this progression is to attain the point/where 0nowledge Cnds itself! where 6oncept correspondsto ob8ect and ob8ect to 6oncept2 %Jh ET>,&. Kt this point!the distinction in consciousness between cognition and be-ing! or certainty and truth! is suspended in absolute 0now-ing.

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

An untrue "ode o! 'nowled*e itsel! &roduces "ore co"&le%

con-*urtion o! consciousness s de-nite result, This in#




cresed co"&le%ity o! consciousness is the &rerequisite !or e"er#

*ence o! the new understndin* . where 'nowled*e -nds itsel!$

where @once&t corres&onds to ob0ect nd ob0ect to @once&t/

where . , , , the distinction in consciousness between co*nition

nd bein*$ or certinty nd truth$ is sus&ended in bsolute 'now#

in*,

7he phenomenology concludes with this attainment ofthe level of the 6oncept! the overcoming of alienation inSelf-0nowing Spirit: the sub8ect-ob8ect opposition is sus-pended! immediacy proves to be mediation! and the sepa-ration of 0nowing and truth is overcome in the Self-com-prehending 6oncept.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

.Sel!#'nowin* s&irit/ nd .Sel!#co"&rehendin* @once&t/ re the

uni-ction o! "ind nd @once&t in bsolute 'nowin*$ bsolute

"ethod nd bsolute Notion$ ll ter"s !or the dyn"ic !unction#

in* syste" o! reBe%i(e understndin*,

/It is manifest that behind the so-called curtain which issupposed to conceal the inner world! there is nothing tobe seen unless we go behind it ourselves! as much in order that we may see! as that there may be something behind




there which can be seen %Jh +,F>+4E&.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

He*el here ntici&tes Heide**er/s notion tht the .interior/ is

in(ented$ we lwys be*in .outside/ with the thin*s the"sel(es,

The e%&erience o! sel!#consciously bein*#one/s#Sel!$ in which t

-rst e(ery rel deter"intion &&ers to be e%tin*uished or re#

"o(ed by bstrction$ is the Sel! tht hs rri(ed t itsel!

throu*h "edition in the other which$ s other$ lso shres tht

Sel!$ nd so is its Sel!, sel!#consciousness is the Sel!$ reltin* it#

sel! only to itsel! s si"ultneously indi(idul nd shred) it is

there!ore the si"&le Sel!#reltion tht co"&rises be#

in*#one/s#Sel!$ which lwys "ens bein*# with#others,

Initilly$ the 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* hs *rs&ed

its Sel!) relity hs thus wo'en u& nd beco"e wre o! itsel!, In

the be*innin* o! its wreness o! its content$ the Sel! &&ers s

'nowin* o! its content in sub0ecti(e reBection se&rted !ro"

tht content, In this wy the content &&ers s ob0ecti(e to the

sub0ect/s sub0ecti(e 'nowin* nd understndin*,

This 'nowin*#understndin* is still enclosed within thou*ht




nd is the 'nowin*# understndin* only o! the sub0ect, 4ecuse

the &ure 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* is so !r con-ned

within sub0ecti(ity$ it hs the ur*e to o(erco"e this by disco(er#

in* truth$ nd truth s the lst result beco"es lso the be*innin*

o! nother s&here o! 'nowin*#understndin*, It only re"ins

here to indicte this trnsition,

In the reBe%i(e 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* the hith#

erto ob0ecti(e content beco"es the Sel!/s own 'nowin*#under#

stndin* o! tht content s the Sel!/s 'nowin*#understndin* it#

sel!$ while the sub0ecti(ity o! the sub0ect nd the ob0ecti(ity o!

the ob0ect re seen s &osited nd -ctionl, Sub0ecti(ity is n b#

strction o! tht &rt o! the Sel! tht is indi(iduted$ while ob0ec#

ti(ity is n bstrction o! tht &rt which is lwys lredy

shred, 4ut the thin'in* o! reBe%i(e 'nowin*#understndin* is

lso !ul-lled bein*#one/s#Sel!$ the Sel! tht co"&rehends itsel! s

relity, It is bein*#one/s#Sel! s the concrete nd so bsolutely in#

tensi(e relity, The 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* is relity

&ositin* itsel! s the bsolute unity o! itsel! nd its content in the

thin'in* o! 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* o! 'nowin*#under#

stndin*$ nd thus contrcts itsel! bc' into the i""edicy o! be#




in*#one/s#Sel!, In its !ull thin'in* wreness o! its 'nowin*#un#

derstndin* s necessrily -nite$ &ers&ecti(l nd hori9onl$ nd

the si"ultneous bndon"ent o! its -ctionl cli" to be ble to

'now itsel! in totlity$ relity beco"es wre o! itsel! s relity$

i,e, bsolutely, The uni(erse o! "et&hysics is n i"&ossible &ro#

0ection o! relity in its totlity$ i"&ossible due to the -nite$ &er#

s&ecti(l nd hori9onl nture o! relity itsel!,

The reBe%i(e 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* is itsel! the

Sel!$ the &syche$ nd the world,

Aliented Sel!#@onsciousness

/#egel2s discussion of self-consciousness represents oneof the pivotal moments in the unfolding of the Jh. 6on-sciousness of an otherness distinct from itself has been su-perseded by self-consciousness in the =ther1 the conscioussub8ect has begun its transformation into self-conscious%inter&sub8ectivity. /

/7hree aspects of the 6oncept of self-consciousnessemerge! corresponding to the elements of universality!particularity! and individuality: the abstract identity ofself-consciousness or /I R I2%universality&1 self-conscious-ness as desire! leading to the life and death struggle andmaster>slave relationship %particularity&1 and the intersub-




8ective /doubling2 of self-consciousness that mar0s theemergence of Spirit %individuality&.

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

The .bstrct identity ,,, o! .I P I/ co"&rises the substntil

sub0ect, Sel!# consciousness s desire$ ledin* to the li!e nd

deth stru**le nd "stersl(e reltionshi&,/ &roduces the -rst

&roble"tic o! the substntil sub0ect$ which is o(erco"e by the

.intersub0ecti(e .doublin*/ o! sel!#consciousness tht "r's the

e"er*ence/ o! reBe%i(e sel!#consciousness$ or ethicl "et&hysi#

cl theoreticl thin'in*,

sel!#consciousness rises s the &ossession o! Sel! s !urther#

in* o! the desire !or &ossession in *enerl, As desire it is unli"#

ited # it desires &ossession o! the whole tht is ne(er ctul$ since

so"e &rt lwys re"ins outstndin* inso!r s the Sel! e%ists,

Our .nturl/ wy o! seein* the world is throu*h &r*"t #

.use!ul thin*s. # s&eci-clly use!ul to the lbor required to t'e

cre o! wht concerns us, They re the thin*s o! co""on sense,

At -rst$ nd !or the "ost &rt$ it is &r*"t tht we re wre

o!$ tht disinhibit our bility to ct, 2e beco"e wre o! &r*#

"t s .thin*s/ which re .0ust there/ :&resent; "ost !orce!ully




when they re unsuitble !or the ts' to hnd$ but lso when en#

terin* n ethicl or theoreticl "ode$ i,e, the "ode o! the .I#Sub#

0ect/

He*el/s interest is to s&e' o! the e(er#chn*in* reltionshi&

to lbor :s o&&osed to the 3r%in (iew o! the shi!tin* nd

e(er#lientin* reltionshi&s to the "ens o! &roduction;,

He*el clls these two reltionshi&s .the li(in* nturl reltion/

nd the .-%ed reltion,/ The nturl reltion or nturl lbor is

whole wy o! li!e tht stis-es ll need throu*h lbor, The . -%ed/

or . uni(ersl/ reltion in(ol(es the "ore historiclly !"ilir

!or"s o! lbor rn*in* !ro" !eudlis" to &roto#c&itlis" tht

*enerte dis&ossession nd liention :dis&ossession o! Sel!;,

This 5-%ed reltion5 in(ol(e certinty o! the deter"intion o!

the thin*$ which is lwys n o(erdeter"intion,

A !eudl or &roto#c&itlist !or" o! lbor bsorbs these or*nic

lbor &rocesses throu*h certin de"nds such s the &rceli9#

tion nd s&ecili9tion o! lbor ts's, 2hen nturl lbor con#

!ronts !or the -rst ti"e new$ uni(ersli9ed "ode o! lbor not

e"er*ent !ro" the &rticulrs o! . li!e$/ "uch less the lborer/s




nd !"ily/s own needs$ when such uni(ersl is i"&osed on nt#

url lbor$ liention be*ins, Nturl lbor beco"es .&rtitioned/

nd "ore "echnicl$ becuse (riety is e%cluded !ro" it$ nd so

it beco"es itsel! so"ethin* "ore uni(ersl$ "ore !orei*n to the

Sel!/s own wy o! bein*, 2ht o! nturl lbor tht/s not inte#

*rted into the new lborin* or*ni9tion is re"inder$ sur#

&lus, This sur&lus itsel! beco"es the ob0ect o! stru**le !or &os#

session$ nd !urther cuse o! liention,

.The wor' Wo! the lordly"ilitry clssX cn be nothin* but the

w*in* o! wr or trinin* !or this wor'/ ) its lbor is the .indi+er#

ent lbor o! *o(ern"ent nd cour*e/ ) s such the wor' o! the

lordly clss hs "edited reltion to wht#is#wor'ed$ i,e, lnd

in !eudl society, Throu*h &ossession o! the &esntry tht wor's

the lnd in n i""edite sense$ ne*tion on ech side re(erses

the reltions such tht the lordly clss hs n i""edite reltion

while the &esntry is "edited towrds the lnd tht it wor's

but does not &ossess, And yet this re"ins n o(ersi"&li-ction,

The reson it is n o(ersi"&li-ction is tht lord$ !or his &rt$ is

only lord on one scle$ beyond tht scle ech =ord hs =ord o!




his own$ the ne%t le(el o! lndowner bo(e hi", This relity o!

!eudl or*ni9tion cretes the sitution tht bonds"n/s i"#

"edite su&erior is in "ny wys "ore 'in to the bonds"n

thn to lord "uch !urther u& the scle,

The bour*eoisie stnds s "editor or d"inistrtor be#

tween these clsses in the trns!er nd "n*e"ent o! &osses#

sion, The bour*eois thus hs no reltion to wht#is#wor'ed$

"erely reltion towrds the "edition o! such between the

&esntry nd the lordly clsses, This lc' o! rel reltion to

&ossession le(es the bour*eois without the "ens to chie(e

the requisite cour*e !or Sel!# &ossession, Rther thn reltion

to lbor which results in certin "ode o! &ossession$ the bour#

*eois hs to "'e do with n e"&ty . ownershi&/ o! bstrct

&roducts$ towrd which they h(e neither the reltion o! deter#

"inin* the &roduction nor +ectin* it throu*h lbor,

Throu*h lbor$ the &esntry e%&resses its socil bein*$ its .

ethicl li!e$/ nd stnds in s&ecil reltion with the -rst

clss/the "ilitry clss$ the lordly clss$ the bsolute clss6 . the

ethicl li!e o! this clss is trust in the bsolute clss$ in ccord

with the totlity o! the -rst clss it is c&ble o! cour*e$ nd in




this lbor nd the resultin* dn*er beco"es the s"e s the -rst

clss/ , In the cse o! the &esntry the .Sel!/ is initilly .

clss#Sel!/ $ i,e, clss#consciousness is the initil "ode o! sub0ec#

ti(ity !or those not lredy .!ree/ in n bsolute sense, In the cse

o! the lordly nd the &esnt clsses$ there is direct reltion be#

tween their lbor nd their Sel!#&ossession$ or !reedo", The

bour*eoisie$ howe(er$ lc's such reltion, For the bour*eois$

who "ust encounter &r*"t only s ."ere thin*s/ or .ob0ects/

to be (lued$ the liention inherent in the sub0ecti(#ob0ecti(e

stnce beco"es inesc&ble, Sl(ery in the ncient sense is i"#

&ossible becuse the !und"entl clss# nture o! the &esnt

clss hs lredy been reco*ni9ed$ which hs lredy reco*ni9ed

their co""on hu"nity, .Hu"n/ ws n i"&ossible conce&t !or

the Ro"n$ becuse Ro"n sl(ery could not cce&t ny reco*ni#

tion o! the hu"nity o! the sl(e or reco*nition o! the sl(e/s

bility to will$ "uch less desire to own the sl(e/s will s the

sl(e/s will,

2ithin c&itlis" the !eudl contrdictions re not o(erco"e

but intensi-ed, The clss#wreness o! the &roletrit cn only

rise !ro" the clss# consciousness o! the !eudl &esnt$ but the




&roletrit is !urther educted nd "ore Sel!#wre$ nd thus

"ore wre o! the clss contrdictions t wor' thn the &esnt

clss could be, As the &roletrit is surrounded nd enc&sulted

by the incresin* nu"bers o! the bour*eoisie$ the li"itless but

unttinble desire !or Sel!#&ossession is trns"uted to the idel

o! . &ro*ress/ #"iddle clss one#u&"nshi& rised to socil &rin#

ci&le,

2ithin these contrdictions new sense o! .co""on hu"n#

ity/$ inBuenced s well by @hristin ethicl thin'in*$ beco"es in#

e(itble,




7he 7ruth of Self-6ertainty

This short trnsitionl &ss*e :UU#VV; describes the in(er#

sion or reBection o! the bi&olr structure o! consciousness into

tri&olr "odel o! Sel!# consciousness, The True is no lon*er oth#

erness or e%ternl ob0ecti(ity but consciousness in its own 'now#

in*6 . the .in#itsel!/ turns out to be "ode in which the ob0ect is

only !or nother/

/7he circular movement of self-consciousness is a simul-taneous positing and suspension of dierence! a con-sciousness of dierence that is also identical with a con-sciousness of itself! but which has not yet attained thecomprehension of this inCnite relation.2 %Sinnerbrin0!

F,,F&

The .tri&olr "odel/ includes consciousness$ sel!#conscious#

ness$ nd sel!#conscious sel!#consciousness, S&irit hs not yet en#

tered the scene s understndin* understndin*$ or bsolute

Mnowin*,

/Ks self-consciousness! it is movement1 but since what itdistinguishes from itself is only itself as itself! the dier-




ence! as an otherness! is immediately superseded for it1the dierence is not! and it is only the motionless tautol-ogy of: /I am I21 but since for it the dierence does nothave the form of being! it is not self-consciousness %Jh

+,G>+4T&2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

/self-consciousness is essentially the reLection out ofsensuous otherness %Jh +,G>+4T&! a reLection from theworld of sensuous ob8ectivity bac0 to the sub8ect as con-scious of itself. ut how does self-consciousness establishits particular Self-identity in relation to this otherness? Is

there a 0ind of relation to something dierent or distinct from me that in the very same relation negates this dier-ence and thus returns me to myself? 7he answer is desire3egierde5: a relationship that negates sensuous othernessso as to establish the unity of one2s own deCnite Self-iden-tity.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

/ . . . self-consciousness has a doubled ob8ect: the imme-

diate phenomenal ob8ect of desire! and self-consciousnessas the / ob8ective2 of desire! that for the sa0e of whichsomething is desired %oneself or one2s life.2

/ K self-consciousness! in being an ob8ect! is 8ust asmuch /I2 as ob8ect. With this! we already have before usthe otion of Spirit. What still lies ahead for conscious-ness is the e;perience of what Spirit is2this absolute sub-stance which is the unity of the dierent independent Selfconsciousness2s which! in their opposition! en8oy perfect

freedom and independence: /I2 that is /We2 and /We2 that is/I22 %Jh +,->+TT&.2




/#egel claims that we have already attained reciprocalrecognition in the concept of self-consciousness! whichwill prove to be the 6oncept of Spirit. ut this intersub8ec-tive turn has not emerged from the e;perience of self-con-

sciousness itself. =n the contrary! the /e;perience of whatSpirit is2 /as a recognitive intersub8ective unity of self-con-sciousnesses still lies far ahead for consciousness! and willnot e;plicitly emerge until the section on mutual forgive-ness in the section on religion.2

/ y superseding the other each self-consciousness atthe same time /receives bac0 its own Self / %or arms its

own Self-identity&! and by superseding itself each / thuslets the other again go free2 %or implicitly recognies theother as independent&3H,5 %Jh +,>++&. In this recipro-cal movement! I supersede the other and thereby armmyself! but in superseding myself I also allow the =ther tobe free. Ks Jin0ard remar0s! the relation to the =ther thatconstitutes self-consciousness is / double-edged2 in thesense that / the other both arms and undermines thatsub8ect2s sense of himself! and it is this double-edged @ual-ity that leads to the dialectic of dependence and indepen-dence that structures the discussion of mastery and servi-tude.2 %+4! EG&.2

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

He*el returns to the sel!#consciousness s interior nd rech#

in* .outwrds/$ sense tht ori*intes in the &ositin* o! the

I#Sub0ect itsel!, The Sel! lwys e%&eriences the other s other

nd only throu*h this "ens desires the other !or hi"sel!, The

sub0ect/s sense o! hi"sel! s substntil sub0ect :se&rted




I#Sub0ect; is re1r"ed rther thn o(erco"e, The desire !or cer#

tinty sub(erts He*el5s own insi*ht tht the &riori cte*ories o!

Mnt re &resu"&ti(e nd rise !ro" the desire !or certinty nd

security in the uncnniness o! world,

/7he sub8ect must secure his independence by becom-ing dependent on the recognition by an / other2 such thatthe sub8ect Cnds his independence armed by virtue ofbeing dependent on an / other2 who confers his recogni-tion by virtue of arming his own dependence on the sub-

8ect2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

The sub0ect secures his inde&endence s substntil se&#

rted I#Sub0ect only, 4ut the 3stery o! the I#Sub0ect is only

sche"tic 3stery,

/ It undergoes the e;perience of une@ual recognition! a

relationship of domination that is %partially and inade-@uately& resolved! through the intersub8ective mediation of the =ther! in the e;perience of the unhappy conscious-ness.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

/ . . . 7he Crst e;perience of self-consciousness is that of domination: the une@ual! non-reciprocal recognition rela-tion between master and slave.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

This &resu&&oses the &re(ious .li!e nd deth stru**le/ !or

do"intion$ itsel! de&endent on the unrelity o! the I#Sub0ect nd




the desire to ttin so"e 'ind o! &ositi(e substntility !or wht

is in essence &urely ne*ti(e, This stru**le is the stru**le to

"intin nd enhnce the in(ention o! the substntil sub0ect in

the !ce o! the reco*nition by the other o! it s !cde nd is

thus "edited,

/7hese /proto-sub8ects2 of desire each see0 to establish a

stable sense of Self-identity.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

There is not yet the in(entl Sub0ect$ the res&onse to the e(ent

o! encounter,

/ . . . Kt this stage! their / reLection into a unity2 /namely an intersub8ective unity of mutual recognition2has not yetbeen achieved1 independent master and dependent slave

e;ist rather in an oppositional relationship of domination.self-consciousness must still undergo the e;perience ofdomination and sub8ection.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

This desire is not the !ull drwin* towrds tht the Sel! e%&eri#

ences in bein*#towrds#Eros but "erely its sche"tis",




7he $ythical Jsyche

The "ythicl &syche delinetes the e"er*ence o! sel!#con#

sciousness itsel!, 3n is wre o! hi"sel! s the uthor o! his c#

tions but not o! the source o! the decisions behind those ctions

e%ce&t in the wy tht he hs been initited into sense tht

.they/ h(e lwys lredy decided tht tht is the wy thin*s re

done, 3n is t the "ercy o! the lw$ "orl$ rbitrry nd bso#

lute$ not ble to &ercei(e hi"sel! in the "o"ent o! decision nd

thereby to 0ud*e the ethiclity o! those decisions in the s&eci#

-city o! the sitution, The theoreticl stnce is lso hidden$ deri(#

ti(e s it is !ro" the ethicl stnce$ s "n is inquisiti(e but un#

ble to &ercei(e hi"sel! in the ct o! &ro0ectin* his own theoreti#

cl ides, 3terilly "n is in(enti(e with tools nd wre o!

their si*ni-cnce within the tool#conte%t$ but while he cn

&ro0ect hi"sel! usin* not yet e%istent tool nd thereby in(ent#

in* it$ he is unble to &ercei(e this &ro0ection nd Sel! chie(ed

in(ention$ such tht the -nished in(ention is scribed to n e%ter#

nl !orce such s *od,

2ithin the "ythicl &syche "enin*s o!




thin*s#within#the#world re i""edite nd unquestioned$ de(el#

o&ed !ro" birth throu*h ritul cce&tnce o! society/s "ess*es

o! . how thin*s re done/ , No(elties h(e the i""edite "enin*

con!erred by the &ro0ected &ower tht bestowed the no(el *i!t,

Gods the"sel(es re e%&erienced s the trce o! their &ssin*$

tht trce bein* the *i!t o! the *od itsel!,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9'9

$orality and the $ythical Jsyche

On Mnt nd 3orlity by Nr(e Strnd

2hile I *ree with Strnd/s conclusion tht there re no e%#

ce&tion#less "orl rules$ there see"s to be n issue re*rdin*

wht I would ter" the distinction between ethics nd "orlity,

$orality s bsolute lw is !or children who h(e not yet de(el#

o&ed the bility to "'e ethical 0ud*"ents$ n bility &ro(ided by

the ."esurin* !cility/ in <lto/s ter"$ or in ours$ the I#Sub0ect,

The di1culty with "orl lw co"es bout in two wys$ s

Strnd &oints out in his thou*ht e%&eri"ent with the wo"n who

hs &ro"ised to be t n &&oint"ent but runs into two situ#

tions tht both ; "ore i"&ortnt nd b; will "'e her "iss the

&&oint"ent, Fro" the &ers&ecti(e o! n bsolute "orl lw

there is n inherent conBict$ nd the true Mntin "orlist would

&recisely choose the o&tion tht is inherently bsurd :who would

let !riend !ll &rt or their child die 0ust to 'ee& business &#

&oint"ent tht is no "ore thn !or"lity in ny cse8;, In

ter"s o! the conBict$ societies bsed on "orl lw h(e hd to

&ro(ide "ore e%ce&tions thn lws :(i9, the "in 0ob o! Rbbi




is to reinter&ret nd &ro(ide e%ce&tions to the ewish "orl lw;,

In ter"s o! the bsurdity$ no hierrchy o! rules is "intinble in

e(ery sitution, In !ct this is &recisely the @hristin techin*

tht God bec"e "n to end sin6 with no *urntor o! the "orl

lw :God is now "n li'e ny other; sin$ which is creted by

the "orl lw$ is no lon*er &ossible,

Tht le(es the question o! ethics, It/s here tht we see the

truth o! Niet9sche/s stte"ent tht @hristinity is <ltonis" !or

the <eo&le$ not si"&ly in the "et&hysicl sense o! there bein*

.rel/ world behind &&ernces$ but in the sense tht <lto/s

ethicl "esurin* !cility$ the dult I#Sub0ect$ &ro(ides the c&#

bility !or situtionl ethicl 0ud*"ent, The !und"entl bility

o! the "et&hysicl &syche s o&&osed to the "ythicl &syche is

to be ethicl, This bility si"ultneously "'es the theoreticl

stnce o! "et&hysics itsel! &ossible, It does so (i si"&li-ed

re&resenttion$ &ro(ided by the Sel! to the clculti(e sub0ect$

where only those &r"eters dee"ed rele(nt by the Sel! re in

!ct re&resented to the "esurin* I$ since t'in* into ccount

ll the &r"eters the Sel! is wre o! would "'e decision i"#

&ossible, The I itsel! is nothin* "ore thn (oid &oint$ the



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9''

te"&orry &oint to which the &rticulr re&resenttion is re&re#

sented, It e%ists only to "'e ethicl :nd theoreticl; 0ud*"ents

&ossible without recourse to the "orl lw,

Mnt/s re(ersion to "orlity required He*el/s correction, In

this cse He*el would &oint out tht Strnd :s Mnt/s d(octe;

hsn/t de"onstrted tht &ro"isin* is inherently ethicl$ t lest

not inherently ethicl in this sitution, I! it is not$ then the con#

Bict !lls &rt nd$ rther thn bein* "orl duty to 'ee& her

&ro"ise$ it is the wo"n/s ethicl 0ud*"ent tht leds her to s#

sist her !riend$ s(e her son nd li'ely not e(en h(e "uch con#

cern o(er "issin* her &&oint"ent, It is the I#Sub0ect tht hs

the c&city to 0ud*e ethiclity @uic0ly :(i si"&li-ed re&resen#

ttion; in ny *i(en sitution,

O! course this is di1cult$ 0ust s bein* n dult is "ore di1#

cult thn childishly !ollowin* &re#*i(en rules, As sub0ect we do

our best to "'e 0ud*"ent bsed on the re&resenttion o! the

sitution &ro(ided by the Sel!$ but we cn only be relatively con-#

dent tht the 0ud*"ent is correct e(en within this re&resenttion$

ne(er "ind tht the re&resenttion itself dequtely re&resents




ll o! the rele(nt &r"eters, He*el/s bsolute 'nowin* si"ul#

tneously &re(ents the total 'nowin* tht would be necessry !or

n bsolute ethicl 0ud*"ent,

Mnt/s bsolute "orlity is throwbc' to &re#@hristin "orl#

ity, Howe(er with no *urntor o! tht "orlity :the holy *host

s the bsent *od is no *urntee o! nythin* concrete; we re

no lon*er bound by tht lw$ but insted bndoned to the !ree#

do" o! ctin* ethically $ s best we cn$ in the ctul sitution in

which we "'e our 0ud*"ents nd decisions,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9'"

7he $etaphysical Jsyche

2ith the e"er*ence o! the doubly reBe%i(e sel!#consciousness

"n bec"e wre o! hi"sel! s the uthor o! his decisions nd

the in(entor o! his in(entions, 2ith this wreness co"es the

end o! childish subser(ience to the "orl lw nd the be*innin*

o! dult$ ethicl decision$ where the &syche cn obser(e itsel! in

the &rocess o! decision nd there!ore 0ud*e the ethiclity o! the

decision he is in the &rocess o! "'in*, This reBe%i(e "o(e"ent

!ro" one/s en*ross"ent in thin*s is e%&erienced s the . ste&

bc'/ in which one . ssesses/ thin*s$ whether ethiclly or theo#

reticlly, 2ithin this ste& bc'$ tri**ered by n e(ent tht re#

quires decision or nlysis$ the in(entl I#Sub0ect co"es into be#

in*, Durin* one/s e(erydy en*ross"ent in the world the I is not

si"&ly i*nored$ it is co"&letely bsent, 2ith the in(entl I#Sub#

0ect the rest o! the world is &osited s .ob0ecti(e/$ s so"ethin*

the I#Sub0ect cn o&erte *inst rther thn s &rt o!, Since

this . ste& bc'/ is the &riori !or reBecti(e$ re&resenttionl

nd theoreticl stnce$ the I#Sub0ect is &osited s the .rel/ Sel!

whene(er the Sel! is theori9ed bout$ nd re&resenttion s the




&ri"ordil "ode o! e%&erience, Since the . ste& bc'/ is en*en#

dered ori*inlly in order to !cilitte decision the I#Sub0ect tends

to see e(erythin* s n eitheror dulity$ with the result tht the#

ory s&lits thin*s into cou&les such s !or""tter$ idel"teril$

true!lse$ etc, The I#Sub0ect is si"&listic by necessity$ s the

co"&le%ity o! the world 'nown by the Sel! is !r too "uch !or

ti"ely decision "'in*$ but this lso leds to si"&listic reduc#

tionis" in theoreticl ide cretion, The reduction o! the thin*

with its co"&le% interctions o! si*ni-cnce to the "enin*less

ob0ect within clculble &ro0ection &ro(ed e%tre"ely use!ul

!ro" technolo*icl &ers&ecti(e$ nd in the crucil "et&hysicl

turn the .ob0ecti(e/ &&ro%i"tions o! e%&erience used !or clcu#

ltion re &ro0ected s the .rel/ substnti(e underlyin* the .&#

&ro%i"tions/ o! e%&erience$ which re deter"ined to be ."erely/

sub0ecti(e, 2ith this "o(e"ent "odern science &ro0ects itsel! s

the rbiter o! truth$ when in !ct it hs bndoned the s&here o!

si*ni-cnce$ without which there cn be neither truth nor un#

truth, The best it cn do is deter"ine the correctness or incor#

rectness o! its re&resenttions within "the"ticl &&ro%i"#

tion o! the world,




As Niet9sche sw$ @hristinity rendered the &hiloso&hicl

chn*es in the &syche ccessible to !r lr*er nu"bers o! &eo&le,

As in the "ytholo*icl &syche the *od is e%&erienced in its h(#

in* &ssed by le(in* the trce o! its *i!t$ in this cse the birth o!

the @hrist, 4ut in the &hrse . nd God bec"e "n/ lies hidden

the !ull "enin* o! this &ssin* s the &ssin* wy o! the !ther,

2ith the &ssin* wy o! the Son on the cross the .one/ contin#

ues in the "ore &hiloso&hicl$ bstrct !or" s the .*host/ hunt#

in* @hristinity !or the rest o! its history,

As &rt o! the s&lit between the .sub0ecti(e/ nd .ob0ecti(e/$ un#

derstndin* is &lced on the side o! the :"erely; sub0ecti(e nd

e%&lntion on the side o! the ob0ecti(e, 2ith the !te!ul decision

tht the ulti"te ori*in is unique$ the .one/$ whether tht is 4e#

in* :inter&reted s the 4ein*ness o! bein*s;$ *od$ or &hysicl

sin*ulrity$ ll .ob0ecti(e e%&lntion/ co"es to i" t unco(erin*

the unique ori*in o! its ob0ects$ yet this 5e%&lntion5 is irrele(nt

to our e%&erience o! the world in understndin* nd inter&re#

titon$ nd t the end is nothin* "ore thn -ction, The si*ni-#

cnce i"bued in e(ery thin* by its *od within "ytholo*icl

world is re&lced by its "enin* within &rescribed :whether in#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9')

tentionl or "echnicl; !te &redeter"ined t the ori*in, 2ith

this history is born s the history o! the si*ni-cnce o! thin*s nd

their de(elo&"ent,

The indi(idul &syche continues to de(elo& !ro" its be*innin*

within ritul !r"ewor'$ thin*s re .0ust done tht wy/ without

e%&lntion or understndin*$ nd the child/s bility to .do thin*s

the wy they re done/ "r's tht child s "ore or less n initi#

te to their society, As the child reches dulthood he or she "y

be*in to question nd loo' !or understndin*$ e%&lntion or

both$ but it is only on the bsis o! the ritulistic$ .reli*ious/ sense

o! society *ined durin* u&brin*in* tht tht questionin* &ose

-rst beco"es &ossible, At -rst the questionin* o! science$

whether theolo*icl or nturl$ see"s nti#reli*ious in the sense

tht it no lon*er si"&ly cce&ts tht thin*s .re s they re/ $ but

in !ct it cnnot &ose those questions without ritully ssu"ed

!oundtions$ nd those reli*ious !oundtions ine(itbly led to

those questions, E(en in the e%tre"es o! scienti-c theis" or

&ntheistic &*nis" in @hristin conte%t$ the @hristin *od re#

"ins !ully ssu"ed, Scienti-c theis" si"&ly reclcultes the

nu"ber to 9ero$ while &ntheis" reclcultes the nu"ber s




"ny, The &&rent bttle between theis" nd reli*ion$ on

closer e%"intion$ is in ctulity bttle between "et&hysicl

onto#theolo*y nd "ytholo*icl i""edicy, The !und"entlist$

who within his or her belie! syste" re"ins "ytholo*icl in

essence$ sees *od or the *ods s i""edite in e(ery thin*$ s the

i""edite si*ni-cnce or "enin* o! ny thin* whtsoe(er$

while the "et#&hysicin$ whether their belie! structure is @hris#

tin or scienti-c$ sees tht "enin* s .sub0ecti(e/$ with the .ob#

0ect/ s deri(in* its "enin* !ro" its ori*in$ wither within *od/s

&redestined intent or within its scienti-c e%&lntion !ro" its

unique ori*in, Sub0ecti(ity nd ob0ecti(ity re -ctionl bstrc#

tions o! the indi(idul nd shred Sel!$ res&ecti(ely$ nd s b#

strct sche"s cn only de(elo& sche"ti9ed -ctions,

The d(nces "de "terilly durin* the "et&hysicl e&och

rose not !ro" "et&hysics itsel!$ either throu*h re(eled reli#

*ion or throu*h nturl science$ but !ro" the Sel!#'nowled*e o!

"n s the in(entor o! tools, The "teril history o! "n is the

history o! tool "'in*$ or "ore *enerlly the history o! technol#

o*y, Yet 0ust s "n bec"e wre o! hi"sel! s the ori*intor o!

new in(entions$ this ws "isunderstood s the wor' o! the I#Sub#




0ect, The resultin* indi(idul ttribution o! in(ention$ rther thn

its ttribution to the shred socil Sel!$ led to the "teril history

docu"ented nd nly9ed by 3r% nd his !ollowers, 2ht hs

been lc'in* is the wreness tht s socilly in(enti(e technol#

o*y cnnot be controlled by indi(idul decision, Technolo*y

thereby s socil de(elo&"ent hs dri(en indi(idul "n rther

thn (ice (ers$ 0ust s other socil chn*es h(e +ected indi#

(iduls in "ore decisi(e !shion thn indi(iduls h(e decided

those chn*es, As technolo*y hs &ro*ressed science hs "ore

nd "ore t'en the role o! n ccountin*#!or wht#is#re(eled

throu*h technolo*y s societl wor', Glileo/s theories c#

counted#!or the obser(tions "de &ossible by the technolo*y o!

the telesco&e, Heisenber*/s ccounted#!or the obser(tions "de

&ossible by the new obser(tionl tools t his dis&osl, Heisen#

ber* ws hi"sel! !ully wre o! this de&endence,

2ith the !llin* &rt o! the intrinsic .ob(iousness/ o! the

do*" o! re(eled reli*ion cul"intin* in He*el/s e%&erience o!

the hu"n ori*in o! di(ine re(eltion itsel!$ co"bined with the

Sel!#deci"tion o! the "echnistic (iew o! the world ori*inlly

&ro&*ted by science$ the ori*in o! si*ni-cnce or "enin* be#




c"e e%tre"ely &roble"tic, As Niet9sche sw$ the end o! the

.rel world/ &ostulted by <lto s underlyin* &&rent e%&eri#

ence ws lso the end o! ny belie! in the "the"ticl &ro0ec#

tions o! science, <ost#@ntorin "the"tics is not rebirth o!

"the"tics but Sel!#i"&losion o! "the"tics s cli"in* to

be descri&ti(e o! relity, As 4diou sw$ "the"tics ws lwys

&ri"rily the ln*u*e o! ontolo*y$ but beyond tht it ws s&eci-#

clly the ln*u*e o! "et&hysicl onto#theolo*y$ the i"&losion

o! <ltonic onto#theolo*y could only result in corres&ondin* i"#

&losion in its ln*u*e, , The .one/ hunts &ost# @ntorin "the#

"tics the s"e wy the .*host/ hunts @hristin theolo*y ./ set

"y be lwys "ulti&le o! "ulti&les$ but it re"ins ./ set #nd

!or the s"e reson, 4oth re bsed on the s"e decision !or the

.one/ s ori*in o(er the "ny, 4diou/s tte"&t to choose the

"ny re"ins within the &ur(iew o! "et&hysics 0ust s Srtre/s

re(ersl o! e%istence nd essence re"ins "et&hysicl, It is the

&&rent necessity o! the decision itsel! tht is brou*ht bout by

the e%&erience o! the e(ent s thin*ly nd the resultin* in(entl

I#Sub0ect, As result 4diou continues to &osit nd question the

nture o! the sub0ect nd the sub0ecti(e in *enerl,




The "ist'e o! "et&hysics is to identi!y the rel with bein*,

4ein* is not 5rel5 in the sense o! bein*$ but wht *rnts bein*$

the hori9on$ which itsel! is not "erely li"it but li"it tht

withdrws !ro" ny &&roch$ nd only &&roches when not t#

tended to,

I! the rel were the s"e s bein*$ then bein* s wht drws

&ure desire outwrds would itsel! be intelli*ible$ but wht *rnts

bein* nd thus intelli*ibility does so by withdrwin* nd re!usin*

itsel! s intelli*ible, 2hen n intelli*ible rel beco"es obscure

*in$ bein* hs &&roched nd in doin* so co(ered o(er$ re#

"o(ed intelli*ibility !ro" wht ws erlier unco(ered, This is

the stri!e o! bein* itsel!,

Technolo*y is the bis o! co""on sense in o&ertion in

world#history in its unco(erin* s&ect, It re(els nd thus e%#

&nds the hori9on$ but re(els only s use!ul$ s resource, It5s

dn*er is both tht it 0ud*es intelli*ibility s usbility$ nd tht it

'ee&s wht it unco(ers unco(ered s (ilble$ re!usin* it the

contrry "o(e"ent o! &rotection$ co(erin* o(er,

Ideolo*y s syste"ti9ed nd en!orced belie! is co""on sense

in o&ertion in world#history in its s&ect o! turnin* wy !ro"




the hori9on$ de!endin* its 'nowns *inst the un'nown, In its

turnin* wy$ re!usin* insi*ht$ esc&in* understndin*$ bein* &#

&roches !ro" behind$ shrin'in* the world hori9on nd co(erin*

o(er wht hd been disco(ered, In its li"it its en!orced belie! is

belie! in co""on sense itsel! nd the dis"issl o! nythin* else

s hobbies !or the &ri(ile*ed, This is the totlitrin$ which in#

cludes c&itlis", @&itlis" s totlitrin hides its own n#

ture$ the "o"ent bsolute c&itlis" is seen s it is in itsel!$ it

cn only e(&orte s n en!orced belie! tht rede-nes itsel!

whene(er questioned, It is this rede-nin* itsel! tht lends @&i#

tlis" its ("&iric .unded/ qulity,

The bis o! co""on sense in the &ro*ressi(e liberl is to sty

with the use!ul$ but desire o(errides !er$ nd thus the hori9on o!

the use!ul is continully e%&nded, The &ro*ressi(e liberl is in#

terested in the un!"ilir s lon* s it re"ins ideolo*iclly lib#

erl$ willin* to co"&ro"ise bsolute liberty !or the s'e o! other

indi(iduls within the collecti(e !or the *ood o! the collecti(e nd

thus e(entully hi"sel!,

The bis o! co""on sense in the conser(ti(e liberl stys

with the use!ul only inso!r s it is lredy 'nown or belie(ed in$




since !er o(errides desire, Since it neither unco(ers nythin*

nor &re(ents the co(erin* o(er o! the lredy 'nown its hori9on

continully dwindles to less nd less co"&rehensi(e (iew&oints,

The conser(ti(e is liberl within the !"ilir$ stron*ly indi(idu#

list within the &rotection o! "ilitri9ed collecti(e with

strictly en!orced belie! syste",




7he KrtiCce of the 7heoretical $ode of ';perience

Our .nturl/ wy o! seein* the world is throu*h &r*"t

s&eci-clly use!ul to wht concerns us, At -rst$ nd !or the "ost

&rt$ it is &r*"t tht we re wre o!$ tht disinhibit our bil#

ity to ct, 2e beco"e wre o! &r*"t s .thin*s/ tht re .

0ust there/ :&resent; "ost !orce!ully when they re unsuitble !or

the ts' to hnd$ when ste&&in* bc' !ro" in(ol(e"ent into

theoreticl "ode$ i,e, the "ode o! the .I#Sub0ect/ ,




7he $ovement from Self-6onsciousness to Kbsolute )nowing

7he Identity of )nower and )nown: Kristotle! K@uinas and #egel

Aristotle introduced the notion o! the identity o! 'nower nd

'nown in order to sol(e the !ollowin* &roble" resultin* !ro"

si"&listic understndin* o! Sel!#'nowled*e6

OIf the act of awareness is distinct from the ob8ect ofawareness! then it would appear that Self-awareness is im-possible. 7o be aware of these acts! which %at least& par-tially constitute the Self! one needs further acts which willthen constitute an enlarging Self! inCnitely.O

E(en in this ccount$ howe(er$ Aristotle5s insi*ht is co"&ro#

"ised by the identi-ction o! >ob0ect o! wreness> with

>'nown>, This continues the eqution o! 'nowin* with loo'in*

tht still su&&orts the co""on sense (iew o! the world s

world#&icture :not &icture o! the world$ but the world s &ic#

ture;, Mnowin* is concei(ed s 5t'in* loo'5 rther thn in its

!ull sense$ which "ust include inter&rettion$ insi*ht nd 0ud*#

"ent,




Aristotle5s solution runs s !ollows6

O7hought thin0s itself because it shares the nature ofthe ob8ect of thought...O

This "y see" tri(il$ nd indeed !lse since it &&ers tht$

!or instnce$ children 'now "ny thin*s without the !ullness o!

Sel!#'nowled*e, This &roble"$ thou*h$ ste"s -rst !ro" the equ#

tion o! 5t'in* loo'5 or bein* wre o! so"ethin*$ with 'nowin*

so"ethin*$ nd second !ro" the eqution o! the 0ud*in* !cility$

necessry !or !ull 'nowled*e$ s uto"ticlly &rt o! the Sel!$

nd indeed s identicl with the Sel!,

@hildren lc' the 0ud*in*$ clculti(e !cility tht we 'now s

the 5sub0ect5, This in no wy i"&irs their wreness$ inter&ret#

tion or insi*ht$ but it does i"&ir their bility to 0ud*e$ either

ethiclly or theoreticlly, For this reson children h(e rules tht

they "ust !ollow without question$ becuse they re unble to

0ud*e either the rules or the sitution within which they re &#

&lied,

At certin st*e o! de(elo&"ent the Sel! cretes the sub0ect$

the clculti(e$ 0ud*in* >I> tht is res&onsible !or ny ethicl or

theoreticl 0ud*"ent, This >I#Sub0ect> is si"&le$ relti(e to the




Sel!, The Sel! is wre o! e(erythin* in the sitution$ it is in !ct

identicl in certin sense to the sitution, The sub0ect$ on the

other hnd$ is only wre o! wht is re&resented to it by the Sel!

s rele(nt, This re&resenttion$ s well$ is si"&li-ed into

!r"ewor'$ since the sub0ect is only equi&&ed to del with relity

inso!r s it hs been stri&&ed o! its richness,

As result$ children re wre o! "ny thin*s$ includin* the"#

sel(es$ but re unble to co"&lete the ct o! inter&retin* tht

wreness with insi*ht nd -nlly 0ud*in* it, 2ithout tht 0ud*#

"ent nythin* re"ins wreness$ e(en s understndin* wre#

ness$ but not 'nowled*e,

Aquins &osited the !ull identity o! 'nower nd 'nown s God$

while "n re"ined only &otentil identity, This distinction$

thou*h$ rises when the 'nowble is equted with the 'nown,

De"onstrbly there re "ny thin*s un'nown$ not yet 'nown$ or

!or*otten by ny *i(en "n, Since they do not !or" &rt o! the

set o! the 'nown$ howe(er$ they re irrele(nt in 0ud*in* Aristo#

tle5s &ro&osition, Aristotle5s 'nower does not h(e to 'now e(#

erythin* in the uni(erse$ or e(en &osit tht such totlity e%ists$

becuse it is only identicl with wht it in !ct does 'now,




A -nl ob0ection$ tht ob(iously "ulti&le sel(es 'now the s"e

thin*s nd there!ore cnnot h(e n identity with the 'nown

rises !ro" n ideolo*icl indi(idulis" tht &osits n i"&enetr#

ble brrier between sel(es, A "ysticl shred consciousness is

hrdly necessry to e%&lin tht "uch o! wht we 'now is shred

!ro" the be*innin*$ since we 'now it !ro" initition into the

s"e or si"ilr society, Our bility to shre wht we co"e to

'now beyond tht initition throu*h ln*u*e nd de"onstrtion

co"&letes the bro*tion o! the >i"&enetrble brrier>$ destroy#

in* the bsis o! the ob0ection,

Finlly we co"e to He*el, He*el cce&ts the identity o! the

'nower nd the 'nown$ nd the i"&licit coll&se o! the sub#

0ect#ob0ect s&lit contined within it, The r*u"ent tht He*el5s

syste" is susce&tible to bein* >no "ore thn so"e inco"&lete

(iew&oint> "isses the historicity required by He*el, For He*el

the bsoluteness o! bsolute 'nowin* is only the bsolute o!

&rticulr (iew&oint which would o! course chn*e in history,

He*el5s bsolute is not totl$ in !ct it renounces the &ossibility o!

'nowin* relity in its totlity or e(en whether such totlity in

!ct e%ists, Relity#s##whole i"&lies &ers&ecti(e tht is out#




side it, This is o! course Sel!#contrdictory unless tht &ers&ec#

ti(e is itsel! relity#s##whole$ i,e, tht relity#s##whole so"e#

how 'nows itsel!, Gi(en tht this is e(en less de"onstrble thn

the e%istence o! relity#s##whole$ the uni(erse itsel!$ which re#

quires Aquins5 God to be 'nown$ is n inde"onstrble &ro0ec#

tion ori*intin* in re(eltion,

He*el ws ble to re(erse Aquins5 ide becuse he e%&eri#

enced re(eltion o! re(eltion$ tht &ro(ided the 'nowled*e

tht re(eltion ws not in !ct di(ine$ but recursion o! under#

stndin* tht retins understndin* within the hu"n bein*,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9"9

6ertainty and 7ruth of eason

In the e;perience it has undergone! the unhappy con-sciousness has become aware of the unity between theAniversal and its own individual action and being. It hasattained the level of the representation of reason 3Xer-nunft5! but not that of the unity of universal and individualin reason itself2 / ational self-consciousness now armsthe e@ual essentiality of the world as itself! and Cnds itself

reLected within universal ob8ectivity1 it discovers itsSelf-identity in otherness! the unity of the consciousness of its own individuality and of universal being.2 %Sinnerbrin0!

F,,F&

.Rtionl sel!#consciousness/$ howe(er$ re"ins "ere sel!#con#

sciousness nd not S&irit, It hs disco(ered Sel!#identity but not

the nture o! the Sel! nd the in(entl I#Sub0ect,

7he manner in which self-consciousness immediately Cnds and determines itself and its ob8ect will depend onthe history of Self- consciousness and its historical situa-tion %Jh +HG>FHG&. 7he immediate appearance of reason!however! is an abstraction of its truth! which will prove tobe /the absolute 6oncept!2 / Klthough self-consciousnessbegins to comprehend or to thin0 the 6oncept! the need

for a genuine transcendental deduction of the categoriesremains unfulClled. #egel therefore moves from the empty

Idealism that has forgotten its path of e;perience to thephilosophical possibility of two speculative paths or per-spectives: a logical deduction of the plurality and validityof the categories as a systemic whole %underta0en in theScience of *ogic&! and the phenomenological disclosure



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9"'

(eveloping the Nuestion of the Self

<rt o! the question o! the Sel! is the question o! the inter&re#

ttion o! the question$ or "ore si"&ly nd "ore co"&rehensi(ely

the question o! the question, Inter&retin* &hiloso&hicl thin'in*

is notoriously di1cult$ yet &hiloso&hers in *enerl t'e *ret

&ins to s&e' s clerly s &ossible, Tht leds to the question

o! wht "'es thin'in*$ &hiloso&hicl thin'in* in &rticulr$ so

&&rently di1cult,

7o pose the @uestion of the @uestion is also to plot itscourse! its processional development throughout the his-tory of thought. It is here that we trace the history of the@uestion ta0en in itself as a term through Cgures such as

Breud! #eidegger! *acan! and (errida! in order to build acritical lens capable of reCning the notion of the @uestionand bringing it into some clearer semblance of focus. It ismy contention that the @uestion ta0en by itself has beengiven short shrift in critical discourse! perhaps owing toits resistance to being e;amined. 7hough @uestions arethe common currency of theorists! the @uestion of the@uestion has yet to truly emerge into common view. $ore-over! we cannot ignore the important metaphoricity of the

@uestion itself! how it functions in language! and the ety-mological nuances it possesses. 7he linguistic standpointwill not become the deCnitive aperture of this @uestion ofthe @uestion! but will function as another point of contigu-ity that the @uestion shares with both language and the-ory.




-)ane M. Baucher! What is a Nuestion?

In ter"s o! the question o! the Sel!$ nd thus the question o!

the "enin* o! Sel!#identity$ constnt di1culty is ter"inolo*i#

cl, 2e h(e nu"ber o! words tht re!er to the bein* tht one

is$ the I#Sub0ect$ the Sel!$ the <syche$ S&irit$ soul$ "ind$ etc, Go#

in* bc' to He*el !or "o"ent$ two di+erent trnsltions o! the

<heno"enolo*y use the ter"s . S&irit/ nd . 3ind/ , He*el uses

words in (ery s&eci-c "nners$ so"e o! which h(e been "is#

trnslted$ but "ore o!ten trnslted correctly yet without relly

trns"ittin* the intent o! the ori*inl, As !or instnce$ the

usul title o! the boo' &ublished !ter the <heno"enolo*y is .The

Science o! =o*ic/ , This si"&le title leds "ost to belie(e$ without

h(in* so "uch s o&ened the boo') they &retty well 'now wht

it contins, Science is the &ursuit o! theoreticl 'nowled*e, =o*ic

is the .lw/ by which thin'in* is 0ud*ed, Thus .The Science o!

=o*ic/ would si"&ly be n in(esti*ti(e e%&osition o! =o*ic$ its

0usti-ction$ nd how to &ut it to best use,

Yet ccordin* to Sinnerbrin' .2issensch!t or &hiloso&hicl



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9""

Science$ ccordin* to He*el$ re!ers to the Sel!#or*ni9in* syste"

o! s&eculti(e 'nowled*e$ whose introduction consists o! &he#

no"enolo*y itsel!,/ 2ithout *ood del o! in*enuity .the Sel!#or#

*ni9in* syste" o! s&eculti(e 'nowled*e/ is di1cult to reconcile

with the usul "enin* o! .science/, =oo'in* t the other 'ey

ter"$ .lo*ic/$ we -nd si"ilr discre&ncy6 ccordin* to the

shorter =o*ic$ . the di+erent st*es o! the lo*icl ide re to be

treted s series o! de-nitions o! the Absolute$ the de-nition

which now results !or us is tht the Absolute is the Notion, Tht

necessittes hi*her esti"te o! the notion$ howe(er$ thn is

!ound in !or"l conce&tulist =o*ic$ where the notion is "ere

!or" o! our sub0ecti(e thou*ht$ with no ori*inl content o! its

own,

2ht does this le(e us with$ were we to ren"e . The Science

o! =o*ic/ lon* these lines8 The resultin* title would be so"e#

thin* li'e . The Sel!#or*ni9in* Syste" o! S&eculti(e Mnowled*e

s Series o! De-nitions o! the Absolute/ , The cse cn be "de

tht$ t lest in ter"s o! .2issensch!t/$ in "odern Ger"n it

does$ !or the "ost &rt$ indicte the s"e thin* s .science/ in

"odern En*lish, Tht would 0usti!y the use o! the word$ &ro(ided




tht He*el/s "enin* ws e%&licted clerly in the te%t s bein*

"ore li'e the -rst &rt o! the title &ro&osed bo(e, A not too dis#

si"ilr cse could be "de !or the ter" .lo*ic/, A!ter ll$ the

rther lon* nd not i""editely co"&rehensible title we c"e

u& with bo(e see"s bit "uch s title :&erh&s s

subtitle8;, Tht le(es the other two words$ .The/ nd .o!/, 2ht

o! these8 As it turn out si"&le nd 0usti-ble chn*e in the sec#

ond word$ while not !ully e%&lictin* the title$ i""editely lends

the -rst word$ .The/$ the correct intontion nd "enin*, Re&lc#

in* .o!/ with .s/ circu"(ents the &&rently ob(ious but entirely

"ist'en &re0ud*"ent s to the &robble contents o! the wor',

The .ob(iousness/ o! .The Science o! =o*ic/ beco"es i""edi#

tely &u99lin* when it is ren"ed . The Science s =o*ic/ , .The/

chn*es "enin* nd e(en &ronuncition$ beco"in* The Science

&ronounced . Thee/ rther thn .The Science/, The Science se&#

rtes wht He*el intends by 2issensch!t !ro" .science/ s one

or ll o! .the sciences/$ le(in* it on its own with n ob(iously

di+erent$ i! i""editely obscure$ "enin*, <irin* The Science

with =o*ic$ not s n o!$ but s n s$ results in doubly &u99lin*

title, I! The Science is unli'e ny &rticulr science we "y be




!"ilir with$ &ositin* tht it cn be discussed s =o*ic see"s

e(en "ore &u99lin*, Si"&le$ n/(e lo*ic could hrdly be equi(#

lent to The Science) co""only it/s considered n &riori !or ny

science whtsoe(er, The &u99lin* nture o! the boo' itsel!$ cer#

tinly !"ilir to its reders$ is quic'ly brou*ht out in the title by

chn*in* one s"ll con0unction,

He*el$ s with "ny other thin'ers$ is "ost "isinter&reted not

due to lc' o! cuity or intelli*ence on the reders/ &rt$ but

"ore o!ten due to n e%cess o! those !ctors, T'in* He*el s lit#

erlly s he o!ten "ens so"ethin* chllen*es the ideolo*y o!

the reder to the e%tent tht the reder uses ll o! his cuity nd

intelli*ence to rede-ne . wht He*el relly "ent/ $ when wht

ws .relly/ "ent is written s &linly nd clerly s &ossible on

the ori*inl &*e, Trnsltion o! course o+ers n dditionl

"ens o! chn*in* the "enin* to one "ore co"!ortble to the

reder in(ol(ed,

In order to (oid words tht "y h(e hd "ore de-ned

"enin* t the ti"e o! writin*$ but h(e since lost tht "enin*$

nd in so"e cses beco"e so (*ue s to h(e (irtully no de#

-ned "enin*$ I h(e (oided words such s s&irit$ "ind$ soul$



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9")

&syche$ etc, when s&e'in* o! (rious s&ects o! the Sel!, 2hile

tht &uts lot o! stress on the word Sel! itsel!$ it (oids "isun#

derstndin*s tht .t* lon*/ with such words, .3ind/ nd .&sy#

che/ !or instnce$ i""editely brin* with the" the dulis" be#

tween "ind nd body, .S&irit/ hs beco"e !or the "ost &rt

"enin*less$ re!errin* in (*ue wy to nythin* not &hysicl in

nture, .Soul/ reitertes the old tri&rtite distinction

body#"ind#soul6 how Sel! is su&&osed to e%ist s so"e sort o!

*lued to*ether threeso"e o! &oorly de-ned enou*h ter"s leds

only to initil "isconce&tions nd the cretion o! irrele(nt

&seudo &roble"s,

The title o! the wor' be*ins with two si*ni-cnt words6 hori#

9on nd identity, Identity here re!ers to Sel!#identity$ both s the

*ol o! "ost tte"&ts t Sel!# understndin* nd s the better

cce&ted but less well de-ned ntecessor to .&ersonlity/ within

"instre" &sycholo*y nd socil theory, The question in its

bre !or"$ then$ concerns the reltion between the hori9on tht

li"its ny *i(en &ers&ecti(e$ nd the wys in which hu"n be#

in*s &osit their Sel!#identity) how they describe the"sel(es :o!ten

only to the"sel(es; s to who they re s bein*,




A hu"n bein*$ s stted in the &re(iew$ is .Rel/ tht is

Sel!#wre, One/s Sel! is in ech cse &rticulr to the &rticulr

hu"n bein*, One/s &ers&ecti(e nd hori9on is$ to so"e de*ree$

di+erent !ro" tht o! ny other hu"n bein*, Althou*h this i"#

"editely brin*s to "ind so"e sort o! .bsolute/ &ost"odern rel#

ti(is"$ the !llcy in the ltter is locted in the closed#o+ (iew

o! the indi(idul tht underlies the nlysis,




/Jostmodern relativism is precisely the thought of theirreducible multitude of worlds! each sustained by a spe-

ciCc language-game! so that each world / is2 the narrativeits members are telling themselves! with no shared ter-rain! no common language between them12

Slavo8 9ie0! the Jaralla; Xiew! italics mine.

The &roble" lies in the itlici9ed words, A &rll% (iew o! re#

lity$ where ech Rel hs its own &ers&ecti(e nd hori9on$ does

not disquli!y the obser(tion tht by nd lr*e the Relity &er#

cei(ed by di+erent indi(iduls is the s"e, The closer so"eone is

to you$ in ter"s o! bc'*round$ culture nd e%&eriences$ the

closer the shred (iew o! Relity will "tch the &ersonl (iew,

4ein*#one/s#Sel! lwys "ens bein*#with#others such tht the

shred Sel! is by !r the "0ority o! the Sel!, At the s"e ti"e$

the (iews o! the shred Sel!$ &ro0ected s they re by ech indi#

(idul$ h(e tendency to not describe shred Relity in n in#

(ol(ed "nner, The .e(erydy/ wy o! (iewin* the world$ s n#

ly9ed brillintly by Heide**er$ hs "ore o! tendency to -ction#

li9e thn the indi(idul (iew$ ledin* to the inesc&ble conclu#

sion tht society/s (iew o! itsel! is lr*ely &sychotic, Howe(er the




inuthentic (iew o! the .nobody/ is !r !ro" bein* so"ethin*

*i(en hu"n bein* occsionlly -nds the"sel(es in$ but is the

initil stte ny &erson -nds the"sel(es in$ nd one to which

they ine(itbly return *in nd *in no "tter how strenuous

their stru**le to indi(idute "y be, As result$ this e(erydy

(iew$ scribed to e(erybody nd nobody t once$ is &ositi(e

&heno"enon o! ny *i(en &rll% (iew o! Relity nd the Sel!

tht needs to be understood,

Sel!#identity$ then$ hs to be understood initilly out o! the e(#

erydy sitution in which the &rticulr &erson is not Sel!#identi#

cl$ where he or she is !or the "ost &rt how the &erson &ro0ects

the conte%t round the" to wnt the" to be, 2ithin &ersonl de#

(elo&"ent one is initited into one/s society$ not in s&ite o! not

!ully &ercei(in* wht one is cce&tin*$ but s&eci-clly by not &er#

cei(in* it,

Thin*s within#the#world h(e s&eci-c "enin*s$ "enin*s we

lern s &rt o! our initition into society without bein* ble to

question their &&ro&riteness or e(en their &ro(ennce, Thus

our initil (iews on society$ the thin*s within it$ the &eo&le it

co"&rises nd indeed oursel(es re initilly deter"ined by the




world#(iew or ideolo*y current in society,

K world-view is not a matter of theoretical 0nowledge!either in respect of its origin or in relation to its use. It isnot simply retained in memory li0e a parcel of cognitiveproperty. ather! it is a matter of a coherent convictionthat determines the current aairs of life more or less e;-pressly and directly. K world-view is related in its meaningto the particular contemporary (asein at any given time.

#eidegger! asic Jroblems of Jhenomenology

The "ore trns&rent the world#(iew the "ore e+ecti(e it is,

The unquestioned ssu"&tions !or" s&eci-c !r"e within

which thin*s nd e(ents re *i(en &rescribed "enin*$ nd the

"ore in(isible the !r"e the "ore di1cult it is to de"onstrte

tht wht is t'en s si"&ly . how thin*s re/ is in !ct con#

*lo"ertion o! unquestioned$ while hi*hly questionble$ ssu"&#

tions tht one hs si"&ly been *i(en !ro" the ti"e one lerns to

understnd ln*u*e,

The Sel! in its questionbility is su&&orted by "ny such trns#

&rent ssu"&tions, iewin* the Sel! s identicl with the I#Sub#

0ect$ while relti(ely new understndin* relti(e to the entire




history o! hu"nity$ hs beco"e such n e"bedded ssu"&tion

tht it is di1cult to dislod*e the uto"tic eqution o! the two, A

recent set o! rticles in The New Scientist under the hedin* .

The Illusion o! the Sel!/ $ tte"&tin* to &o&ulri9e co*niti(e sci#

ence/s inquiries into the Sel!$ &osited in the contrdictory result

tht the Sel! is n illusion, The result is contrdictory becuse

while e%&eriences the Sel! "y h(e contrdict the identi-ction

o! the I#Sub0ect with the Sel!$ they do not there!ore in(lidte the

Sel!$ they "erely de"onstrte tht the Sel! is not identicl to the

I#Sub0ect$ but so"ethin* "ore co"&le%$ nd not !ully deter#

"inble, The ctul results o! the (rious tests co*niti(e science

hd &er!or"ed tht were loo'ed t in the rticle were not &rtic#

ulrly sur&risin* !ro" &ers&ecti(e &riori distin*uishin* the

two, The inter&rettions (eered towrds (iewin* the Sel! :"en#

in* the I#Sub0ect; s illusory$ nd *in the lo*ic ws bsed on in#

(lid ssu"&tions, I! the &oint ws to si"&ly in(lidte &rticulr

ssu"&tions bout the Sel!$ the rticles "i*ht h(e hd so"e c#

curcy$ but since :d"ittedly$ li'ely in &rt in order to *rner

redershi& by sttin* so"ethin* "ore .shoc'in*/; the title o! the

series ws . The Illusion o! the Sel!/ nd not .In(lid Assu"&tions




bout the Nture o! the Sel!/ or so"ethin* o! tht sort$ the ides

in the rticles re the"sel(es in(lid to the &oint o! bein* ludi#

crous,

One o! the rticles discussed the e%&erience o! the . &resent/

s construction$ there!ore illusory, Our e%&erience o! te"&orl#

ity s stretched !ro" the &st to the !uture$ howe(er$ is not the

s"e s the "et&hysicl notion o! ti"e$ s series o! now

&oints, Since ti"e outside our e%&eriencin* it cn only be &osited

throu*h chn*es in stte o! other syste"s there is no si"&le wy

to . nor"li9e/ this &erce&tion$ *inst which our e%&erience

could be 0ud*ed s illusory, <hiloso&hy hs understood . the

&resent/ to be no"inli9tion o! so"ethin* (erbl$ . &resencin*/

$ !or so"e ti"e$ which in itsel! "'es the co*niti(e tests so"e#

wht redundnt$ since they re only de"onstrtin* wht hs

been de"onstrted with "uch better e(idence &heno"enolo*i#

clly, The lo*ic tht since "y &erce&tion o! the &resent cn be

distorted by illusions the &resent is illusory is equi(lent to the

lo*ic o! syin* tht since I cn e%&erience &erce&ti(e illusions

such s "ir*e the relity I &ercei(e is co"&letely n illusion,




The !urther !llcy is tht e(en *i(e tht the &resent "y be illu#

sory :in no"inl !shion$ s ob0ecti(e; tht the Sel! is there!ore

lso n illusion is not si"&ly Bwed lo*ic in the sense o! i!then$

but contrdicts itsel! in tht it cn only be the Sel! e%&eriencin*

the illusion, Tht the bein* o! the Sel! c&ble o! e%&eriencin*

both the &resent it does in usul circu"stnces$ nd the illusions

creted in the co*niti(e tests doesn/t "tch with the ssu"&tion

o! the nture o! the I#Sub0ect de"onstrtes only tht the ssu"&#

tion o! the I#Sub0ect s identicl to the Sel! is in(lid,

7he e;planation is that rather than e;trapolating intothe future! our brain is interpolating events in the past! as-sembling a story of what happened retrospectively %Sci-ence! vol FT! p F,H4&.

7his seems parado;ical! but other tests have conCrmedthat what is perceived to have occurred at a certain timecan be inLuenced by what happens later.

Kll of this is slightly worrying if we hold on to the com-monsense view that our selves are placed in the present. If the moment in time we are supposed to be inhabitingturns out to be a mere construction! the same is li0ely tobe true of the Self e;isting in that present. %Yan Wester-ho! ew Scientist! Bebruary F,! F,+H&




In tht &rticulr rticle$ t lest$ the c(et is "de tht it is

.worryin*/ only .i! we hold on to the co""on#sense (iew/ in ques#

tion, Howe(er in so"e o! the other rticles the in(lid ssu"&#

tions re stted s !cticl relity,

6*=S' your eyes and as0 yourself: where am I? ot ge-

ographically! but e;istentially. $ost of the time! we wouldsay that we are inside our bodies. Kfter all! we peer out atthe world from a uni@ue! Crst-person perspective withinour heads / and we ta0e it for granted. %Knil Knan-thaswamy! ew Scientist! Bebruary F,! F,+H&

. , , , we &eer out t the world !ro" unique$ -rst#&erson &er#

s&ecti(e within our heds/ , Do we8 2e cn &osit tht &ers&ec#

ti(e$ certinly$ nd when we .ste& bc'/ !ro" our in(ol(e"ent in

the world to loo' t it theoreticlly we o!ten do &osit such &er#

s&ecti(e$ but do we ctully h(e tht &ers&ecti(e ."ost o! the

ti"e/ or e(en &ri"rily8 2hen we w'e u&$ !or instnce$ we re

-rst wre o! world, 2e re wre o! it in su1cient detil tht I

cn stu"ble to the 'itchen$ strt &ot o! co+ee$ nd be si"ult#

neously wre o! "y doin* it$ &rior to h(in* &osited tht &er#




s&ecti(e in ny wy, In *enerl I only &osit tht &ers&ecti(e i! the

question o! wht I/" doin*$ s theoreticl question$ co"es u&,

At tht &oint I .ste& bc'/ !ro" "y in(ol(e"ent in the world$ in

which I e%&erience "ysel! in "ultitude o! wys s in#the#world$

in#ti"e$ etc,$ but I e%&erience wht I see$ her$ s"ell$ !eel in

"ultitude o! wys tht 5&lce5 "e s dwellin* s the &lce I o&en,

Since the uthor doesn/t inquire into wht h&&ens &rior to e%&e#

riencin* the .I/ s .in "y hed/$ .&eerin* out t the world/$ i,e,

wht occurs when we .ste& bc'/$ since we ob(iously don/t liter#

lly ste& bc'$ the ssu"&tion tht we e%&erience the world in

this "nner ."ost o! the ti"e/ is in(lid, .3ost o! the ti"e/$ i!

s'ed bout wht we re doin* in such wy tht we ste& bc'

to loo' t it theoreticlly$ we "i*ht sy tht, 2hen we re ctu#

lly !unctionin* in the world$ which constitutes "ost o! our ti"e$

we would not describe our e%&erience o! oursel(es lon*side our

e%&erience o! the world in tht wy, The &hrse .&eerin* out t

the world/$ while it doesn/t describe our e(erydy ordinry e%&e#

rience o! world$ does describe (ery well the &eculir reltion to

the world tht &eo&le with utis" dis&ly$ or in "ore e%tre"e

cse$ &eo&le su+erin* !ro" de&ersonli9tion, This is n unusul




"nner o! world e%&erience$ thou*h$ nd results in di1culties

!or those tht e%&erience the world in this wy when required to

!unctionlly interct with the world nd other bein*s in it,

Si*ht is in itsel! the "ost sub0ecti(e$ clcultin* o! the senses,

The initil requisite o! "edittion tht i"s to *et wy !ro" the

do"intion o! the I#Sub0ect$ is to close your eyes nd llow the

other senses to cli" ttention s your e%&erience o! world,

2hile the eqution o! herin* nd obeyin* "y be lon* &st lin#

*uisticlly$ in herin* there re"ins$ i! not necessry obedi#

ence$ the necessity to decide on whether to obey wht is &ro&erly

herd or not$ s in the co""n &hrse .you her "e8/$ where the

equi(lent &hrse to do with si*ht # .see wht I5" syin*8/ hs to

do with co"&rehension nd not obedience e(en thou*h ny sy#

in* hs to be herd nd not seen, The other senses$ thou*h$ !#

!ect the whole Sel! "ore directly thn si*ht, In returnin* to the

re I ws born in the unique s"ell o! the &lce brou*ht "e di#

rectly bc' to how I e%&erienced "ysel! s youn* child, Touch

is li'ewise !r "ore i"&ortnt in inti"cy thn how inti"te

Sel(es see ech other, The sub0ecti(e hn*o(er in =cn nd

Zi9e' betrys itsel! s&eci-clly in their &re0udicin* si*ht s the




!und"entl sense,

Jarenthetically! a dead Csh is a good e;ample for an-other! @uite dierent! reason: what renders it uncanny areits eyes! which continue to stare at us! and lead us to a

further conse@uence #egel draws! which is more daring!almost surrealistic. 'ven when a painting depicts naturalob8ects! it is always about spirit! the material appearing of spirit. 7here is! however! a privileged organ of the humanbody in which spirit reverberates most directly: the eye asthe /window into the human soul!2 as the ob8ect which!

when we loo0 into it! confronts us with the abyss of theperson2s inner life. 7he conclusion from these twopremises is that! insofar as art creates natural ob8ectswhich are /ensouled2 %beseelt&! insofar as! in a painting! allob8ects become suused with human meaning! it is as ifthe artistic treatment transforms every visible surface intoan eye! so that! when we loo0 at a painting! we loo0 at a/thousand-eyed Krgus.2 HG 7he artwor0 thus becomes amonstrosity! a multiplicity of eyes staring at us from allsides< hence one can say that artistic beauty is! as *acanput it in his Seminar MI! precisely an attempt to cultivate!to tame! this traumatic dimension of the =ther2s gae! to/put the gae to rest.2

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egeland the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p. H&. or-ton. )indle 'dition.

This &redilection !or si*ht$ the sense "ost in(ol(ed in clcul#

tion nd there!ore "ost in(ol(ed with sub0ecti(ity itsel!$ does not




&&er when tl'in* to &eo&le durin* their en*rossed in(ol(e#

"ent with thin*s, E(en s&eci-clly (isul &heno"en re o!ten

tl'ed bout s i! they were !elt or herd$ nd si"ultneously the

.I/ in s&eech is o!ten re&lce by .you/ e(en thou*h they re dis#

cussin* their own e%&eriences, Si*ht is the "ost directionl$ in#

tentionl o! the senses$ nd there!ore the lest li'ely to +ect us$

to crete sur&rise$ the sur&rise tht results in wonder,

Uour Self even can be tric0ed into hovering in mid-airoutside the body. In F,++! =laf lan0e at the Swiss Bed-eral Institute of 7echnology %'JB*& in *ausanne and col-leagues as0ed volunteers to lie on their bac0s and via aheadset watch a video of a person of similar appearancebeing stro0ed on the bac0. $eanwhile! a robotic arm in-stalled within the bed stro0ed the volunteer2s bac0 in thesame way. 7he e;perience that people described was sig-niCcantly more immersive than simply watching a movieof someone else2s body. Xolunteers felt they were Loatingabove their own body! and a few e;perienced a particu-larly strange eect. (espite the fact that they were all ly-ing facing upwards! some felt they were Loating facedown so they could watch their own bac0 %see /*eavingthe body2&. /I was loo0ing at my own body from above!2said one participant. /7he perception of being apart from

my own body was a bit wea0 but still there.2 /7hat was forus really e;citing! because it gets really close to the classi-cal out-of-body e;perience of loo0ing down at your ownbody!2 says team member igna *enggenhager! now at theAniversity of ern in Switerland. Burther support cameby repeating the e;periment inside an $I scanner! whichshowed a brain region called the temporoparietal 8unction




%7JY& behaving dierently when people said they weredrifting outside their bodies. 7his ties in neatly with previ-ous studies of brain lesions in people who reportedout-of-body e;periences! which also implicated the 7JY.

7he 7JY shares a common trait with other brain regionsthat researchers believe are associated with body illu-sions: it helps to integrate visual! tactile and propriocep-tive senses with the signals from the inner ear that give usour sense of balance and spatial orientation. 7his providesmore evidence that the brain2s ability to integrate varioussensory stimuli plays a 0ey role in locating the Self in thebody. %Knil Knanthaswamy! ew Scientist! Bebruary F,!

F,+H&

The ide tht the Sel! is s'in bounded &&ered t the s"e

ti"e s the notion o! the I#Sub0ect s the Sel!, As result it/s no

sur&rise tht !ro" the &ers&ecti(e o! the Sub0ect this 'ind o! e%#

&erience is une%&ected, Howe(er the s&til nture o! the Sel!

hs brely be*un to be clri-ed, 2e cn sy with so"e certinty

tht we e%&erience oursel(es s bein*#in :the world$ Society$ the

4ody; but in wht wy bein*#in is s&til is indeter"inte, 2e

-rst e%&erience the . in/ s &lce$ but &lce doesn/t lwys corre#

s&ond e%ctly$ or e(en in ny wy$ with bstrct di"ensionl

s&ce, 2hen I/" on the &hone while dri(in*$ in so"e sense I " .

in/ the cr$ nd I/" ble to continue to !unctionlly "ni&ulte

the cr . in/ tr1c$ . in/ the re I/" dri(in* throu*h$ but si"ult#

neously I " shrin* .&lce/ throu*h "y bein*#with the &erson




on the &hone tht is not s&til in ny wy$ nd I/" "ore i""edi#

tely wre o! tht &lce$ "ore .in/ tht non#s&tili9ed &lce$

thn .in/ "y &hysicl surroundin*s$ lthou*h I cn ccess "y

wreness o! those surroundin*s nd the sense o! "y bein*#in

those surroundin*s i! I cre to$ but this requires directed "edi#

tion tht redirects "y ttention, This in itsel! de"onstrtes tht

I " wre o! "ysel! in sitution e(en when "y ttention is

otherwise occu&ied$ nd cn be wre o! bein*#in "ulti&le situ#

tions si"ultneously$ lthou*h "y sel!#conscious ttention "y

be directed to only one o! the", The ssu"&tion tht "y bein* .

in#"y#body/ s the &lce I/" "ost i""editely wre o! is not

(lid$ then, 2hen I &y ttention$ in non#theoreticl wy$ to

so"ethin* cross the roo"$ "y i""edite wreness o! "ysel! is

s lon*side the thin*s I/" &yin* ttention to$ not .in#"y#body/$

but cross the roo", It/s only s the I#Sub0ect$ in theoreticl

"ode$ tht "y &ers&ecti(e .!ro"#"y#body/ beco"es &ri"ry,

Oddly thou*h$ &recisely when we e%&erience oursel(es s the

I#Sub0ect .in/ the body$ .&eerin* out t the world/$ our bility to be

bodily Sel! is i"&ired, 2e beco"e w'wrd$ .sel!#conscious/ in

the co""on use o! the &hrse, Our hbitul$ !"ilir bility to




!unction is no lon*er se"less, Our e(erydy in(ol(ed sense o!

our bodily Sel! is not .in#the#body/ in the "nner tht the . I/ e%#

&eriences thin*s$ but .s/ bodily, As bodily$ we body into roo"

when we re not !eelin* .sel!#conscious/ o! how we re &&erin*

to others, Our e%&erience o! the outlines o! the bodily Sel! lso

chn*es in di+erent situtions, To *o bc' to the dri(in* e%"#

&le$ once we h(e lerned !ully how to dri(e we no lon*er e%&eri#

ence oursel(es s body .in/ cr$ but bodily as the car itself. Yet

when dri(in* n un!"ilir cr !or the -rst ti"e$ !or the -rst

short while we e%&erience oursel(es s .in/ the cr *in$ s we

did when we were -rst lernin* to dri(e nd not yet cco"#

&lished t it, This &oints to how hbit nd the !"ilirity it brin*s

is the ori*in$ not o! the Sel!$ but o! how the Sel! s&tili9es itsel!,

2ords such s s&irit$ soul$ or &syche h(e ccu"ulted

welth o! dis&rte "enin*s deter"ined by subculturl "odi-#

ctions o! the ssu"&tions tht c"e to underlie the us*e o! the

words, Disentn*lin* the Sel! !ro" the other words tht t -rst

*lnce &&er either synony"ous or t lest closely relted is n

initil necessity in order to s' the question o! the Sel! s it is in

itsel!,




A !urther &roble" lies in the !ct tht in "ost ty&es o! ques#

tionin*$ we do&t questionin*$ or theoreticl stnce &rior to c#

tully s'in* the question, Howe(er this .stnce/ is itsel! s&e#

ci-c "ode o! the Sel!$ with the result tht wht is ctully ob#

ser(ed$ e(en within cre!ul &heno"enolo*y$ is the Sel! s it is

only in tht "ode, Heide**er/s inquiry into the nture o! the be#

in* in question in its e(erydy "ode$ rther thn its theoreticl

"ode$ de"onstrted tht the theoreticl "ode ws not co""en#

surte with the "ore .usul/ "odes o! the Sel!,

2e be*n with the notion tht the Sel!$ li'e ny other thin* o!

which we cn sy it is in !ct .one/ thin*$ is syste"ic in nture,

The word .syste"ic/ hs the d(nt*e o! clerly indictin* tht

it hs to do with syste"$ without i"&lyin* !lse syste"tic n#

ture to the "ultitude o! syste"s tht re not syste"tic) syste"s

tht re !ull o! contrdictions$ o&&ositions$ nd rndo" no"#

lies, 4diou/s notion tht there is no .one/$ usin* set theory s

his de"onstrtion$ "isses the &oint tht syste" is not si"&ly

set, Sets re rbitrry collections$ whether o! ele"ents in older

set theory or other sets in newer set theory, The ccu"ultion

into set doesn/t !und"entlly chn*e its "e"bers . s &rt o!




the set they re si"&ly wht they were$ lbeit now collected, Sys#

te"s on the other hnd re !unctionl rrn*e"ents . they h(e

the bility to !unction s one thin*, For this to occur the reltions

between "e"bers o! syste" re deter"ined s to their struc#

ture$ wheres in set the "e"bers "y be "o(ed$ sw&&ed etc,

in ny desired !shion, This rrn*e"ent o! .&rts/ o! syste"

*i(es syste"s s&eci-c structures$ structures tht led to the !or#

"tion o! s&ects :syste"ic !etures !ound only in the syste"

s##whole when it is !unctionin*;$ s well s e"er*ent !etures

:!etures tht &&er due to reltions between subsyste"s nd

substructures o! subsyste"s;, As result$ while set is si"&ly

the su" o! its "e"bers$ lon* with ny i"&le"ented !unctions

tht wor' on ll "e"bers :such s n &&ro&rite wy to sort

the";$ syste" is *enerlly "ore thn the su" o! its &rts, This

."ore/ co"es bout both s !unctionlity !ound in the reltions

between "e"bers tht don/t e%ist in ny indi(idul "e"ber nd

throu*h e"er*ent !etures tri**ered by reltions between sub#

structures o! the syste", Further$ these e"er*ent !etures$

within co"&le% syste"$ cn !or" their own syste"ic structures

ledin* to !unctionlity not !ound nywhere in the ori*inl sys#




te"$ or e(en in the ori*inl syste" s whole t the scle o! its

i"&le"enttion, The result o! this ltter sitution is tht the

hi*her#le(el e"er*ent syste" beco"es deter"inti(e !or the be#

h(iour o! the syste" or syste"s tht co"&rise it, A syste" cn#

not be !ully deter"ined$ thou*h$ !ro" within itsel!$ s Godel/s In#

co"&leteness Theore" dequtely de"onstrtes, Since we re

our Sel(es$ there is no "et#syste" (ilble !ro" which the Sel!

could be !ully deter"ined, Since necessry s&ect o! the Sel!

in(ol(es bein*#in#the#world$ but it is only n s&ect$ the Sel! nd

world re equi&ri"ordil$ they require ech other but neither is

the "et o! the other$ the world s syste" is si"ilrly not !ully

deter"ined,

The question o! the Sel!$ s to wht it is$ thereby *ins n ini#

til deter"intion tht cn ssist us in &ointin* towrds the r#

es tht need to be loo'ed t in order to *in !uller$ "ore e%#

&licit deter"intion o! the Sel!, The question o! the question o!

the Sel! concerns how$ "ethodolo*iclly$ one "i*ht &&roch the

Sel!$ *i(en tht the Sel! is in ech nd e(ery cse . who we re/

nd thus so"ethin* one cnnot si"&ly loo' t !ro" n e%ternl

&ers&ecti(e$ whether s&til or te"&orl,




2ith the c(et i"&lied by this inbility to . *et hold/ o! one/s

Sel! in its totlity$ cn the question o! the Sel! retin (lidity s

question8 As *uidin* ide$ te"&orry wy o! holdin* o+ the

question/s !ull i"&ct until we h(e "ore !"ilirity with how

the question o! the Sel! wor's itsel! out$ we d"it tht ny n#

swer will be t best &rtil$ &ers&ecti(l nd hori9onl$ but tht it

cn still del with truths tht re not &urely &ersonl or soli&sis#

tic$ due to the shred nture o! the Sel! in question$ nd the re#

sultin* bility to loo' t the shred Sel! in "nner where indi#

(idul &ers&ecti(es cn be chec'ed *inst$ nd "odi-ed by$

other indi(idul &ers&ecti(es tht h(e the s"e relity in (iew,




(eterminism and ecessity

Deter"inis" cn be !or"ulted$ s 4uchner does$ s >there is

no !ree will$ the indi(idul is no "ore thn !o" on the w(e,

The word 5"ust5 is one o! the curses with which "n'ind is b&#

ti9ed, The syin* .It "ust be tht o+enses co"e) but woe to hi"

by who" the o+ense co"eth/ is terri!yin*, 2ht is it in us tht

lies$ "urders$ stels8 I no lon*er cre to &ursue this thou*ht,

2ithin the notion o! deter"inis"$ wht terri-ed 4uchner is

tht lthou*h he (iewed thin*s$ in line with his ti"e$ s 5&urely

deter"inistic5$ we e%&erience the" s our res&onsibility$ s our

indi(idully chosen decisions, Schellin* in the "et&hysics o!

e(il in(erted the &rdo% by &ositin* the theolo*icl "enin* o!

5S&irit5 s n ct o! our 5eternl &st5 by which we deter"ined our

!te s who we re, It re"ined !or He*el to show tht S&irit

ws the result o! our necessry &ositin* o! necessity out o! con#

tin*ency, Rther thn &ositin* n illusory !reedo" in deter"in#

istic sitution$ we !reely &osit the illusory necessity o! our own

bein*,




In de(elo&in* the notion o! necessity :nd thus deter"inis";

&hiloso&hy nd science didn5t &&roch the "ulti&licity o! contin#

*ent relity nd si"&ly 5-nd5 n underlyin* necessity tht ws l#

redy so"ehow 5there5$ which would be &recisely the rei-ction

o! essencin* bc' into substnce "et&hysics, The (ery "ethod

o! &&roch :e%&lntion !ro" ori*in; &osits necessity underly#

in* contin*ent &&ernces, This necessity is howe(er our own

&ositin* o! the initilly contin*ent s beco"in* necessry inso!r

s it beco"es &st, Thus the 5ob0ecti(e5 study o! &st e(ents in

historiolo*y is ctully cco"&lished !ro" the &ers&ecti(e o! our#

sel(es s the necessry outco"e,

In the s"e wy the study o! ny necessity underlyin* the con#

tin*ency o! nture :e(olutionry theory$ !or e%"&le$ in Drwin5s

sense; turns nture s relity5s contin*ent e%ternli9tion o! it#

sel!$ into 5nturl history5$ where the contin*encies in nture be#

co"e 5necessry history5$ necessry :nd thus historicl; !ro" the

&ers&ecti(e tht we re the result$ nd cn only see nture s the

&reconditions o! our own e%istence$ nythin* else is necessrily




-ctitious, Any tte"&t by science to (iew nture in ter"s o! 5how

it is !or itsel!5 rther thn 5how it is !or us5 is lwys lredy

!ilure6 in tte"&tin* to i"*ine n i"&ossible &ers&ecti(e # the

rel &ers&ecti(e inter&olted is "erely tht o! our ideolo*icl

&re0udices,

The co""on sense (iew o! deter"inis" nd !reedo"$ then$ s

e%&ressed by 3r%$ is only hl! o! the story6 3en "'e their

own history$ but they do not "'e it s they &lese) they do not

"'e it under Sel!#selected circu"stnces$ but under circu"#

stnces e%istin* lredy$ *i(en nd trns"itted !ro" the &st, In

3r%5s &seudo#dilecticl ter"s we re deter"ined by our situ#

tion s li"it$ yet we re !ree within tht sitution by our bility

to li"it the "nner in which our historicl sitution deter"ines

us,

The other hl!$ thou*h$ is tht we &osit retrocti(ely our &re#

conditions s necessry in the -rst &lce, 2ht deter"ines us is

only &osited retrocti(ely s deter"inistic$ nd deter"inis" it#

sel! rises s n e%&ression o! our !ree cti(ity, As n e%"&le$ in



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9)9

&sycholo*y$ n inner necessity o! &st e(ent deter"ines the

&resent contin*ent beh(iors tht betry both its e%istence nd

re&ression, 2ht is o!ten "issed by &sycholo*ists is tht the ne#

cessity o! re&ression to ne*te itsel! in the on*oin* contin*ent

beh(iors constitutes nd "intins the &st e(ent nd its re#

&ression s necessry, 2hen we &tholo*i9e our beh(ior$ t#

tributin* it to &rticulr &st cuse$ we !reely &osit tht contin#

*ent e(ent s deter"inin* necessity$ nd it re"ins so until we

cese to &osit it s such,




7he Self as ody

In ter"s o! describin* the Sel!$ we ine(itbly run u& *inst

the issue o! the wy in which we re bodily bein*s, The old se&#

rtion o! "ind body hs &ro(en untenble on "ulti&le ccounts$

but how do we ccount !or our bodily bein*$ our re"r'ble

closeness to other ni"ls$ while not &er!or"in* reductionist

di"inution o! the rdicl *ul! tht ne(ertheless se&rtes bein*

with world !ro" n ni"l with its en(iron"ent8

O! course$ there is not si"&ly one *ul! to be delt with$ but

nu"ber o! *&s tht e%ist between di+erent ty&es o! ni"ls s

well s tht between the "ost co"&le% o! the other ni"l

s&ecies nd the Sel!#wre hu"n bein*, I! we be*in by loo'in*

t the insect nd its reltion to its en(iron"ent we cn del with

one o! the si"&ler cses o! how n ni"l intercts with its sur#

roundin*s,

The old co*niti(e$ re&resenttionl ides o! ni"l beh(iour

h(e been de"onstrted s not &lusible, In "y ni(et/ s

youn* so!twre de(elo&er chr*ed with de(elo&in* syste" tht

would res&ond in rel ti"e to rel world e(ents I didn/t tte"&t



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9)'

to re&resent ny 'ind o! coherent en(iron"entl e%&erience$ I

si"&ly let the &ro*r" res&ond to &rticulr e(ents bsed on

si"&le rule &riorities on the ssu"&tion tht it didn/t require ny

in!or"tion bout nythin* surroundin* those e(ents, A syste"

s si"&le s n insect wor's in "uch the s"e "nner$ it hs no

need !or n o(erll . (iew/ o! its en(iron"ent$ it si"&ly res&onds

to s&eci-c e(ents :sti"uli; within tht en(iron"ent, The rn*e o!

sti"uli tht *i(en insects cn &ercei(e nd there!ore res&ond to

hs &ro(en to be (ery li"ited in si"ilr wy to the si"&le &ro#

*r" I wrote, This si"&licity llows the insect to res&ond (ery

quic'ly to the s&eci-c sti"uli tht its rules dee" rele(nt, At its

"ost si"&listic$ then$ we see the criteri o! rele(nce nd hence

si*ni-cnce enterin* the beh(iourl "odel,

As ni"l syste"s *in co"&le%ity$ so"ethin* lredy t wor'

in ny "ulti# cellulr or*nis" beco"es "ore i"&ortnt in con#

siderin* the notion o! en(iron"ent, 2e tend to consider n or#

*nis"/s en(iron"ent to be nythin* . outside/ the s&til bound#

ry o! the or*nis") howe(er "ulticellulr or*nis"s re "de

u& o! indi(idul cells whose en(iron"ent is within the or*nis",

2ith incresin* co"&le%ity subsyste"s tht re "ore co"&le%




thn si"&le ni"ls e%ist in en(irons within nd controlled by

the or*nis" s whole, A si"&le ni"l$ such s n insect$ is

directly disinhibited by s&eci-c sti"uli in its en(irons to &rticu#

lr ctions$ nd in "uch the s"e wy subsyste"s o! "ore co"#

&le% ni"ls re disinhibited to ction by s&eci-c sti"uli in their

en(irons, Howe(er those en(irons re controlled by the or*nis"

s whole$ in such wy tht the or*nis" cn intentionlly dis#

inhibit s&eci-c ctions o! &rticulr subsyste", 2hen I decide

to stnd u&$ whole sequence o! internl en(iron"entl chn*es

occurs tht disinhibits the ctions o! (rious subsyste"s in "y

body$ such s "y le* "uscles$ with the result tht I -nd "ysel!

stndin* u& without needin* to be wre o! the ctul "echnics

o! how tht ws cco"&lished,

Neuroscience hs tte"&ted to understnd the (rious s&ects

o! consciousness s .e+ects/ o! neurolo*icl i"&ulses$ ledin* t

the e%tre"e to !ntsticl in(entions such s .decision struc#

tures/ in the brin nd e(en the &osit o! .structures tht h(e

e(ol(ed to sustin reli*ious belie!s/, As n e"er*ent syste" the

"ind is o! course de&endent on the body$ includin* but not li"#

ited to the neurolo*icl syste", Howe(er s the deter"inin* sys#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9)"

te"$ tht is itsel! not !ully deter"inble$ the Sel! s we e%&eri#

ence it in totlity is the syste" in control o! the body$ both in its

"echnicl nd neuroche"icl s&ects,




7he ational Knimal

2hile the descri&tion o! hu"n bein* s .rtionl ni"l/ !ils

on nu"ber o! counts$ the "ost bsic bein* the di+erence be#

tween the bility to e%&erience "enin* nd rtionlity itsel!$

rtionl ni"l does e%ist$ &recisely s the hi*her ni"l$ s

wht "'es hi*her ni"l .hi*her/ !ro" our &ers&ecti(e o! ni#

"ls s &recursors,

Se"iotics is not lin*uistics$ becuse the si*n$ s &ointin* t

so"ethin*$ is not equi(lent to the word s "enin* so"ethin*$

which lwys in(ol(es "enin* so"ethin* within the conte%t o!

tht ln*u*e, I "i*ht &oint t so"ethin* &recisely becuse it

doesn/t h(e ny "enin* !or "e$ it/s si"&ly question "r' s

to its bein*$ yet it is ob(iously e%tnt,

The hi*her ni"ls use si*ns on re*ulr bsis$ e(en intend#

in* the" in s&eci-c socio#&oliticl wys$ yet they re inc&ble o!

ln*u*e, The cnine &ly bow is n e%"&le o! such si*n$ nd

the nu"erous si*ns used by the l&h wol! to denote its sttus

de"onstrte the socio#&oliticl use o! si*ns in the sitution o! the

hi*her ni"l, Our do* understnds *ood del o! ln*u*e &re#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 9))

"ost$ in the &&ernce o! &&ernce in the wor' o! rt, This

du&liction :nd redu&liction in the I#Sub0ect; is the &riori !or

ln*u*e$ nd this ori*in o! the rel is the reson tht &oetry hs

!or "illenni been considered the "ost ori*inry o! the -ne rts,

2hich brin*s us bc' to the question o! wht the hi*her ni#

"l e%&eriences$ which hs to be &&ernce$ but not the &#

&ernce o! &&ernce$ or "ore ccurtely the &&erin* o! &#

&ernce, Thin*s &&er s deter"ined !or the hi*her ni"l in

"enin*!ul wy$ but the &&erin* o! this &&ernce$ tht du#

&lictes ctulity such tht we cn sy wht it is doesn/t !ully

h&&en, A*inst Heide**er$ then$ the ni"l does h(e world s

wht deter"ines the deter"inte$ but it doesn/t !ully h(e world

s world, Since the hi*her ni"ls lso h(e "ood$ s disclo#

sure o! how they re$ the "ood in hu"n bein*s tht discloses

world$ n*st or &ure n%iety$ is not &resent in the hi*her ni"l,

<ure n%iety :s o&&osed to n%iousness bout so"ethin*; "'es

our own bein* n issue$ which !or Heide**er distin*uishes D#

sein !ro" other bein*s, In sense Heide**er/s !or"ultion o! the

ni"l s .&oor/ in world$ s o&&osed to the stone/s bein* .with#




out/ world$ is "ore ccurte thn his !or"ultion o! n bsolute

*ul! between hu"ns nd ni"ls, There is *ul!$ undoubtedly$

but there is &roble" in seein* ni"lity itsel! s one thin*$

without equi(lent *ul!s between di+erent "odes o! bein* o! di!#

!erent cretures tht ll co"e under the hedin* .ni"l/ ,




7he Self as Kthlete: Kthleticism Ks Imaginative Jro8ec-tion and Whole ody Kctualiation

/When a cross comes into a bo;! there2s so many thingsthat go through your mind in a split second! li0e Cve or si;dierent things you can do with the ball. Uou2re as0ing

yourself si; @uestions in a split second. $aybe you2ve gottime to bring it down on the chest and shoot! or you haveto head it Crst time. If the defender is there! you2ve obvi-ously got to try and hit it Crst time. If he2s farther bac0!

you2ve got space to ta0e a touch. Uou get the decisionmade. 7hen it2s obviously about the e;ecution.2 -Wayne

ooney! Stri0er! $anchester Anited Bootball 6lub

E%tre"e thleticis" hs been one re where the !ilure o!

the neuro#scienti-c &&roch hs been "ost &&rent, In &rticu#

lr s&orts$ such s !ootbll :soccer; nd bs'etbll$ strte*y hs

to be encted by the thlete while t !ull &hysicl out&ut, Ides

such s ."uscle "e"ory/$ where the thlete hs su&&osedly

trined his or her body to si"&ly rect without direction beco"e

ludicrous when you consider the (st &er"uttions tht would

h(e to be trined in$ since the "o(e"ents needed re de&en#

dent on (st nu"ber o! &r"eters in the *"e sitution, It

lso discounts thletes/ own descri&tions o! how they do wht

they do$ which in(ol(es decidin* between (ilble o&tions$ then

i"*inti(ely (isuli9in* the "o(e"ent t (irtully the s"e "o#




"ent their body does it, Ob(iously trinin* is needed in order !or

the body to res&ond instntly in such &recise$ ccurte "nner

to how the thlete (isuli9es ctin*$ but it re"ins res&onse to

the decided on$ i"*ined ct, 2hile both o! the s&orts "entioned

re &lyed t hi*h &hysicl &ce nd !or !ir durtion$ th#

letes in(ol(ed o!ten sy tht t the end o! the *"e the ."entl/

e%hustion is "ore e%tre"e thn the &hysicl, The to& thletes in

these nd other s&orts h(e trined their bodies to ct nerly si#

"ultneously to the direction !ro" the Sel!$ but not to ct . un#

thin'in*ly/ $ rther the re(erse is true$ they ct in (ery &recise

ccordnce with their thin'in*$ nd tht thin'in* is done with

&ce nd *ility un'nown to "ny non#thletes,

/Jart of my preparation is I go and as0 the 0it man whatcolor we2re wearing / if it2s red top! white shorts! whitesoc0s or blac0 soc0s!2 he says. /7hen I lie in bed the nightbefore the game and visualie myself scoring goals or do-ing well. Uou2re trying to put yourself in that moment andtrying to prepare yourself! to have a /memory2 before the

game. I don2t 0now if you2d call it visualiing or dreaming!but I2ve always done it! my whole life.2 -Wayne ooney

The bility to i"*ine so"ethin*$ then in s&eci-c sitution




with di+erent set o! (ery co"&le% &r"eters$ h(e your body

cco"&lish tht$ requires control by the Sel! o(er e(ery subsys#

te" nd e(ery syste"ic s&ect with e%tre"e (elocity, The s#

su"&tions o! "terilist neuroscience would in(lidte ny &os#

sibility o! ctully cco"&lishin* it$ yet to& thletes cco"&lish it

re*ulrly, Neuroche"icl i"&ulses re not quic' enou*h !or e(#

erythin* to co"e .!ro" the brin/$ s i! the Sel! were so"ehow

.in/ the brin, Howe(er the (isuli9tion or i"*intion s the

source in(lidtes the ide tht the bility is so"ehow .&ro#

*r""ed/ in to the body by &rctice, @ertinly s&eci-c "o(e#

"ents tht don/t initilly !eel .nturl/ when lernin* co"&le%

s&ort beco"e so throu*h &rctice$ but I/" discussin* the entirety

o! "o(e"ent in n ctul *"e sitution$ which requires the

body to &ut the i"*ined scenrio into &rctice while t'in* into

ccount "yrid o! &r"eters tht cn/t be !oreseen in d#

(nce,

/ . . . it2s probably worth noting that ooney has! shallwe say! a uni@ue manner of tal0ing. #e favors odd!bac0-to-front constructions. #e overuses the word /obvi-ously.2 #e fre@uently refers to himself as /you.2 / -Klan6lar0e! interviewer! 'SJB6 $againe




@lr'e scribes Rooney/s odd wy o! describin* thin*s to his

=i(er&ool u&brin*in*, 2hile certinly there re s&eci-c turns o!

&hrse co""on in the locl dilect$ Rooney/s (ersion to usin* .I/

in describin* how he does wht he does is not "erely loclis"$

nor is it unique to !ootbllers or e(en thletes, The I#Sub0ect is

si"&ly not &resent when he/s in(ol(ed in the *"e$ nd s re#

sult usin* .I/ !eels inccurte$ while .you/ :in the sense o! nyone;

or ."e/ s the Sel! doesn/t result in the s"e disco"!ort,

/When you are younger! you2re always . . . you2re a bitmore advanced than the 0ids your age! so there are timeson the pitch where you can see dierent things! but theycan2t obviously see it. So then it2s li0e you get annoyed!but they are not obviously . . . It2s li0e you said before.7hey can2t calculate. I suppose it2s li0e when you playsnoo0er! you2re always thin0ing three or four shots downthe line. I suppose with football! it2s li0e that. Uou2ve got tothin0 three or four passes where the ball is going to cometo down the line. Knd I thin0 the very best footballers!they2re able to see that before ... $uch @uic0er than a lotof other footballers.2 / Wayne ooney

This bility to i"*inti(ely &ercei(e the sitution s it will be

is crucil to the best thletes$ &rticulrly in !st &ced *rou&

s&orts, The co"&le%ity in(ol(ed is well beyond the bility o! the

si"&listic I#Sub0ect) the !ull Sel! is necessrily res&onsible, 2ere




the I#Sub0ect to tte"&t si"ilr i"*inti(e !et it would be lu#

dicrously slow by ny thletic stndrds$ e(en i! there weren/t

the cco"&nyin* dely while the I#Sub0ect tte"&ts to ctully

&ut the i"*ined ction into &hysicl e+ect, 4ut e(en t the to&

le(el o! this 'ind o! s&ort there is noticeble di+erence in wht

thletes nd co""enttors re!er to s the &lyer/s .s&eed o!

thou*ht/ $ so "uch so tht &lyer tht hs *reter bility to

&ro0ect the sitution cn o!ten "'e &lyer who hs "uch "ore

&hysicl &ce loo' silly,

The de*ree o! su&erstition so co""on in thletes is result o!

this necessity$ the "ore n thlete hs to thin' sub0ecti(ely bout

wht he or she is doin*$ the less ble they re to ctully do it,

As result their bility to do it .without thin'in*/ :in the sense o!

the theoreticl I#Sub0ect; beco"es "ysterious in &recisely the

wy e%&erience is "ysterious to the "ytholo*icl Sel!#wre con#

sciousness, As result o! not h(in* theoreticl wreness o!

how they do wht they do$ nd since tte"&tin* one destroys

their bility to do it t ll$ they beco"e nturlly su&erstitious

bout nythin* tht "i*ht in so"e "ysterious wy +ect tht

bility, 4ut the quote bo(e shows tht the Sel! is wre o! its




thin'in*$ lbeit not in n esily e%&licble wy$ without re&re#

sentin* it to the I#Sub0ect, It/s only throu*h this wreness tht

the Sel! cn re#&resent the sitution to the sub0ecti(e &rocess in

the -rst &lce$ nd the sense o! bein*#wre &rior to the re#&re#

sentin* o! it !or nlysis lwys cco"&nies the re&resenttion,

4odily ision

/When ec0ham was at eal $adrid! he conCrmed thatScholes was the most admired opponent in a dressingroom boasting 9inedine 9idane! *u2s Bigo and oberto6arlos. Knd! as0ed to name the best in a Anited s@uadthat includes 6ristiano onaldo and Wayne ooney! this is

Berdinand2s verdict: /Bor me! it2s Jaul Scholes. #e2ll doridiculous things in training li0e say! /Uou see that treeover there?2 -it2ll be E, yards away -2I2m going to hit it2.

Knd he2ll do it every time. 'veryone at the club considershim the best.2 /

Yamie Yac0son! 7he =bserver! $ay +T! F,,

An e%"&le o! the ty&e o! &lyer "entioned bo(e$ not &rticu#

lrly !st t runnin* with or without the soccer bll$ but 'nown

!or e%tre"e .s&eed o! thou*ht/ $ is <ul Scholes, Scholes is cur#

rently third on the ll#ti"e &&ernce list !or 3nchester




7nited$ the lr*est !ootbll club in the world$ h(in* been

"insty o! the -rst te" !or L sesons$ ddin* u& to o(er V

*"es &lyed, He is &hysiclly s"ll nd sli*ht !or soccer

&lyer$ t bout // nd J lbs,$ nd e(en in the erlier &rt o!

his creer he ws not 'nown s bein* one o! the !ster &lyers on

the te", His &ce hs slowed considerbly o(er the len*th o! his

creer$ unsur&risin*ly considerin* he hs hd se(ere sth"

!ro" childhood nd Os*ood#Schltter disese$ rre 'nee condi#

tion$ on to& o! the sheer &hysicl strin o! &lyin* tht "ny

*"es, To be ble to &ly t tht le(el without e%tre"e &ce or

*ility$ Scholes hs &heno"enl technique in the wy he "ni&u#

ltes soccer bll, Howe(er his bility isn/t only$ or e(en &ri"r#

ily$ "tter o! &ssin*$ shootin* nd control technique, One o!

his nic'n"es on the te" is . StN(/ due to his unusul bility

to .see/$ to e%&erience the *"e s dyn"ic whole$ to 'now

where to be on the &itch t ny "o"ent nd -nd s&ce$ to lwys

be o&en !or te""te to &ss to$ nd to 'now where e(eryone

else will be by the ti"e he &sses the bll to nother re o! the

&itch,




/ I2m star-struc0 when I see Jaul Scholes because younever see him. =n the pitch you can2t catch him. = thepitch he disappears.2 /

*uis Bigo! former midCelder! eal $adrid

/ Scholes is one of the most complete footballers I2veever seen. #is one-touch play is phenomenal. Whenever Ihave played against him! I never felt I could get close tohim.2 /

'idur ud8ohnssen! former stri0er! 6helsea B6

/ When Scholes is in the team! it2s li0e playing with thelights switched on2 /

6arlos Nueiro! former Kssistant $anager! $anchesterAnited! former $anager! Jortugal.

The i"&ressions o! o&&osin* &lyers don/t &&er to describe

&lyer who is o!ten$ .ob0ecti(ely/$ the slowest "n on the &itch,

The quote !ro" his !or"er ssistnt "n*er s&e's not only to

his (ision o! the *"e$ but his bility to shre tht (ision with the

rest o! the te"$ which *i(es hi" the bility to dictte the te"&o

nd the style o! the *"e, His bility to &ic' out the ri*ht &ss

!ro" the o&tions (ilble$ t'in* into ccount the ti"e it will




t'e !or the bll to rri(e t its destintion nd how ll the &ly#

ers on the -eld will h(e chn*ed &osition in tht ti"e$ within

"tter o! one or two seconds !ter recei(in* the bll$ cn be un#

cnny to wtch,

<erh&s "ost ironiclly$ Scholes su+ers !ro" n eye &roble"

tht$ lthou*h it didn/t end his creer$ "'es his si*ht blurry,

/I can remember it clearly!2 says Scholes! recalling the

day he Crst realied something was wrong. /We were play-ing at irmingham and in the last +, minutes I could see aball coming towards me. 7hen it suddenly felt li0e therewere three or four balls coming towards me. I thought I

8ust had a migraine. ut I went to see a specialist when itstill hadn2t gone and they found the problem after that.2

Jaul Scholes! tal0ing about his eye condition! (aily 7ele-graph! $ay +! F,,G.

Althou*h his (ision ne(er *ot better thn blurry$ Scholes/ on

&itch .(ision/ hsn/t been +ected in ny noticeble wy, 4ut

while we o!ten use ter"s re!errin* to si*ht s *enerl ter"s !or

&erce&tion$ nd not ter"s !ro" other senses$ in s&eci-clly dis#

cussin* his eyesi*ht Scholes uses the &hrse . it suddenly felt

li'e there were three or !our blls co"in* towrds "e/ :itlics

"ine;, 4oth the lc' o! the use o! the .I/ nd the use o! .!elt li'e/




rther thn .loo'ed li'e/ hint t the "nner Scholes hi"sel! e%&e#

riences how he does wht he does, His (ision is not the &erce&#

tion o! the I#Sub0ect$ nor is it &erce&tion wholly *uided by

si*ht,

Si*ht is the "ost &ers&ecti(l$ sub0ecti(e sense, 2ithin the

"et&hysicl !r"ewor' tht cul"intes in the (iew o! the I#Sub#

0ect s the Sel!$ si*ht is *enerlly &ri(ile*ed o(er the other

senses, 2tchin* Scholes$ thou*h$ the uncnny s&ect o! his &ly

is his bility to &ercei(e wht he cn/t &ossibly be seein*6 his

bility to s'i& sidewys 0ust be!ore n o&&onent co"es u& behind

hi"$ his bility to s&in nd si"ultneously &ss the bll J or

yrds onto the toe o! te""te runnin* down the win* on the

other side o! the &itch, Fro" the &ers&ecti(e o! n obser(er &osi#

tioned bo(e the whole &itch$ such s "ny o! the c"er n*les

used to tele(ise the "tches$ it/s s i! Scholes hs n equi(lent

(iew to the s&ecttor$ rther thn the (iew he ctully hs, 4ut

our understndin* &erce&tion is not wholly (isul &erce&tion o!

the sitution, In n e%tre"e wy$ nd to& thletes do wht they

do by t'in* co""on bilities to n e%tre"e$ Scholes de"on#

strtes the wy the Sel! e%&eriences the world throu*h ll the




senses$ in ll its co"&le%ity$ nd in dyn"ic "nner tht in#

cludes wht is rele(nt !ro" the &st nd our &ro0ection o! the

!uture$ ll#t#once,

/In the +4,2s . . . K8a; coach inus $ichels and on-Celdgenius Yohan 6ruy began to develop their theories of /to-tal football!2 a style that used space in a way never beforeimagined. Instead of rigid lines and C;ed positions! (utchplayers began switching positions Luidly! treating the Celdas a single space to be e;panded and compressed at will.2/ (avid Winner! 'SJ $againe

. Totl Footbll/ nd the e(en "ore Buid$ &tient &ss"o(e

nd ti'i#t' tht !ollowed it require this bility$ nd lthou*h Sc#

holes "y be n e%tre"e e%"&le$ it/s !und"entl to the bili#

ties o! (i Hernnde9$ Andres Iniest nd =ionel 3essi o!

4rcelon$ the club tht t'es it to the *retest e%tre"e throu*h

the whole te", All re noted d"irers o! <ul Scholes$ with

3essi si"&ly cllin* Scholes . the Techer/ ,




7he Self and the 6ogito

Descrtes/ . co*ito er*o su"/ see"s Sel!#e(ident t -rst her#

in*$ but contins ssu"&tions tht re neither clri-ed nor 0usti#

-ed, Tht the e%istence o! the co*ito cnnot be doubted is only

true i! the co*ito is lredy de"onstrted s our Sel! e%&erience$

nd thus the co*ito de"onstrbly equi(lent to the Sel!, =e(in*

the co*ito nd its &redeter"intions out$ we re le!t with it bein*

(ery di1cult to deny the &ro&osition tht . there is Sel!/ ,

This chn*e$ thou*h$ turns on Descrtes/ &rtil s'e&ticis"$

since we cn only e%&erience the Sel! !ro" out o! the world$

which we lwys e%&erience be!orehnd$ the @rtesin wil!ull

doubtin* o! the e%istence o! tht world beco"es s i"&ossible s

disbelie(in* in the e%istence o! Sel!$ howe(er one de-nes tht

Sel!,

The co*ito is still no doubt n i"&ortnt s&ect o! tht Sel!, Yet

we h(e "ny conscious &rocesses tht we re "ore or less

wre o! :nd cn beco"e "ore or less wre o! de&endin* on

the sitution;, I/" sure "ny h(e hd the e%&erience o! bein*

!ocused on so"ethin* such s boo' while "usic &lys in the




bc'*round, At certin &oint so"ethin* drws one/s wreness

to the "usic$ which one wsn/t &re(iously &rticulrly wre o!$

nd yet our "e"ory o! the "usic is such tht we cn li'ely n"e

the lst hl! do9en or "ore son*s :ssu"in* we 'now enou*h

bout "usic to n"e son*s on herin*;, Aconscious &rocess ws

listenin* to the "usic$ thus the "usic tht ws herd &rior to our

beco"in* wre o! it cn be reclled s i! one hd been wre o!

it the whole ti"e,

The co*ito$ then$ is recursi(e$ e"er*ent s&ect o! the syste"

o! consciousness tht cn e%&erience reBe%i(ely the contents o!

consciousness itsel!$ but in si"&li-ed nd clculti(ey wy, In

doin* so it se&rtes itsel! !ro" consciousness while si"ultne#

ously deter"inin* itsel! s consciousness, The co*ito is the ori*in

o! Sel!#liention in its &ositin* itsel! s distinct !ro" the rest o!

consciousness nd its contents, 2ith the bility to e%&erience the

Sel! in the ct o! decidin*$ this liention is the &riori !or n

ethicl li!e$ s o&&osed to si"&le !ollowin* or not !ollowin* the

"orl lw,




Kngst and the evealing of the Self as eality

.An*st :n%iety; nor"lly dri(es the hu"n sub0ect wy !ro"

hi"sel!, It &re(ents hi" !ro" !cin* his situtedness s be#

in*#thrown :*ewor!en; into "enin*lessness :s "ni!ested in

cce&ted truths$ (lues$ nd wys o! li!e;$ o! the 3n$ o! wy o!

bein*#in#the#world which is contrsted to itsel!$ nd s such rel#

i9es itsel! in n unuthentic e%istence :7nei*entliches Dsein;,

Authenticity is here re(eled s hu"n e%istentil in which the

&resence o! the bsence o! wholeness "ni!ests itsel! s hu"n

question, It is e%ctly the bsence o! the &resence o! wholeness

which enbles the uthentic hu"n sub0ect to !ce the &rtility

nd creti(e#"enin*lessness which surrounds hi" #s &recon#

dition to turnin* hi"sel! to the wholeness$ to the in-nity o! noth#

in*ness beyond the *i(en relity, This is "ni!ested in bein*#to#

wrds#deth, An%iety is not only the wy !or hu"n to e%&erience

her or his uthentic e%&erience o! deth s bein*#towrds#not#be#

in*, This is where$ !or Heide**er$ !reedo" "ni!ests itsel!6 when

decidin* !or uthenticity nd *inst inuthenticity not s rel#

i9tion o! &ositi(e 7to&i but s "ni!esttion o! reli9in* re#




s&onsibility !or o(erco"in* ll !lse &ro"ises o! o&ti"istic#&ur#

&ose oriented &ro0ects, Freedo" re(els itsel! in let#

tin*#thin*s#be,

7o be authentic the human sub8ect must overcome thegoverning world of facts! the realm of Self-evidence or /proved2 truths and resist the threats and temptations ofsecurity! pleasure! and success oered by the =ther! by so-ciety. 7hen! and only then! in face of the an;iety! of con-

fronting the inCnity of nothingness and of homelessness!will the overcoming of the given be possible and truth asuncovering realie itself in human transcendence.2

$artin #eidegger

D#sein "ens6 bein* held out into the nothin*, Holdin* itsel!

out into he nothin*$ Dsein is in ech cse lredy beyond bein*s

s whole, This bein* beyond bein*s we cll .trnscendence/ , I!

in the *round o! its essence Dsein were not trnscendin*$ which

now "ens$ i! it were not in d(nce holdin* itsel! out into the

nothin*$ then it could ne(er be relted to bein*s or e(en to itsel!,

This .nothin*/ is the un'nowble beyond the Sel!$ beyond rel#

ity, Relity is not .whole/ tht cn be understood or "odeled)

we h(e only our own Sel! s tht &rtil$ 'nowble relity, 4e#

in*#in#the#world cnnot be understood s n entity#continer re#




ltionshi&$ becuse neither re the entities deter"inble nor

does reltion e%ist, 4ein*#in s n e%istentil is ontolo*iclly

&rior to nd !ounds our &otentil to be in s&til wy$ so in no

wy does s&til reltion deter"ine how we in !ct re s 4e#

in*#in, How tht &rtil$ 'nowble relity tht we oursel(es re is

!or the "ost &rt shred in 4ein*#with is lso not deter"inble

!ro" the &ers&ecti(e o! two sub0ect#entities occurrin* to*ether in

n lredy constituted s&ce, Insted$ 4ein*#with s n e%isten#

til deter"ines our &otentil !or shrin* the relity we e%&eri#

ence directly with nother$ initilly s &lce$ !ro" which s&ce

nd ti"e cn be bstrcted,




7he Invental Sub8ect

Throu*hout the te%t so !r I h(e "de re!erences to the In#

(entl Sub0ect$ or the I#Sub0ect$ without *oin* into the notion to

ny *ret de*ree,

The chn*e !ro" the "ytholo*icl Sel! to the "et&hysicl

Sel! in(ol(ed nu"ber o! thin*s, 4elie!s bec"e belie!#syste"s)

"orlity s sub"ission to the =w bec"e situtionl ethics) ori#

*in bec"e uni(ocl) the &ossibility o! "et&hysicl God s

cretor#bein* c"e into &ly) the (iew o! relity s creted$

there!ore s nture$ with the resultin* &ossibility o! nturl lw$

nd thus nturl science,

One o! the "ost &ower!ul chn*es$ nd one tht "de &ossible

"ny o! the others$ ws reBe%i(e "o(e o! the Sel! tht in re#

s&onse to e(entl situtions requirin* theoreticl or ethicl re#

Bection$ cretes the In(entl Sub0ect s &rocess tht si"&li-es

wreness o! the sitution, This I#Sub0ect doesn/t e%&erience

world in its !ullness o! "enin* s &resencin*$ but only the situ#

tionlly co*ent !etures tht the Sel! &ro(ides it with s re&re#

senttions, 2e e%&erience our own cretion o! the I#Sub0ect in




the .ste& bc'/ !ro" the sitution tht llows us to .t'e stoc'/ o!

it$ nd reBe%i(ely 0ud*e the Sel!/s own decision &rocess$ which

in!ers tht we e%&erience the I#Sub0ect !ro" the be*innin* s&#

tilly$ nd in n bstrct "nner,

Initilly$ !or "ost &eo&le who hd be*un to e%&erience the

I#Sub0ect$ it ws relti(ely rre occurrence, As society in#

cresed in co"&le%ity$ n increse tht ccelerted throu*h tech#

nolo*y$ itsel! "de &ossible by "et&hysicl thin'in*$ the I#Sub#

0ect ws clled on to "'e theoreticl nd ethicl 0ud*"ents

"ore nd "ore o!ten, <rticulrly !or those be*innin* to theori9e

on the nture o! the Sel!$ or &syche$ since they were lwys in

tht "ode when theori9in*$ the I# Sub0ect obscured the Sel!$ t'#

in* its &lce durin* the theoreticl conte"&ltion tht led to

ides such s those o! Descrtes nd others,

The nture o! the I#Sub0ect$ the @rtesin co*ito$ ws s re#

sult not inquired into, The I#Sub0ect . is/ not$ in ter"s o! no"i#

nl$ substntil entity, The "o"ent we beco"e en**ed$ in#

(ol(ed in the world it ceses s &rocess, Atte"&tin* to be in#

(ol(ed without dis&ensin* with the I#Sub0ect "'es us w'wrd$




.sel!#conscious/ in the ne*ti(e sense o! the ter", As well$ when

the I#Sub0ect co"es to decision to ct nd the Sel! cts$ the

&resence o! the I#Sub0ect obscures &recisely how the ction is c#

co"&lished, The I#Sub0ect is not thin*$ there!ore$ but since it

re(els bein*s in certin wy$ s Heide**er &ointed out o! tech#

nolo*y$ it is . 2or'/ in the !ull "enin* Heide**er ssi*ns to

tht word, In Heide**er/s . desub0ecti(i9tion/ o! Mnt$ Heide*#

*er clls ttention to the non#no"inlis" o! the . I/ nd its . ris#

in*/ ,

. The &ro&osin* o! this lstin* unity$ s the s"eness o! the to#

tlity o! the rules o! 1nity$ is the bsic i"&ulse o! the let#

tin*#stnd#*inst#o! , , , In such &ro&osin* Sel!#orientin* to#

wrd , , , the . Sel!/ in this orientin*#towrd , , , is$ s it were$

t'en outside, In this wy$ the . I &ro&ose/ . cco"&nies Wbe#

*leitetX/ ll re&resentin*, 4ut it is not question o! nerby con#

su""ted ct o! 'nowin* which is directed by thin'in* itsel!,/

Mnt hi"sel! describes the .I/ s . conce&t$ or i! the ter" be

&re!erred$ 0ud*"ent/$ which is itsel! trnscendentl nd cnnot

be n ob0ect, Mnt lredy sw the . ob0ect/ o! rtionl &sychol#

o*y nd co*niti(e science s n illusion,




/ 3=f5 the simple! and in itself completely empty! repre-sentation /I2 3. . .5 we cannot even say that this is a con-cept! but only that it is a bare consciousness which accom-panies 3begleitet5 all concepts. 7hrough this I or he or it

%the thing& which thin0s! nothing further is representedthan a transcendental sub8ect of the thoughts R M. It is0nown only through the thoughts which are its predicates!and of it! apart from them! we cannot have any conceptwhatsoever! but can only revolve in a perpetual circle!since any 8udgment upon it has always already made useof its representation. Knd the reason why this inconve-nience is inseparably bound up with it! is that conscious-ness in itself is not a representation distinguishing a par-ticular ob8ect.2

In Mnt$ then$ "et&hysics reches its 9ero &oint, In Descrtes

nothin* could be 'nown with certinty other thn the I#Sub0ect,

4ut s Mnt lredy discerned the I#Sub0ect in itsel! cnnot be

'nown e%ce&t in the bre sense s the ct o! thin'in*, So the sit#

ution$ !or Mnt$ is tht relity in#itsel! cnnot be 'nown$ nd the

'nower itsel! is n illusion, The co"&le%ity o! the &rdo% cn be

seen in tht the non#'nowbility o! nou"enl relity$ or relity

in#itsel!$ is &roble" !or so"ethin* tht is itsel! n illusion, Tht

co*niti(e science would e(entully reco*ni9e its ob0ect s illu#

sory is hrdly sur&risin* *i(en it ws seen s illusory l"ost s it

ws -rst conce&tuli9ed in tht "nner, <rdo%$ howe(er$ is de#




&endent on in(lid ssu"&tions, In this cse the in(lid ssu"&#

tions re two!old$ hence the e%tent o! the &rdo%icl nture o!

the conclusion, The &rdo% o! 'nowin* cn be stted in this

wy6

1. A&&ernces$ nd there!ore nture$ cn be dece&ti(e, All o!

wht we re&resent s nture could be n illusion since we cn

e%&erience illusions, The only thin* we cn be certin o! is the

. I/ ,

2. Nture$ s wht underlies &&ernce$ cnnot be 'nown in

itsel!, Our only ccess to it is throu*h trnscendentl &&er#

ce&tion o! the bstrct cte*ories,

3. The . I/ $ s trnscendentl &&erce&tion$ cnnot be 'nown

becuse it is nothin* "ore thn n e"&ty 0ud*"ent tht c#

co"&nies e(ery re&resenttion, J, The . I/ itsel! is n illusion,

It is only in the ct o! thin'in* s re&resentin*,

I! we loo' into these stte"ents we cn distin*uish certin un#

thou*ht ssu"&tions,

. A&&ernce s whole is thou*ht s nture,

. E%&erience o! wht &&ers in &&ernce is thou*ht s re&#

resenttion, . 2ht e%&eriences &&ernce by re&resentin* is




thou*ht s the . I/ $ or trnscendentl &&erce&tion$ which is

&urely e"&ty conce&t$ or 0ud*"ent,

In <lto/s &ro0ection o! the Ides s . rel/ relity$ the &syche is

ble to &&rehend &&ernce directly$ but the clcultin* lo*is#

ti'on cn .clculte/ the relity behind the &&ernce,

As s&til$ the I#Sub0ect doesn/t h(e n ori*inry sense o!

&lce$ the here# now tht underlies the bstrct s&ce nd ti"e

tht the I#Sub0ect t'es s . trnscendentl/ in the Mntin sense,

The I#Sub0ect re&resents ti"e si"&listiclly s now#&oints tht

succeed one nother$ it lc's the Sel!/s bility to stretch itsel! (i

si"ultneous re"e"brnce o! itsel! s &ro0ectin* into the !u#

ture$ s well s the Sel!/s bility to s&tili9e by distncin* nd

de#distncin*,

7his universality which emerges>e;plodes out of a vio-lent brea0through is not the awareness of the universal asthe neutral frame which unites us all %2in spite of our dif-

ferences! we are basically all human...2&1 it is the universal-ity which becomes for-itself in the violent e;perience ofthe sub8ect who becomes aware that he is not fully himself

%coinciding with his particular form of e;istence&! that heis mar0ed by a profound split. Aniversality becomes for-it-self in the particular element which is thwarted in its en-deavor to reach its identity - conservative criti@ue ofdemocracy is fully aware of this parado;! when it pointsout how the democratic idea %each individual has the rightto participate in social life independently of the particular




place he occupies within the social ediCce& potentially un-dermines social stability! of how it involves individuals whoare by deCnition Self-alienated! out-of-8oint! not-recon-ciled! unable to recognie themselves %their proper place&

in the global organic social order. 9ie0! 7olerance as an Ideological 6ategory

This uni(erslity nd &rticulrity re"in tht o! the I#Sub0ect,

The I#Sub0ect is ne(er &ro&erly .in &lce5 becuse it is not n en#

tity tht could .h(e/ &lce$ but &urely ne*ti(e$ "esurin*

&rocess, The ne*ti(e uni(erslity o! the I#Sub0ect hs to ne*te

itsel! s uni(ersl or &rticulr$ to ne*te itsel! s Sel!, The

Sel!#identity o! the Sel! tht nrrtes nd the Sel! tht is nrrted

"ust beco"e &osit(e shred Sel! by ne*tin* not only uni(er#

slity but uni(erse itsel!$ by ne*tin* not only the &rticulr indi#

(idul but the Sel! s "erely indi(idu$ by ne*tin* sub0ecti(ity

nd ob0ecti(ity throu*h the !ilure o! the I#Sub0ect to be either

in#itsel! or !or#itsel!, world is si"ultneously "ine nd ours$ nd

neither the indi(idul Sel! nor the shred Sel! cn be !ully deter#

"ined$ or deter"ined t ll outside the !cticl sitution, world

s both "ine nd shred is the in#itsel! o! the Sel!$ while the nr#

rtor nd nrrted Sel! s both "ine nd shred is the !or#itsel!,




7he Self and eing %eyng&

Aquins &ostulted tht we 'now 4ein* s nlo*y$ s the ens

ut &ri"u" co*nitu"$ or the -rst#'nown, In this &ostulte

Aquins is !ollowin* Aristotle$ nd yet neither in this cse re

seein* 4ein* "et&hysiclly$ since !or both 4ein* is irreducible

to conce&t,

either a particular concept nor a particular ob8ect! be-ing as Crst 0nown 3 5 is the intellectual light or clearingwithin which mere of perception! which as such consist intheir relations to us as 0nowers! are transformed evenwithin the ob8ective order into things / that is to say! those

features of the environment! whether or not ob8ectiCed!which e;ercise and participate in an e;istence in theirown right our perceptions and derived from the samesource! whatever that might be! on which the physical uni-verse as a whole depends.

Yohn (eely

7he Crst clearing occurred on the scene at the originary event. 7he originary appetitive ob8ect was transformedinto a thing. Bor the Crst time! it was 0nown as from theappetition of the protohominids. 7his transcendental con-sciousness was a consciousness of od! . 7he Ball is thetheological term I use to precisely designate the anthropo-logical event of the original human choice to initiate the

Crst sign on the originary scene to the sparagmos! i.e.! tothe origin of the communal meal.%H& 7his original cogni-tion of the originary scene.




7o be sure! as it is so cognied today! the source of tran-scendental e;istence was cognied in the originary eventas that upon which the physical universe as a whole wasdependent! i.e.! an ultimate source independent of all indi-vidual appetite. Uet at the originary event! this cognitionwas not merely of a source of e;istence %2whatever thatmight be!2& as our Cnite reason must confess! ignorant ofthat source2s essence while unavoidably dependent on itse;istence for our own e;istence&. Indeed! it was a cogni-tion of this same od 0nown in rational faith as the sourceof all e;istence %the /whatever that might be2& yet here! atthe originary event! it was both cognied as the transcen-

dent ob8ect of communal desire and 0nown concretely andob8ectively as the formal condition of man2s very commu-nal constitution and the ultimate perfective unity actuallypossible for human nature. Without od! /we2 would notbe a /we.2 7he political animal is such %i.e.! political andsocial& only as a member of the originary /)ingdom ofod.2 / 6hristopher S. $orrissey! =riginal Sin and enera-tive Knthropology

3orrissey/s loo' t Generti(e Anthro&olo*y$ in the dul con#

te%t o! theolo*y nd the nthro&oetics :or culturl nthro&olo*y;

o! Eric Gns$ sees the .!ll/ in ter"s o! cesin* to (iew the &ure

ct :o! God; s the source o! 4ein*, His critique o! Heide**er/s

deconstruction o! "et&hysics rests on the notion tht 4ein* re#

"ins the uni(ocl$ "et&hysicl conce&t, Yet e(en in Aquins

the -rst#'nown ws irreducible to conce&t$ irreducible to uni#

(ocity, Heide**er/s notion o! 4ein* s 4eyn*$ howe(er$ &rticu#




lrly !ter the .Mehre/$ ws not "et&hysicl$ uni(ocl conce&t$

but itsel! the source o! the bein*ness o! bein*s s &ure ct o!

withdrwl, His critique o! "et&hysics is &recisely tht "et#

&hysics only thin's the bein*ness o! bein*s$ s conce&t$ !or*et#

tin* the source o! tht bein*ness, 3orrissey/s !ilure to reco*#

ni9e Heide**er/s distinction between 4ein* s bein*ness nd

4eyn* s the withdrwl tht *rnts "'es his critique o! Hei#

de**er lr*ely irrele(nt, Howe(er his &ro0ect is lso i"ed t

retrie(l o! the ori*inry 'nowin* o! the source o! bein*ness,

=f course only as long as (asein is %that is! only as longas an understanding of being is ontically possible&! /isthere2 eing 32gibt es2 Sein5. When (asein does not e;ist!/independence2 /is2 not either! nor /is2 the /in-itself2. . . . Insuch a case it cannot be said that entities are! nor can itbe said that they are not. ut now! as long as there is anunderstanding of eing and therefore an understanding of 3ob8ective5 presence-at-hand! it can indeed be said that inthis case entities will still continue to be. -$artin #eideg-ger

Only the hu"n bein* cn co*ni9e bein*#s#-rst#'nown, Only

the hu"n intellect hs 4ein* s its !or"l ob0ect, Other ni"ls

h(e ob0ecti(e worlds tht re s&ecies#s&eci-c$ yet wht is irre#

ducibly &ri"ry in their worlds is not bein* s such :it is rther

so"e s&ecies#s&eci-c ob0ecti(e orderin* o! &erce&tion$ de(elo&ed




in e(olution$ tht con!ers tht s&ecies/ unique d&ti(e d(n#

t*e in the en(iron"ent;, 4ut the ob0ecti(e world o! the hu"n is

scenic, The ori*inry scene con!erred ln*u*e s our

s&ecies#s&eci-clly hu"n d&ti(e d(nt*e, Yet the ontolo*i#

cl di+erence :between 4ein* nd bein*s; within which hu"n

ln*u*e "o(es is wht$ in our &ost#l&srin stte$ &er"its us

to !or*et tht God is the source o! 4ein*, I! we thin' the ontolo*i#

cl di+erence t ll$ we tend to concei(e o! 4ein* in uni(ocl

wy, E(en i! we thin' the ori*inry scene$ we tend to concei(e o!

4ein* in uni(ocl wy s the "entl &ro0ection o! re&resent#

tion cco"&lished by ori*inry si*ni-ction, The reson !or this

tendency is tht$ in our !ll !ro" the ori*inry scene$ God is no

lon*er directly 'nown in hu"n &erce&tul wreness s the

source o! ori*inry 4ein*, On the ori*inry scene$ He ws di#

rectly beheld by the intellect to be the source o! the ori*inry

scene tht the si*n hd brou*ht into &erce&tul wreness) but

!ter the Fll$ discursi(e thou*ht ws then substituted !or this di#

rect (ision, And the only wy to see the truth o! this tody is to

thin' the ori*inry scene with the hel& o! "et&hysics, Other#

wise we will reduce the ori*inry e(ent to so"ethin* less thn




theless there "y be truth in the -ction$ in ter"s o! the !or"l

ide o! the e(ent o! e"er*ence, The di+erence between the two

e(ents is the nture o! the Sel! tht is e%&erienced in the e(ent,

<lto/s lle*ory o! the c(e$ lthou*h described in less e(entl

ter"s$ is -ctionl construction o! third e"er*ence o! Sel!$

&recisely the one between the GA e(ent nd Erei*nis,

=i'e Freud/s e(ent o! "yth tht !ounds the e*o$ the GA -ction

is "issin* the second ste&$ the ste& tht !ounds "et&hysics

&ro&er, A!ter the -ctionl GA e(ent world is e%&erienced nd

"enin* is thereby con!erred throu*h ln*u*e$ but not yet s

n ob0ect#world$ but the world o! "ytholo*icl thin*s, Thin*s in

the "ytholo*icl world re di(ine$ re *ods$ not becuse their

source is in "et&hysicl cretor#*od$ nd not$ s nthro&olo#

*ists cn only "intin by &ro0ectin* their own ssu"&tions onto

di+erent world$ s nthro&o"or&his" lid on thin*s, Trees re

not *ods to "ytholo*icl &eo&les becuse they e"nte !ro"

sin*le cretor bein*$ nor re they *ods throu*h dis&lce"ent

o! hu"n ttributes onto di+erent 'ind o! bein*, In their endur#

in* s trees nd solely with those ttributes they re lredy

*ods,




3orrissey/s &&er o(erll e%hibits set o! con!usions drwn

!ro" se"iotics$ "et&hysics$ theolo*y nd *enerti(e nthro&ol#

o*y, In critici9in* Heide**er !or not *oin* beyond 4ein* to the

source o! 4ein* :God$ !or 3orrissey; he &recisely reinsttes the

"et&hysicl ide o! God s the hi*hest bein* nd source o! 4e#

in* :bein*ness;, Althou*h he "'es the cli" tht neither God

nor 4ein* re bein*s$ the "et&hysicl God he re!ers to is lwys

lredy seen s n e%istin* bein*$ e(en described s the .li(in*/

God :note Schellin*/s distinction between the .li(in*/ God nd the

*round o! God;, He lso t'es o(er the equi(oction inherent in

se"iotics between si*ns nd words$ while words cn ri*htly be

seen s si*ns$ si*ns do not thereby ttin the bein* o! words, 2e

cn &oint to so"ethin* we cn/t n"e$ indictin* its .thtness/ to

nother$ but not its .whtness/, These con!usions crete story#

line tht is both contrry to history nd Sel!#contrdictory, 3or#

rissey &osits the s&r*"os :the co""unl etin* o! the dis"e"#

bered; s the !oundin* ct o! society$ the !oundin* &oliticl ct$

nd si"ultneously the !oundin* o! ln*u*e nd si*ni-ction,

Hi*her ni"ls use si*ns in the s"e wy we do$ &recisely s

&rt o! their socil bein*$ :!or instnce the &ly bow o! cnines;$




Wi0ipedia deCnition

7ni(ocity o! ori*in is hll"r' o! "et&hysics, <lto/s deter#

"intion o! the one o(er the "ny is one e%"&le o! the ten#

dency o! "et&hysicl thin'in* to &re!er sin*le ori*in to "ul#

ti&licity, The uniqueness o! the re(eltory e%&erience o! e"er#

*ence is li'ely &rt o! the reson !or this tendency$ but the "ore

!und"entl reson is tht "et&hysicl$ theoreticl thin'in* is

the thin'in* o! the o(ersi"&li-ed Sel! s the I#Sub0ect, A rther

hu"orous e%"&le o! the insistence on uni(ocity o! ori*in hs to

do with the dis&ute o(er the ori*in o! the Yn*t9e Ri(er, The de#

bte o(er which tributry is ctully the ori*in is t ti"es (ehe#

"ent nd e(en o(ertly &oliticl$ yet in none o! the debtes h(e I

seen nyone &ro&ose the ide tht it "i*ht si"&ly h(e "ore

thn one source,

In ter"s o! our understndin* o! 4ein*$ such s it is !or "ost

&eo&le$ it is &rtici&tory understndin*$ in the sense tht we

understnd bein*s s &rtici&tin*#in 4ein*$ without bein* ble

to relly de-ne wht it is tht they re &rtici&tin*#in, In the

!ullness o! the ter"$ 4ein* is relted to "enin*$ truth$ nd other




deter"intions o! bein*s, Howe(er it is si"ultneously o!ten re#

duced to the "ere e%tntness o! ob0ects$ the bein*ness o! b#

strctions o! thin*s with &recisely their "enin* re"o(ed$ or t

the (ery lest se(erely reduced,

In delin* with thin*s within#the#world we in *enerl do&t

&r*"tic &&roch$ e(en the bstrct ob0ects o! the sciences

re &r*"tic !or the theoreticl uses the sciences &ut the" to,

<rt o! this &r*"tic &&roch consists in our tendency to no"i#

nli9e thin*s tht ren/t &recisely .thin*ly/, The ori*inl ide o!

Theo s &urely (erbl e(entully led to the no"inli9ed Theos,

4ein*$ s wht cnnot be bein*$ lso tends to be no"inli9ed in

our e(erydy wy o! thin'in*, <rt o! the di1culty in redin* n

ontolo*ist such s Heide**er is our own tendency to no"inli9e

wht !or Heide**er is not no"inl, The incresin* use o!

*erunds in Heide**er/s lter wor' ttests to his own e%&erience

o! thin*s bein* less no"inl$ "ore (erbl thn the "et&hysicl

ccounts$ whether reli*ious or scienti-c,

As Aristotle ri*htly noted$ .4ein* is sid in "ny wys,/ , At

ti"es we "en .thtness/$ tht so"ethin* is$ t other ti"es we

"en .whtness/ or .howness/$ the 4ein* o! hu"n bein*s$ !or in#




stnce is not si"&ly tht they re$ but wht nd how they re$

which due to the s&eci-c "ode o! bein* o! hu"n bein*s cnnot

&ro&erly be described throu*h whtness or howness but hs to

be deter"ined s .who/, 4ut the .who/ o! ny !cticl hu"n be#

in* is o! course the Sel!,

The .who/ o! &rticulr hu"n bein*$ 0ust s the .whthow/

o! thin*$ in(ol(es its "enin*$ tht is to sy in(ol(es world s

wht s&eci-clly deter"ines "enin* in ny *i(en cse, world

nd Sel! re interde&endent in the sense tht bein*#in#the#world

s Sel! is not bein*#in so"ethin* tht would be e%tnt in ny

cse$ but lwys si"ultneously "ens bein*#the#world, =i'e the

Sel!$ the world o! "y e%&erience is lwys ."y/ world$ lthou*h

in the ter" ."y/ it hs to lwys be understood tht the (st "#

0ority o! ."e/ s Sel! is shred s socil Sel!, 2hen Heide**er

sttes . o! course only s lon* s Dsein is :tht is$ only s lon*

s n understndin* o! bein* is onticlly &ossible;$ .is there/ 4e#

in* W/*ibt es/ SeinX/ the ob(ious question rises, Is 4ein* in ny

sense inde&endent o! hu"n bein*$ world$ nd ln*u*e8 Hei#

de**er lso tl's bout ln*u*e s the .house o! 4ein*/$ but this

is still not cler in ter"s o! whether 4ein* would si"&ly be




conte%t$ it re"ins intertwined with Sel!$ world$ "enin* nd

truth,




*onergan2s Insight into Insight

In@uiry and insight underlie mathematics! science! art!socialiation! healthy relationships and useful commonsense. 7he refusal of insight accounts for individual andgroup egoism! for the psychoneuroses! and for the ruin ofnations and civiliations.

ernard *onergan! Insight

2e re!er to sudden 0u"&s o! understndin*$ when (rious

relted ele"ents suddenly !or" syste"ic whole tht cn be

understood .ll t once/$ in its "ost bsic !or" .insi*ht/, Si*#

ni-cnt insi*hts re o!ten re!erred to s .e&i&hnies/$ while

n insi*ht si*ni-cnt enou*h to re!r"e our e%&erience o! re#

lity is re!erred to s .re(eltion/, 4ernrd =oner*n/s best

'nown wor'$ Insi*ht$ is s&eci-clly n in(esti*tion tht t#

te"&ts to *in insight into insi*ht,

Insi*ht is co"&le% wor'$ but I/" *oin* to !ocus on the in#

tersection o! !our o! the bsic ele"ents o! the wor'6

, Di+erent &tterns o! e%&erience/. nd the reltion be#

tween thin*s nd ech s&eci-c &ttern o! e%&erience$ s o&#




&osed to bodies which re out there now rel nd &ertin

s&eci-clly to the biolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience,

, The "ereolo*y o! le(els o! e%&lntory *ener,

K, The residues or surds in ech &ttern o! e%&erience

tht in(erse insi*ht shows to be inherently unintelli*ible,

J, The short nd lon* bises o! ech &ttern o! e%&erience

nd the &ossibility o! o(erco"in* the",

4y &ttern o! e%&erience =oner*n is re!errin* to con#

te%t or world within which thin*s re$ i,e, h(e "enin*

nd (lidity, The thin*s o! ech &ttern o! e%&erience$ e%#

ce&tin* the biolo*icl &ttern$ do not corres&ond to wht

=oner*n re!ers to s bodies, 4odies re ontolo*iclly out

there now rel nd cn be reco*ni9ed nd (lidted directly,

2hile bodies re co""on to e(ery &ttern o! e%&erience$

they deri(e &ri"rily !ro" the biolo*icl &ttern, 3ost o! the

thin*s tht ech &ttern o! e%&erience understnds in so"e

wy re s&eci-c$ thou*h$ to tht &ttern$ nd deri(e their (#

lidity !ro" the nture o! the &ttern o! e%&erience itsel!, Thus

the thin*s o! the scienti-c e%&erience deri(e their (lidity




!ro" e"&iricl e%&eri"ent nd obser(tion$ those o! the dr#

"tic e%&erience deri(e their (lidity !ro" the history o! hu#

"n ction nd its e1ccy, The thin*s o! co""on sense de#

ri(e their (lidity !ro" our bility to *et on with our dily

cti(ities within our (er*e circu"s&ect e(erydyness$ etc,

As =oner*n &uts it6

Knimals have no epistemological problems. either

do scientists! as long as they stic0 to their tas0 of ob-

serving! forming hypotheses! and verifying. 7he peren-

nial source of nonsense is that! after the scientist has

veriCed his hypothesis! he is li0ely to go a little further

and tell the layman what! appro;imately! scientiCc real-

ity loo0s li0eV Klready we have attac0ed the unveriCable

image1 but now we can see the origin of the strange

urge to foist upon man0ind unveriCable images. Bor

both the scientist and the layman! besides being intelli-

gent and reasonable! also are animals.




*onergan! ernard1 6rowe! Brederic0 '.1 (oran!

obert $. %F,+F-,E-FH&. Insight: K Study of #uman An-

derstanding! Xolume H: ,,H %6ollected Wor0s of ernard

*onergan& %)indle *ocations E4T-ET+&. Aniversity of

7oronto Jress. )indle 'dition.

As ni"ls$ "en h(e nturl tendency to wnt their

thin*s to be .rel/ in the i""edite sense tht bodies re

.out there now rel/, Howe(er thin*s re set o! reltions

tht !or" syste"ic unity$ whether the thin* in(ol(ed is n

to"ic syste"$ syste" o! ln*u*e$ or tree, A &hysicist$

thou*h$ will see to"ic syste"s s "ore .rel/ thn syste"

o! ln*u*e$ nd (ice (ers !or &hilolo*ist$ while "n o!

business will see his co"&ny/s ledershi& hierrchy s "ore

.rel/ thn either, Ech o! these thin*s hs its own (lidity

within the &rticulr &ttern o! e%&erience$ but does not h(e

the i""edite .out there now rel/ (lidity o! tree$ since

tree is (lidted within the biolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience

necessry !or sur(i(l$ nd thus is co""on to e(ery "n,




=oner*n/s "ereolo*y o! e%&lntory *ener is detiled

e%&osition o! the need !or "ereolo*y tht includes le(els o!

*ener$ wht I would ter" syste"ic le(els$ in order to "'e

intelli*ible re*ulrities co"&rehensible, 7nderlyin* the need

!or di+erent le(els o! thin*s$ or *ener$ is the bsic di+er#

ence between n rbitrry set nd !unctionl syste", A sys#

te" is set o! reltions between thin*s :the"sel(es syste"s;

tht !or" n identi-ble nd in so"e "nner intelli*ible

whole, A reltion is !or"ed when *i(en "ess*e or set o!

"ess*es &roduces *i(en res&onse,

In lieu o! e%&ectin* the reder to slo* throu*h =oner*n/s

detiled nd &recise e%&liction o! the ide$ &erh&s si"&le

e%"&le will su1ce, Those tht re not con(inced by the e%#

"&le re welco"e to dissect =oner*n/s e%&osition,

I! I re&lce the &rinted circuit bord tht controls the til#

li*ht sse"bly on "y cr$ &erh&s with n !ter"r'et <@4$

the &rt or subsyste" hs ob(iously chn*ed co"&letely

nd "y e(en h(e co"&letely di+erent circuit desi*n,

Howe(er$ s lon* s it res&onds to "ess*es !ro" other &rts




o! the cr to cti(te the turn si*nls$ br'e li*hts$ etc,$ it is

!unctionlly equi(lent$ nd I still identi!y "y cr s the s"e

yer nd "odel, As n intelli*ible !unctionl syste" the cr

hs not chn*ed, 2ithout identi!yin* se&rte *ener or

syste"ic le(el between cr &rt nd cr s whole$ tht

bility to retin its ori*inl identity e(en i! e(ery &rt o! the

cr hs chn*ed o(er its li!eti"e is inco"&rehensible, As

well$ the intelli*ible !unctions re not co"&rehensible t the

le(el o! the &rt, I! we "o(e to still lr*er *ener$ tht o!

the tr1c syste"$ when the br'e li*hts nd turn si*nls re

cti(ted should be intelli*ible :i! not$ so"ebody doesn/t

'now how to dri(e;$ yet t the le(el o! the cr &rt$ nd in the

cse o! the turn si*nl t the le(el o! the cr s well$ cti(#

tion o! the li*hts &&ers rndo" nd cnnot !unction in n

e%&lntory or e%&lictory sense,

The inherently unintelli*ible residues$ or surds$ !ound in

ech &ttern o! e%&erience *enerlly by the occurrence o! n

in(erse insi*ht re!ers to thin*s tht &&er s thou*h they

should be intelli*ible in so"e "nner$ but re not, =oner#

*n/s e%"&le in the scienti-c world is inerti, 2ithin the bi#




olo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience it "'es sense to thin' tht

"o(in* bodies require so"e loco"oti(e c&city$ !ter ll$ we

oursel(es nd ll the bodies we interct with beh(e s

thou*h tht were indeed the cse, Newton/s in(erse insi*ht

ws tht only change in "otion ws intelli*ible$ tht "otion

itsel!$ includin* the 9ero "otion o! bein* t rest$ is inherently

unintelli*ible s to both why nd how it occurs, =oner*n

re!ers to this unintelli*ibility s .residue/ or .surd/ :on the

nlo*y to "the"ticl surd such s the root o! ne*ti(e

one$ which cnnot be clculted or "de intelli*ible yet re#

"ins necessry to the syste" o! "the"tics;, Ech &ttern

o! e%&erience hs di+erent residues6 the e"&iricl$ the socil$

etc, 2hile it "y be o! no serious consequence to "n'ind

whether the root o! ne*ti(e one is intelli*ible$ or whether in#

erti is intelli*ible$ "ny such surds in &olitics$ econo"ics

nd &r*"tic dily li(in* re not ne*li*ible in ter"s o! their

hu"n i"&ct,

Ech &ttern o! e%&erience hs inherent bises in the indi#

(idul nd the *rou&, 2hile s&eci-c indi(idul nd *rou& bi#

ses h(e n i"&ct in the short ter"$ o(er the lon* ter"




they h(e tendency to cncel one nother out, For instnce

the concentrtion o! &ower in s"ll elite "y +ect society

"ssi(ely in the short ter"$ but in the lon* ter" will &ro(o'e

the !rctiousness tht will ine(itbly destroy it, 2here there

is bi**er &roble" is in those bises tht +ect the lon*

ter" nd do not h(e ny contr(enin* bises by n equi(#

lently &ower!ul *rou&, The two "in sets o! bises in this

cte*ory re the bises tht rise !ro" the biolo*icl &ttern

o! e%&erience$ since they re co""on nd necessry to ll

"n'ind$ nd the bises tht rise !ro" the co""on sense or

&r*"tic &ttern o! e%&erience$ since they re co""on nd

necessry to e(ery "e"ber o! *i(en society$ nd with *lob#

li9tion there is e+ecti(ely only one society/s &rticulr

&r*"tis" o&erti(e tody, Since the biolo*icl &ttern o!

e%&erience is lr*ely o(erwhel"ed in "odern society by the

&r*"tic$ dr"tic$ scienti-c nd other &tterns o! e%&eri#

ence$ it is the co""on sense or &r*"tic set o! bises tht

concern =oner*n "ost in the lon* ter" (iew, Since "ny o!

these bises re &roduced nd "intined by &rticulr




surds$ they re (irtully i"&ossible to co"bt within the

!r"ewor' o! tht &ttern o! e%&erience,

The lst section o! Insi*ht$ where =oner*n tte"&ts to

brin* to*ether these dis&rte threds$ hs been noted since

its &ubliction s h(in* been rushed$ &rtly in order to de#

!end it *inst the rther ob(ious !ct tht it is not entirely

success!ul t &ro(idin* solution to the &roble"s described

nd de(elo&ed so well in the &recedin* sections o! the boo',

The notion o! @os"o&olis$ qusi#reli*ious#theolo*icl#&hilo#

so&hicl inte*rtion o! the (rious &tterns o! e%&erience$ is

only 0usti-ble within the other &tterns o! e%&erience by n

&&el to su&ernturl belie!#syste" tht "y or "y not be

&resent, Howe(er it is &recisely in the bndon"ent o! the

o(erll i" o! the wor' tht the conclusion !ils, I! the i" o!

the wor' is insi*ht into insi*ht$ nd not si"&ly set o! inter#

estin* nd i"&ortnt insi*hts$ insi*ht into insi*ht itsel! hs to

be chie(ed nd "intined, Since the understndin*

&resent in di+erent &tterns o! e%&erience ll co"e to their

understndin* in !und"entlly the s"e "nner$ syste"ic

insi*ht into insi*ht hs to &roduce syste"ic understndin*




In 'ee&in* with reductionist nti#substntilis" in *enerl$

the sto&&in* &oint o! the reduction is rbitrry, 2hy does

Dorr sto& his reduction t "icro#&rticles in the stndrd

"odel tht re still .bodily/ in the wy tht co""on sense

&ttern o! e%&erience would understnd8 The stndrd "odel

itsel! *oes !urther$ &ositin* buildin* bloc's o! these "i#

cro#&rticles which the"sel(es lose tht co""on sense s#

&ect o! bodily bein*$ h(in* no "ss$ not bein* sub0ect to un#

derstood &hysicl rules$ etc, Howe(er these buildin* bloc's

re unli'ely to be entirely con(incin* to so"eone outside the

scienti-c &ttern o! e%&erience$ !or co""on sense they lose

the sense o! !ctulity tht is still see"in*ly &resent in the

"icro[&rticles tht do h(e "ss nd !ollow si"ilr &hysicl

rules to thin*s on the e%&erientil le(el,

=i'e e(ery reductionist Dorr &ic's sto&&in* &oint in the

reduction tht cn still &&el to the non#[scientist, This is

not &hiloso&hicl but n ideolo*icl decision, Goin* beyond

the *i(en sto&&in* &oint loses the udience he is tte"&tin*

to inBuence, The di1culty$ thou*h$ with sto&&in* t "i#

cro[&rticles is tht they re the"sel(es below the le(el o!




bodies tht we cn e%&erience, Scienti-c .thin*s/ h(e to be

(eri-ble$ they h(e no cli" to (lidity without e%&erientil

(eri-ction,

3icro[&rticles h(e no direct (eri-bility$ they cn only be

indirectly nd &rtilly (eri-ed on the bsis o! the beh(ior o!

.thin*s/ o! hi*her *enus, E(en i! the (eri-ction de"on#

strtes &&ro&rite &redicti(e (lidity !or the i"*e o! the "i#

cro[&rticles$ there is no wy o! de"onstrtin* tht they onto#

lo*iclly are s described or si"&ly behave s i! they re, Al#

thou*h electrons in "ny wys .beh(e/ s thou*h they or#

bited the to"ic nucleus$ it is si"ultneously necessry to s#

su"e tht they do not in order !or quntu" equtions to !unc#

tion$ !or e%"&le$ de"onstrtin* tht the "odel is .0ust

"odel/$ s its in(entor$ Niels 4ohr$ ne(er tired o! re"indin*

&eo&le,

4eyond the &roble" o! declrin* s rel .thin*s/ whose de#

scri&tion is t best hy&otheticl nd &erh&s only sy"bolic$

there is "ore serious error o! thin'in* in Dorr/s "ereolo*y,

In order to de"onstrte ny (lidity whtsoe(er to "icro#&r#




ticles s .rel thin*s/ it is necessry to obser(e their e+ect on

.rel thin*s/ o! hi*her *enus$ which !orces the d"ission

into the sche" o! both thin*s o! hi*her *enus$ nd the ide

o! hi*her *ener itsel!$ which is &recisely wht Dorr wnts to

deny, I! the .thin*s/ e%&eri"ented on re "erely e&i&heno"#

en$ then the e%&eri"ents tht indirectly (lidte the "i#

cro#&rticle "odel re the"sel(es in(lid$ nd the "odel hs

no (eri-bility whtsoe(er, I! they re rel thin*s then Dorr/s

contention tht they re "erely e&i&heno"en is untenble,

Dorr/s "ereolo*icl nd ontolo*icl nihilis" is bsed on

current "the"ticl ontolo*y$ itsel! bsed on e%istentil /be#

in*#in/$ "odeled s n entity#continer reltionshi&$ set, As

result$ since @ntor$ "the"tics s !or"l ontolo*icl

ln*u*e hs been ble to del with relity only inso!r s it

cn be "odeled s set, In "the"ticl ter"s e(ery &roo!

hs to be *rounded in the %io"s o! set theory to be re*rded

s (lid &roo!, Any s&eci-c bein*# in$ thou*h$ s o&&osed to

bein*#in s *enerl conce&t$ hs to be functional, A !unc#

tionl **re*tion$ "ereolo*iclly$ is syste"$ not set,




Dorr/s bsic &re"ise is tht so"ethin* not in itsel! unitry

is only 2counted as one2, In ter"s o! set theory this /count#

in* s one/ is rbitrry nd ny "enin* hs to deri(e !ro"

the intention behind the countin*$ the set descri&tion, 2e

don/t$ thou*h$ *enerlly see rbitrry sets o! thin*s s /uni#

-ed/$ s really one, Since this is Dorr/s only ontolo*icl sense

o! wht cn be considered /rel/ he cn only (iew sub#&rti#

cles tht he belie(es cn/t be s&lit ny !urther s relly /one/

thin*$ there!ore s rel in n bsolute sense, Any **re*#

tion$ whether !unctionl or rbitrry one$ is treted s n

rbitrry set with no inherent "enin*,

Alin 4diou be*ins with the s"e bsic ssu"&tions$

which "'es nturl reltion between his bsic ontolo*icl

ssu"&tions nd his ontolo*y o! e(ent di1cult to !tho"$

other thn (iewin* those ssu"&tions s i""editely dis#

crded in !(our o! n ontolo*y o! e(ent s the *round o!

"enin*, Since 4diou doesn/t clri!y tht he hs in !ct dis#

crded the rtionlist ssu"&tions$ nor does he &ro(ide n l#

ternti(e$ it is di1cult to see in wht his ontolo*y o! e(ent is

*rounded,




2hile Dorr/s &osition is e%tre"e$ it re"ins Sel!#consis#

tent e%tr&oltion !ro" the ssu"&tions underlyin* "the#

"tics t'en to their co"&letion, It is e%tre"e becuse it is

ne*ti(e ontolo*y, 2here ontolo*y *enerlly loo's t how

*i(en thin*s re "enin*!ul$ Dorr cli"s tht not only the

"enin*s but the thin*s the"sel(es re -ctionl, As ne*#

ti(e ontolo*y is it untenble on the si"&le bsis tht the intel#

li*ibility we lwys lredy -nd in the world is bro*ted in

!(our o! hi*hly rti-cil :nd &ersonlly untenble Dorr

would be unble to *et to wor' s &ro!essor were he to

truly (iew relity in the "nner described; (iew bsed on n

un(eri-ble "odel,

In less e%tre"e nd "ore usul e%&ositions the con!usion

between sets nd syste"s$ &ro&*ted by the inbility o!

"the"tics to ccount !or syste"ic trits$ is t the hert o!

nu"erous &&ers r*uin* in !(our o! non#clssicl "ereol#

o*y$ bsed e%clusi(ely on sets yet includes syste"s without

di+erentition6




This cse &roceeds by under"inin* the &&el o! clssicl

"ereolo*y nd then showin* how it !ils to cohere with our

intuitions bout "esure o! quntity, <rt Two shows how

Heytin* "ereolo*y &ro(ides n ccount o! sets nd classes

without resort to ny non#"ereolo*icl &ri"iti(e,

$ereology! the theory of parts and wholes! has sev-

eral distinct paradigms. =ne is something we can ta0e

apart and put bac0 together again! say a bicycle made

up of a hundred parts including the nuts and bolts. Kn-

other is something that is divisible in many dierent

ways such as a ca0e. K third is political geography!

where shires! counties! cities! and so on! ma0e up states!

which ma0e up nations! and so on. ot surprisingly

these paradigms concern systems with only nitely many

parts even when! as in the ca0e paradigm! there is no

precise point at which parts of ca0e cease to be ca0e. So

we should not carelessly assume that a system with in-

nitely many parts satises a;ioms e;trapolated from the

nite case.




“onclassical $ereology and Its Kpplication to Sets"!

Jeter Borrest

The equi(oction between sets nd syste"s in Forrest/s

"ereolo*y is bundntly ob(ious, Shires nd counties re r#

bitrry$ the reltions obtinin* re e%trinsic to the set itsel!$

nd only !ound in the description o! the set, The reltions in#

(ol(ed in bicycle re !unctionl reltions tht in !ct re the

bicycle$ since ny *i(en &rt cn be re&lced by !unctionlly

equi(lent &rt, Howe(er we h(e no "the"tics bsed on

n ontolo*y nd "ereolo*y tht t'es syste"s into ccount

se&rtely !ro" sets,

The result cn be seen in the di1culty /co"&le%ity/ "the#

"tics hs in delin* with syste"s, 2hile it cn "esure sys#

te"ic co"&le%ity$ nd e(en de"onstrte stron* e"er*ence o!

dditionl co"&le%ity within si"&le syste"$ /co"&le%ity/

"the"tics itsel! cn only del with syste"s tht we would

hrdly consider$ relti(e to the world we encounter$ s co"#

&le%, bits with &rity bit$ !or instnce$ is syste" requir#

in* co"&le%ity "the"tics to &ro&erly *rs& the "ulti#scle




reltions$ but it/s hrdly co"&le% syste" in our usul sense

o! the ter",

The reltions in syste" re not in ny wy dequtely

re&resented by ny o! our "the"ticl re&resenttions$

since reltions re "odeled s rbitrry rther thn !unc#

tionl$ nd the /!unctions nd reltions/ we crete in our t#

te"&ts to "odel syste"s re s result co"&le% nd di1cult

to resol(e, In set$ reltions re ccidentl to the entities

re&resented in the set$ but in syste" the reltions re onto#

lo*iclly "ore rele(nt thn the &rts the reltions re be#

tween, A &rt in syste" cn be re&lced by di+erent &rt

without chn*in* the substnce o! the syste"$ so lon* s the

di+erent &rt !unctionlly beh(es in the s"e "nner in

ter"s o! its reltionl res&onses,

This brin*s us bc' to the /"et&hysics o! substnce/ tht

Dorr nd others re t such &ins to denounce, In not -ndin*

"esurble$ "teril substrte tht could corres&ond to the

conce&t o! /substntility/ o! the rel$ itsel! &redicted on n

rbitrry disbelie! in non#"teril relity$ substnce itsel! is




re0ected s chi"er, 4ut the /substntil/ &rts o! syste"

re the"sel(es syste"s, 2e "odel &rts nd &rts o! &rts s

syste"s ll the wy down to the s&lit nothin* itsel! in qun#

tu" sense, /Substnce/$ s wht could "'e one &rt /sub#

stntilly/ di+erent yet sw&&ble in *i(en syste" is the

form o! the !unctionl reltions tht identi!y syste" s that

particular syste"$ nd thereby di+erentite it !ro" n rbi#

trry set, Assu"in* "teril substrte s /substnce/

"isses the &heno"enlity o! substnce itsel!$ nd thus -nds it

illusory,

As !unctionl$ the hi*hest scle o! !unctionlity is the "ost

deter"inti(e scle, The hi*hest le(el o! scle in *i(en sys#

te" o! subsyste"s is deter"inisticlly e+ecti(e u&on the

lower scle syste"s$ while e+ects !ro" the lower scle on the

hi*her re inherently un&redictble, It is in this sense o! sub#

stnce s !unctionl tht the /count s one/ is not rbitrry$

but inherent to the syste"$ nd the syste" cn then be sid

to /be/ one in tht it counts itself as one &rior to ny inter&re#

ttion,




The o&&osition to substntilist "et&hysics si"ultne#

ously !ils to reco*ni9e tht des&ite chn*es in the sciences

they re"in "et&hysicl nd there!ore relint on substn#

tilist "et&hysics, A co""on "o(e in dis&utin* this is "de

in cli"in* tht "odern science .understnds/$ !or instnce$

*r(ity$ in wy tht Aristotle or his "et&hysicl successors

could not, Aristotle/s stte"ent tht it is in the nture o!

he(y thin*s to "o(e towrds the center is o!ten used un#

thin'in*ly s n e%"&le o! Aristotle/s su&&osed i*nornce o!

the bsic *round o! "odern science, Yet "odern cos"olo*y

relies on &recisely the s"e *round s Aristotole in its e%&l#

ntion o! the li'elihood o! -ndin* blc' hole t the center o!

ny *i(en *l%y$ by sttin* tht the e%tre"e density o! the

blc' hole cuses it to gravitate to the center, Since .density/

is no "ore thn deter"intion o! Aristotle/s .nture/$

s&eci-clly one deter"ined by n un(eri-ble "odel$ nd

*r(itte no "ore thn technicl synony" !or "o(e$ the

(lid content o! the two stte"ents is identicl,




7he Sub8ective 7urn in 9ie0

As He*elin$ Zi9e' "i*ht be e%&ected to endorse the situ#

tion o! the end o! sub 0ecti(ity in the bsolute Sel!#identi-ction

o! sub 0ect nd ob 0ect$ the rel s the Sel!, In !ct$ li'e 4diou$

he turns wy !ro" He*el5s result in re#&ositin* o! the re(olu#

tionry sub0ect, In both cses there &&ers to be sense tht to

sublte "et&hysicl$ reBe%i(e sel!#consciousness in the e%&eri#

ence o! the relity o! the Sel! is to *i(e u& the &ossibility o! &o#

liticl stru**le, Zi9e'5s re0ection o! Gelssenheit &&ers to be

!ounded on the s"e inter&rettion o! the &ers&ecti(e >(o"

Erei*nis> s &ssi(e >*i(in* u&> o! ny chllen*e to the current

order,

The site o! this >*i(in* u&>$ stru**le itsel! s the &oint o! the

re(olu# tionry sub 0ect$ is &roble"tic *i(en Zi9e'5s !or"ultion

o! c&itlis" s the lredy reli9ed 5&er"nent re(olution5,

Stru**le$ s the stru**le o! the re(olutionry sub 0ect$ could

only dd to the ener*y o! e%&nsion inherent in the 5&er"nent

re(olution5 o! c&itlis", Stru**le itsel!$ then$ hs to contin the

s"e contrdiction s c&itlis" itsel!,




Neither Heide**er5s lter wor' nor his erlier is not bout

5&ece!ul &ssi(ity5, 2hen discussin*$ erly on$ the &olis o! the

Gree's$ Heide**er s&eci-clly discussed the cruelty tht un#

derly the &olis s &rt o! its necessry &reconditions

I! &eo&le tody !ro" ti"e to ti"e re *oin* to busy

the"sel(es rther too e*erly with the &olis o! the Gree's$

they should not su&&ress this side o! it) otherwise the con#

ce&t o! the &olis esily beco"es innocuous nd senti"en#

tl,2ht is hi*her in rn' is wht is stron*er,Thus 4ein*$ lo*os$

s the *thered hr"ony$ is not esily (ilble !or e(ery "n

t the s"e &rice$ but is conceled$ s o&&osed to tht hr#

"ony which is lwys "ere equli9in*$ the eli"intion o! ten#

sion$ le(elin*,

Heide**er5s Gelssenheit does sub(ert the notion o! stru**le$

thou*h$ in !(our o! the notion o! stri!e, Stri!e is inherent$ !or

Heide**er$ in such notions s the !our!old, 2ht di+erentites

stri!e !ro" stru**le$ such tht stru**le contins the s"e contr#

diction tht sustins the c&itlist &er"nent re(olution itsel!$

while stri!e does not8




He*el &osited the lo*ic o! identity nd di+erence$ the !ound#

tion o! "et&hysicl lo*ic$ s the inherent contrdiction within

"et&hysicl lo*ic, I! stru**le s the telos o! the re(olutionry

sub0ect$ c&itlis" s the lo*ic o! &er"nent re(olution$ nd

technolo*y s the lo*ic o! re(elin* throu*h equi(lence e%hibit

this &recise contrdiction this shouldn5t sur&rise$ *i(en their

co""on !oundtion in tht lo*ic,

I! we t'e s n e%"&le o! stri!e$ the inherent conBict be#

tween culture tht does not cce&t the (lidity o! other cul#

tures$ nd ny nei*hbourin* culture$ we cn &ic' out wht distin#

*uishes stri!e !ro" stru**le, The nt*onistic culture doesn5t

cli" the ri*ht to not cce&t other cultures5 (lidity becuse it is

di+erent, It si"&ly sserts the cli" becuse tht5s the wy it

sees thin*s, The nei*hbourin* culture sserts its ri*ht to de!end

itsel! becuse it is bein* ttc'ed$ not becuse it hs the ri*ht to

be di+erent !ro" the nt*onistic culture, In the cse o! stru*#

*le$ howe(er$ it is &recisely the di+erence tht is de!ended

rther thn the ctulity, =oo'in* t the bo(e sitution !ro"

the &ers&ecti(e o! stru**le$ the ri*ht o! e(ery society to be di!#

!erent is &osited$ rther thn the ri*ht to be itsel!, The inherent




contrdiction beco"es &&rent in the question o! whether so#

ciety whose di+erence consists in not cce&tin* others5 di+er#

ences hs the ri*ht to tht di+erence,

The re(olutionry sub0ect$ s the &er"nent sub0ect o! sub#

0ecti(e &er"nent re(olution$ cnnot be &osited s !ree, As

Zi9e' hi"sel! &oints out$ be*innin* !ro" discussion o! the

A"ish trdition o! Ru"s&rin*

In order for them to have a genuinely free choice!they would have to be properly informed about alltheir options! educated in themthe only way to dothis! however!would be to e;tricate them fromtheir embeddedness in the Kmish community! thatis! in eect! to ma0e them 'nglish.7his alsoclearly demonstrates the limitations of the stan-dard liberal attitude toward $uslim women wear-ing the veil: they can do it if it is their freechoice! not an option imposed on them by theirhusbands or family.7he moment women wear theveil as a result of their free individual choice %say!in order to e;press their own spirituality&! how-ever! the meaning of wearing the veil changescompletely: it is no longer a sign of their belongingto the $uslim community! but an e;pression oftheir idiosyncratic individuality1

9ie0! Slavo8

The !reedo" o! !ree choice$ howe(er$ only co"es bout re#

Be%i(ely$ when the sub0ect is wre o! nd owns his initil




choices$ ownin* the" e(en thou*h those initil choices could not

hel& but be conitioned choices, This is &ossible becuse the sub

0ect$ s in(entl$ is not the s"e sub0ect tht "de those initil

choices$ but new &osit by the s"e Sel!, In cce&tin* re#

s&onsibility des&ite conditionin*$ the Sel! cn &osit new sub0ect

in res&onse to new e(ent requirin* decision$ one tht is ble

to "'e !ree choice s result o! the Sel!5s own 0ud*e"ent

concernin* his conditionin*$ his inheritnce !ro" his trdition,




7he Self as ScientiCc

7he $aterial =ntology of $odern Science

There is n ob(iousness to the ide tht the bsic ontolo*y o!

"odern science is "teril ontolo*y$ this rises the question o!

wht "teril ontolo*y is$ wht it i"&lies$ nd in wht wy it

either is or isn/t (ible ontolo*y !or the sciences,

In loo'in* t (ritions o! "teril ontolo*y the !ollowin* re#

quire"ents o! &hysicl ontolo*y re noted s bein* &rticulrly

rele(nt to "odern science6

1. <rt#2hole6 One &iece o! "tter cn be &rt o! nother,

2. Additi(ity o! 3ss6 The "ss o! the union o! dis0oint &ieces

o! "tter is the su" o! their indi(idul "sses,

3. Ri*id solid ob0ects6 A solid ob0ect "o(es continuously nd

"intins ri*id sh&e, Two ob0ects do not o(erl&,

4. @ontinuous "otion o! Buids6 The sh&e o! body o! Buid de#

!or"s continuously, @he"icl rections, One co"bintion o!

che"icls cn trns!or" into di+erent co"bintion o! che"#

icls, @he"icl rections obey the lw o! de-nite &ro&ortion,

@ontinuity t che"icl rections6 In che"icl rection$ the




&roducts &&er t e%ctly the s"e ti"e nd &lce s the re#

ctnts dis&&er,

5.

Gs equilibriu"6 A *s in sttionry or slowly "o(in*

closed continer quic'ly ttins stte o! equilibriu",

6. Gs lws6 A body o! *s in equilibriu" in closed continer

obeys the idel *s lw nd the lw o! &rtil &ressure,

7. =iquid in cu&6 A body o! liquid re"ins t rest t the botto#

"o! "otionless cu&, It cn be crried without s&illin* i! the

cu& is "o(ed s"oothly nd slowly,

8. A(ilbility o! o%y*en durin* co"bustion6 I! !uel is burned in

ir then :ordinrily; o%y*en re"ins (ilble t the &oint o!

co"bustion so tht the &rocess cn continue,

9. <ssi(i9ed sur!ce o! "etls6 In &ssi(i9tion$ the sur!ce

to"s o! br o! &ure "etl co"bine with t"os&heric o%y#

*en to !or" the "etllic o%ide, The o%ide is che"iclly inert

nd dheres to the "etl$ so the interior o! the br re"ins

the &ure "etl, The &roble" is to re&resent sur!ce tht is

che"iclly di+erent !ro" the interior,

=e(in* side !or the "o"ent the question o! how &urely




"teril ontolo*y cn ccount !or so"e o! the questions rised in

quntu" "echnics$ these &&er to be the bsic require"ents

necessry to chie(e "teril ontolo*y tht su1ces !or the sci#

ences,

The &roble" with this set o! require"ents :nd other sets tht

could be constructed in si"ilr !shion so s to su&&ort the "#

0or ssu"&tions o! (rious sciences; is tht nu"ber o! the re#

quire"ents &&er to co""on sense ontolo*y to be contrdic#

tory, In order to llow !or these contrdictions "ulti&le si"ult#

neous "teril ontolo*ies re &ro&osed6

(etermining the true ontology of matter is a @ues-tion for physicists1 determining what ontologies areimplicit in the way people thin0 and tal0 is a @ues-tion for cognitive scientists and linguists1 determin-ing the history of views of the true ontology is a@uestion for historians of science. Bor those of uswho are researching 0nowledge representations for intelligent systems! the @uestion is! what ontologycan be most easily and eectively used as the basisof a 0nowledge base that will be used for intelligent

tas0s? In the long run the answer almost certainlyinvolves using multiple! mutually inconsistent on-tologies! with ameta-level structure to choose be-tween them or combine them when necessary. #ow-ever! at present! such a system would be very hardto design or validate. If we wish to address the rep-resentation of matter without ta0ing on the dicul-




ties of inconsistency resolution! the @uestion be-comes! what single model is most eective as a ba-sis for reasoning?

=ntologies and epresentations of $atter! 'rnest (avis

This &&ers !irly stri*ht!orwrd$ ech re o! the sciences

uses n ontolo*y tht is &&ro&rite to their sub0ect "tter,

Howe(er the (ery &hrsin* betrys the solution s be**in* the

question, I! only &hysics hs true ontolo*y s its bsis$ how

&recisely does the matter o! other sciences render such true

ontolo*y s t the (ery lest incon(enient, 2ht is the nture o!

true tht is bein* in(o'ed$ where it &&lies to one re o! e%&e#

rience nd no others8 As "teril ontolo*ies tht re de&endent

on s&eci-c sub0ect "tter !or their (lidity$ is there e(en &o#

tentil !or true ontolo*y$ or is the ontolo*y o! &hysics si"&le

nother con(enience tht is bsed on its sub0ect "tter8 Finlly$

i! material ontolo*y "ust deter"ine the "enin* o! "tter in

ech cse$ how cn it in turn be deter"ined by the "tter tht

the science hs !or its ob0ect o! study8

The co""on sense nswer is tht we re si"&ly &lyin* word

*"es with !und"entlly di+erent "enin*s o! the word "tter$




howe(er the word does not ety"olo*iclly h(e "ulti&le ori*ins

tht "i*ht ccount !or its use in these (rious wys, Another

oddity tht "i*ht h(e been noticed is tht *i(en science hs

sub8ect "tter tht is si"ultneously its ob8ect$ nd &recisely

material ob0ect, How is it tht scientists$ o! ll &eo&le$ &ut u&

with !und"entl contrdictions t the bses o! their own s&e#

cilties8

The &r*"tic scientist "i*ht res&ond tht these re ll (ery

interestin* questions$ no doubt$ but h(e nothin* to do with the

relity o! reserch s &rcticl concern, The di1culty with c#

ce&tin* this res&onse is i"&licit in the (ery &ro0ect D(is is un#

dert'in*, The (rious sciences$ to*ether$ do not cli" to be

"erely (ehicles !or use!ul in!or"tion$ &r*"tic concerns

equi(lent to cr&entry or so!twre de(elo&"ent, The cli" o!

the science is intrinsiclly truth#cli"$ tht their results re

0nowledge$ not "erely in!or"tion$ nd indeed re the rbiters

o! the (lidity o! ny 'nowled*e obtined !ro" other -elds,

D(is/ question6 wht ontolo*y cn be "ost esily nd e+ec#

ti(ely used s the bsis o! 'nowled*e bse tht will be used !or

intelli*ent ts's8 is &recisely the question o! uni(erslly (lid




ontolo*y tht cn be used to inter&ret in!or"tion o! whte(er

ty&e into 'nowled*e$ which si"ultneously i"&lies tht 0ud*e#

"ent o! the truth o! the in!or"tion is &rt o! the inter&rettion,

I! the truth#cli" o! the sciences is to be u&held$ the &&rent

contrdictions in the (rious ontolo*ies in &rcticl use within

the sciences h(e to be resol(ed, This howe(er requires loo'in*

t how the &&rent contrdictions rose in the -rst &lce$ on

wht ssu"&tions they were bsed nd whether those ssu"&#

tions retin their own (lidity$ nd wht i"&lictions !or cler$

uni(erslly (lid ontolo*y they h(e,

The &&rent contrdictions surround the ter"s "tter$ "te#

ril$ sub0ect nd ob0ect, Ob(iously the -rst ter"s re crucil i!

the ontolo*y is to be "teril ontolo*y$ nd the word "tter

does h(e nu"ber o! intrinsic "enin*s, Since those "enin*s

ori*inted out o! n ori*inl uni(ocity$ it would be si"&listic to

write the" o+ s circu"stntil rti!cts without inquirin* into

why tht word in &rticulr ws seen s &&ro&rite !or wht

see" initilly to be "ulti&le unrelted thin*s, The question o!

the &&rent con!usion in the ter"s sub0ect nd ob0ect$ nd wht

tht i"&lies !or the corres&ondin* notions o! sub0ecti(ity nd ob#




0ecti(ity re lso ob(iously rele(nt to the de(elo&"ent o! n on#

tolo*y tht cn su&&ort the uni(erslly (lid truth#cli" desired

by D(is$ nd required i! the truth#cli" o! the sciences is to be

in ny wy u&held, I! the 'nowled*e o! the (rious sciences is

bsed on inter&rettions tht the"sel(es do not *ree$ the

'nowled*e#cli" o! the sciences de(ol(es to cli" to &r*"ti#

clly use!ul inter&rettions o! in!or"tion tht ws itsel! *th#

ered (i reserch bsed on &r*"tic concerns,

4e!ore we s' the question wht is "tter8 nd then *o on

to the question o! &ossible "teril ontolo*y$ we need to del

with the question o! wht the word itsel! is intended to "en in

&re#ontolo*icl sense,

The ori*inl us*e o! the word$ oddly$ ws synony"ous with

.sub8ect/ in its sense o! the to&ic$ i,e, the ."tter t hnd/$ the

wy we still re!er in *r""r to the sub0ect o! sentence, Thus

in its ori*inl "enin* the &hrse .sub0ect "tter/ is redundnt,

The (erbl sense o! to "tter$ i,e, to be o! concern$ rose l#

"ost si"ultneously, Yet it too' "ore thn two centuries be!ore

the Gree' word hyle$ which ws used to re!er to so"ethin*

&hysicl$ bec"e nother "enin* o! the word$ throu*h its syn#




ony"ity with sub0ect$ nd there!ore trnsltion o! the =tin

equi(lent$ substantia, <rior to this us*e by trnsltors !ro"

Gree' nd =tin te%ts$ then$ the bsic &re#ontolo*icl intent o!

the ter" is so"ethin* 'in to .to&ic o! concern/,

The &&rent con!usion between sub0ect$ s the to&ic t hnd$

nd sub0ect s the 'nower o! the to&ic$ nd the subsequent sub#

stitution in (rious instnces by the word ob0ect$ rose in the

@rtesin 3edittions, The intent o! the @rtesin 3edittions

ws &recisely to obtin certinty o! the (lidity o! scienti-c en#

de(or$ nd in &rticulr to obtin certinty tht would be

!ounded on the certinty o! "the"tics, Tht one o! the crucil

ter"s in o&ertion here chn*ed its "enin* directly s result

o! n tte"&t to secure the 'nowled*e#cli" o! science is de-#

nitely rele(nt to our own inquiry, =stly$ the ter" ob0ect ori*i#

nted !ro" the =tin ob8ectum$ which "ent to o&&ose$ to &ut

into o&&osition$ "uch s we still use the ter" s (erb$ to ob#

0ect to :so"ethin*$ or the lter no"inl !or" ob8ection, The out#

co"e o! the @rtesin 3edittions is tht nythin* real :res in

=tin; is 'nown by bein* &lced in o&&osition to the sub0ect$

which is now intendin* the I o! the 'nower, The !und"entl




&ro&erties o! ny rel$ ccordin* to Descrtes$ re s&til nd

te"&orl e%tension$ nd there!ore "esurble, O(er ti"e "e#

surbility in *enerl bec"e seen s the !und"entl deter"in#

tion o! the rel, It should be noted tht rel$ in Descrtes sense$

does not i"&ly ctul, A unicorn is rel$ in the sense tht hs the

necessry &ro&erties o! res, It/s lc' o! bein* ctul is not rele#

(nt to its de-nition,

Since the ob0ect is deter"ined as n ob0ect by bein* &lced

into reltion with the sub0ect : reltion s&eci-clly o! o&&osi#

tion;$ the ob0ect nd its ob0ecti(ity re intrinsiclly de&endent on

the sub0ect nd its sub0ecti(ity, Since this reltion deter"ines

the 'nown s 'nown$ 'nowled*e is lso by de-nition relative to

the sub0ect s the I#Sub0ect, It is in this bsic ontolo*icl stnce

tht the i"&ortnce o! the re&etble e%&eri"ent beco"es co"#

&rehensible s !eture o! the truth#cli" o! the sciences$ not to

"ention the hy&er !ocus on "esurble s&ects within the sci#

ences tht del lr*ely with to&ics tht re !or the "ost &rt not

esily sub0ect to "esure"ent, In the re&etition o! *i(en e%#

&eri"ent by di+erent I#Sub0ects$ dis"issin* *i(en result s

."erely/ sub0ecti(e$ i,e, only relted to one I#Sub0ect$ is &rtilly




o(erco"e, Howe(er no "tter how "ny ti"es n e%&eri"ent is

re&eted$ it re"ins &ossible tht the ne%t re&etition will !il in

so"e wy$ in this d"ission the relti(ity o! scienti-c 'nowled*e

is "intined within science/s own de-nitions, Tht e%&eri"ents

re rrely re&eted &recisely in ctul reserch$ s&eci-clly be#

cuse the e%ctly re&eted e%&eri"ent is not &rticulrly use!ul

other thn to *urntee le(el o! ontolo*icl (lidity$ de"on#

strtes tht the re&etble e%&eri"ent s crucil to "odern sci#

enti-c "ethod :in !ct &rt o! the de-nition o! "odern science s

"odern; is n ontolo*icl$ not &r*"tic$ require"ent, Only

the "esurble bein* seen s rel turns out not to be (lidted

&ro&osition but necessary assumption in order to &ut "odern

science on "the"ticl bsis$ the ltter bein* intended &rior

to ny questionin* co""enced,

4eyond the unde"onstrted ssu"&tion tht certinty would

be "the"ticl in nture$ there re two sy""etricl &roble"s

with the "ethodolo*y o! the @rtesin 3edittions, The "edit#

tions be*in with &ro"ise to .doubt e(erythin*/$ in order tht

the certinty o! 'nowled*e cn be bsed on so"ethin* tht is in#

trinsiclly indubitble, The outco"e is tht the I is the only




certin sub0ect$ e%&ressed in the !"ous co*ito er*o su", 2e

cn only &osit the I s sub0ect$ thou*h$ in ter"s o! its bein* the

e%&eriencer o! re&resenttionl e%&erience$ which &lces re&re#

senttionl e%&erience s n &riori not d"itted by Descrtes,

The sy""etricl &roble" is tht the nture o! the I is undeter#

"ined$ &recisely becuse it cn only be deter"ined s the ne*#

ti(e o! ny &rticulr &ositi(e e%&erience, In nd o! itsel! it cn

ne(er &ro&erly beco"e n ob0ect to itsel!$ nd thus cn ne(er e%#

&erience itsel! &recisely s its sub0ect, A second &ir o! &roble"s

rise !ro" the re&resenttionl nture o! the sub0ect/s e%&eri#

ence6 !or it to be re&resented it "ust h(e been &re(iously pre-

sented in so"e !shion$ s&eci-clly to the ori*intor o! the re&re#

senttion) the identity o! the I#Sub0ect with the Sel! hs been nec#

essrily ssu"ed but not in ny wy de"onstrted$ nd *i(en

tht the ori*intor o! the re&resenttion :nd thereby the e%&eri#

encer o! the &resenttion; &&ers to be by de-nition the Sel!$

tht identity !lls &rt,

The (rious issues tht this led to co"&rise the history o! e&is#

te"olo*y !ro" Descrtes on, At the e%tre"e o! its criticl i"#

&sse in Mnt$ the result is tht nothin* cn be truly 'nown$ nd




the 'nower is itsel! illusory, The &rdo%icl nture o! this stte#

"ent$ nd the nturl ob0ection tht s &rdo% it cn only be

bsed on in(lid ssu"&tions$ is still not reco*ni9ed by the ltest

cli"s in co*niti(e science$ which be*innin* with the s"e bsic

ontolo*icl ssu"&tions &roduce the s"e &rdo%icl conclu#

sion s Mnt,

Returnin* to the &re#ontolo*icl "enin* o! "tter$ i! the

.&hysiclist/ s&ect o! the "teril is not &ri"ry but deri(ti(e

"enin*$ the &ri"ry "enin* bein* tht o! .to&ic o! concern/$

or .rele(nt sub0ect/$ we h(e to inquire into how .bein* o! con#

cern/ or .bein* rele(nt/ could enter into clri-ed "teril on#

tolo*y6

Jrevious letting something be relevant to ... with ...is grounded in an understanding of something li0eletting things be relevant! and such things as thein-which and with-which of relevance. 7hese thingsand what underlies them! such as the what-for towhich relevance is related! the

for-the-sa0e-of-which from which every what-for isultimately derived! all of these must be previously

disclosed in a certain intelligibility. Knd what is thatin which (a-sein understands itself pre-ontologi-cally as being-in-the-world? In understanding a con-te;t of relations! (a-sein has been referred to anin-order-to in terms of an e;plicitly or in-e;plicitlygrasped potentiality-of-its-being for the sa0e ofwhich it is! which can be authentic or inauthentic.




7his preCgures a what-for as the possible lettingsomething be relevant which structurally allows forrelevance to something else. (a-sein is always ineach case already referred in terms of a

for-the-sa0e-of-which to the with-what of relevance.7his means that! insofar as it is! it always alreadylets beings be encountered as things at hand.

#aidigger! $artin %F,+F-,T-H,&. eing and 7ime -Sein und 9eit %)indle *ocations +E4+-+E4&. . )in-dle 'dition.

I! it is rele(nce tht lets bein*s be encountered s t hnd in

the -rst &lce$ then it is only s lredy rele(nt tht bein* cn

be so encountered$ nd only s rele(nt tht it cn beco"e n

.ob0ect !or science/, It is this rele(nce$ tht so"ethin*

."tters/$ tht -rst enbles science to *et hold o! its ob0ect in n

ontolo*iclly (lid "nner, Si"ultneously$ the concern !or

thin*s o! rele(nce s the !und"entl "enin* o! hu"n bein*

llows the hu"n bein* to be scienti-c,

It "y see" odd t -rst to s&e' o! "teril ontolo*y tht is

not intrinsiclly &hysiclist$ but insted deri(es !ro" the (erbl

sense o! "tter # to "tter$ s well s the ori*inl no"inl

sense # wht/s the "tter8, Howe(er since the &hysiclist in#

ter&rettion !ils the test o! scienti-c e(idence itsel!$ &rticulrly




in the re o! &ost#"odern &hysics$ where s Heisenber* &ut it

The ontolo*y o! "terilis" rested u&on the illusion tht the

'ind o! e%istence$ the direct 5ctulity5 o! the world round us$

cn be e%tr&olted into the to"ic rn*e, This e%tr&oltion$

howe(er$ is i"&ossible,,, to"s re not thin*s,

=oner*n/s ontolo*y o! the thin* s s&eci-clly wht is o! con#

cern in &rticulr re o! e%&erience &ro(ides "ens o! un#

derstndin* how uni(erslly (lid ontolo*y cn be &r*"ti#

clly "odi-ed in (rious res o! ende(or (i co"&le"entrity

o! the di+erences in (rious sub#ontolo*ies without thereby in(l#

idtin* the uni(erslity o! the bsic ontolo*y,

the notion of a thing is grounded in an insight thatgrasps! not relations between data! but a unity!identity! whole in data1 and this unity is grasped!not by considering data from any abstractive view-point! but by ta0ing them in their concrete individu-ality and in the totality of their aspects. Bor if thereader will turn his mind to any ob8ect he names athing! he will Cnd that ob8ect to be a unity to whichbelongs every aspect of every datum within theunity. 7hus! the dog Bido is a unity! and to Bido is

ascribed a totality of data whether of color orshape! sound or odor! feeling or movement. $ore-over! from this grasp of unity in a concrete totalityof data there follow the various characteristics ofthings.




*onergan! ernard1 6rowe! Brederic0 '.1 (oran! obert $. %F,+F-,E-FH&. Insight: K Study of #umanAnderstanding! Xolume H: ,,H %6ollected Wor0s of

ernard *onergan& %)indle *ocations ETF-ETHH&.

Aniversity of 7oronto Jress. )indle 'dition.

This unity nd identity in *i(en set o! dt t'en in its totl#

ity ssu"es the dt t'en is &riori *rs&ed s unity ontolo*i#

clly$ nd is thus rele(nt to the &erson "'in* the deter"in#

tion, As result the thin*s o! the &hysicist$ while they relte to

the s"e unity$ will necessrily *rs& di+erent s&ects &resent in

tht *i(en unity thn will the thin*s o! the historin or &sychol#

o*ist, The question le!t unnswered is$ o! course$ what is uni-ed

in this ontolo*icl unity8 The &&rent nswer is the indi(idul

dtu"s but this is ob(iously not correct$ since$ !or instnce$ we

*rs& no unity between the hert nd the toes in the unity we

*rs& s hu"n bein*, The unity is unity s&eci-clly of rel#

tions, 2e do in !ct *rs& the reltions$ nd it is in *rs&in*

the" as a unity o! reci&rocl reltions tht we *rs& the unity in

*i(en set o! dt,

2hen the (rious res o! e%&erience re!er to thin*s$ they

"ost o!ten "en wht =oner*n re!ers to s .bodies out there




now rel/$ nd o! course e(ery re o! e%&erience wnts .their/

thin*s to be rel in the sense tht n ni"l would understnd

so"ethin* s rel$ e%ternl nd &resent, 2hile we re"in ni#

"ls nd there!ore h(e biolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience$ we

s&end "ost o! our ti"e in other &tterns$ such s co""on sense$

scienti-c$ dr"tic$ rtistic etc, The .thin*s/ o! those &tterns o!#

ten do not "& to nythin* li'e .bodies out there now rel/, As

=oner*n &uts it6

Knimals have no epistemological problems. eitherdo scientists! as long as they stic0 to their tas0 ofobserving! forming hypotheses! and verifying. 7heperennial source of nonsense is that! after the sci-entist has veriCed his hypothesis! he is li0ely to go alittle further and tell the layman what! appro;i-mately! scientiCc reality loo0s li0eV Klready we haveattac0ed the unveriCable image1 but now we cansee the origin of the strange urge to foist uponman0ind unveriCable images. Bor both the scientistand the layman! besides being intelligent and rea-sonable! also are animals. 7o them as animals! averiCed hypothesis is 8ust a 8umble of words or sym-bols. What they want is an elementary 0nowing ofthe /really real!2 if not through sense! at least byimagination.

*onergan! ernard1 6rowe! Brederic0 '.1 (oran! obert $. %F,+F-,E-FH&. Insight: K Study of #umanAnderstanding! Xolume H: ,,H %6ollected Wor0s of




ernard *onergan& %)indle *ocations E4T-ET+&.Aniversity of 7oronto Jress. )indle 'dition.

The current .belie!/ in science tends to su&&ort the notion tht

scienti-c .thin*s/ re the .true/ .out there now rel/ bodies$ ironi#

clly &recisely t the ti"e tht "ny o! the i"*es o! science re

un(eri-ble nd thus h(e the lest cli" to (lidity o! ny o! the

.thin*s/ o! the (rious &tterns o! e%&erience, Scienti-c .thin*s/

re@uire obser(ble (eri-ction$ &recisely becuse there is no

other (lidtion (ilble6 by contrst co""on sense .thin*s/ re

(lidted by our bility to *et round in the world$ biolo*icl

.thin*s/ by our bility to sur(i(e nd re&licte$ dr"tic thin*s by

&oliticl e1ccy$ etc,, Since they h(e (eri-bility not de&en#

dent on &hysicl obser(tion$ they lso require no &hysiclist on#

tolo*y, Outside the biolo*icl &ttern o! e%&erience there is no

necessity !or .thin*s/ to be &hysiclly obser(ble$ becuse the

dt in which the unity is !ound does not h(e to be &hysicl

set o! dt,

The worst e%cesses o! scienti-c ideolo*y re e%hibited &re#

cisely in the sciences tht do not del with &hysicl sets o! dt,




The tte"&t to understnd the "ind$ !or instnce$ (i neuro&sy#

cholo*y or co*niti(e science is not si"&ly n unwrrnted reduc#

tionis"$ it "is&&lies &hysicl conce&ts to set o! dt tht cn#

not be "&&ed to &hysicl entities, @ertinly the "ind hs its

bsis in the neurolo*icl syste"$ but the unwrrnted reduction

is to equte thin'in* with neuronl -rin*, As n e"er*ent set o!

dt$ our e%&erience o! thin'in* hs nothin* to do with the e%&e#

rience o! neuronl -rin* on the neuronl le(el, 2ht is lo*icl$

"enin*!ul series o! thou*hts !or the "ind is by de-nition inco"#

&rehensible t the neuronl le(el$ nd &&ers rndo", 2hile

neuronl .structures/ tht "& (*uely to res o! e%&erience

cn be isolted in indi(iduls$ the inbility o! neuroscientists to

-nd the s"e "&&in* in ny other indi(idul i"&lies tht they

re &ersistent rti!cts o! the "ind$ not cusl e%&lntions o!

thin'in*, 2ht di+erentites science !ro" &seudo science is

the (lidity o! its ccess to its ob0ects o! inquiry$ nd s result

neuro&sycholo*y nd co*niti(e science$ by their &hysiclist s#

su"&tions$ re intrinsiclly &seudo sciences$ since they h(e in

the -rst instnce no (lid ccess ontolo*iclly to the &syche$ in

the ltter instnce to co*nition$ neither o! which cn be re&re#




sented by set o! &hysicl dt nor cn be cuslly "&&ed to

ny set o! &hysicl dt, Any &sycholo*y hs to strt with obser#

(tion nd e%&erience o! the &syche$ there is no other (lid bsis

on which to &redicte ny &sycholo*icl hy&othesis, =i'ewise

ny co*niti(e science hs to strt with obser(tion nd e%&eri#

ence o! thin'in*$ there is no other (lid bsis on which to &redict

ny co*niti(e hy&othesis, E(ery tte"&t to bse either on &hysi#

cl sets o! dt is lredy !ilure be!ore it be*ins$ becuse

there is no (lidity to the initil ssu"&tions$ i,e, the .thin*s/ o!

neurolo*y h(e nothin* to do with the .thin*s/ o! &sycholo*y or

co*nition$ nd the result is &rllel with the &hysicist tryin* to

!oist un(eri-ble i"*es on the ly"n s "ore .rel/ thn the

.thin*s/ o! the ly"n/s (rious &tterns o! e%&erience,

The question rised s to the 'nowled*e#cli" or truth#cli"

o! the sciences cn now be ssessed, The ontolo*icl (lidity &#

&rently secured by the re&etble e%&eri"ent is only relti(e

(lidity$ nd one with serious li"ittions$ since by de-nition ny

two scientists in *i(en -eld re (ery si"ilr s entities$ relti(e

to ll the other entities in obser(ble relity, As well$ the .thin*s/

o! the sciences h(e no intrinsic (lidity outside the scienti-c




&ttern o! e%&erience unless they cn be (eri-ed obser(tionlly$

which is o!ten not &ossible when delin* with sciences tht t#

te"&t to "esure &heno"en t (stly di+erent scles thn the

scle t which we obser(e relity, The cli" to .certin/ bse

!or 'nowled*e in the sciences thus turns out to be bo*us cli",

Goin* bc' to the @rtesin 3edittions the reson tht the bo#

*us cli" ws initilly belie(ed$ then its !oundtion !or*otten$ is

tht the "issin* .bsolute/ &ers&ecti(e tht cn ne(er be du&li#

cted by ny -nite nu"ber o! re&eted e%&eri"ents is &ro(ided

by the @hristin *od, As theolo*icl &osit$ nd by theolo*y/s

own de-nition n un(eri-ble &osit$ the ontolo*icl bsis o! sci#

ence/s truth#cli" is not itsel! scienti-c but reli*ious$ nor is it

bsed on e(idence but on belie!$ which "'es the theis" o!

"ny scientists n intrinsic nd !und"entl Sel!#contrdiction i!

they wnt to "intin ny truth#cli" beyond &rcticl use!ul#

ness, Tht this reduces the .thin*s/ o! science to the s"e onto#

lo*icl sttus s the .thin*s/ o! cr&entry$ so!twre de(elo&"ent

or &oliticl cti(is" is n un(oidble conclusion$ nd the

truth#cli" or 'nowled*e#cli" o! science is untenble,




Si"ultneously$ !or D(is/ &ro0ect$ the ssu"&tion tht uni#

(erslly (lid ontolo*y with which to inter&ret dt is &ossible is

!und"entlly Bwed, There is no .true/ ontolo*y su&&le"ented

by the &r*"tic ontolo*ies o! (rious disci&lines$ insted there

re only ontolo*ies o! rele(nce to (rious disci&lines inso!r s

they study nd re&resent di+erent &tterns o! e%&erience, Ech

o! these ontolo*ies hs certin bsic ssu"&tions tht re un#

questionble within tht ontolo*y$ nd there!ore within tht disci#

&line$ nd ny tte"&t t n intelli*ent inter&retin* syste" hs

to be ble to deter"ine !ro" conte%t wht the *uidin* ssu"&#

tions re$ nd there!ore wht inter&rettion is rele(nt in *i(en

conte%t$ s well s how to &er!or" tht inter&rettion, @retin*

sin*le$ "ush#"shed ontolo*y si"&ly doesn/t wor', Ech on#

tolo*y o! rele(nce hs to itsel! be clri-ed nd (lidted !or the

syste" to be ble to dequtely inter&ret co"&le% dt in "ulti#

&le conte%ts,

Tht thin*$ ontolo*iclly$ is unity o! reltions nswers &rt

o! the question but rises nother6 wht is reltion8 In &rticu#

lr$ t the lowest *enus nd t the hi*hest$ the reltions cn/t be

sid to obtin between .thin*s/ in the sense tht we understnd




thin*s s &hysiclly "ni!est$ s &resented, 2e cn -nd clue in

Heide**er/s !und"entl ontolo*y s to&olo*icl ontolo*y6

to&olo*y o! bein*, Howe(er this is initilly di1cult notion to

understnd in concrete ter"s, How does to&olo*y$ s&eci-clly

to&olo*y o! &lce$ led to n ontolo*y o! thin*s outside o! the hu#

"n e%&erience o! thin*s .h(in*/ &lce$ nd s&tility nd

te"&orlity bein* bstrctions o! &lce tht we scribe to the

thin*s the"sel(es when we stri& the" o! conte%t8 S&tility nd

te"&orlity s deri(ed !ro" the to&olo*y o! the thin*s "'es

certin sense in ter"s o! the lc' o! bsolute loclity nd te"&o#

rlity between thin*s6 i! loclity nd te"&orlity re both relti(e

to di+erent thin*s then both h(e to ori*inte within the syste"

o! ech thin*,

The other issue is how to -nd co""onlity tht cn be sid

to be intrinsic to the notion o! reltion$ *i(en the wide (riety o!

ty&es o! reltion tht cn be sid to obtin6

7ypes of Systemic elations

In our wor0 we realied that we need to 0eep moreattnetion to the relations. K simple line or arrow ora plus o minus li0e in casual loop diagrams is not




sucient. 7herefor i developed this list of possibletypes of relations. is probably incomplete and needsdevelopment. o to the Borum to comment the list.

7he colours are suggestions for colour coding ar-rows or lines in a diagram. In addition to these oneshould us dierentiation of fonts for lines and oneshould also label relations with descriptions.

+. '*K7I=S I SUS7'$S 7#K7 K' ('JI67'(

WI7# =('S K( 6='67=S %typically ob- 8ects connected with lines or arrows&

+.+ S7A67AK* '*K7I=S! #I'K6#I6K*SAJK K( SA SUS7'$S %''S& %S7&

+.+.+ Structural relations %Bunctional relations&

Xery often systems are described as the assembly of parts where the sum is more than its parts. 7his isnot a cause eect relationship but structural rela-tionship.

';ample: there is not a causal relationship between

the wheels and the frames of a bicycle in the sensethat e.g the frame decreases if the wheels increase.7hey are assembled in a structure where they gen-erate together a surplus output. 7he whole is morethan the sum of the parts.




';ample: 7he relation in the air trac system be-tween the planes and the control system. 7heamount of plains do not automatically decrease ifthe control system is reduced. It only happens

through institutional regulations.

+.+.F. $acro systemic relations %$S&:

elations that are caused by the entities being sub-systems in the same Osupra-systemO but without

necessarily being inn direct contact with eachother.

';ample: i0es and cars are related because theyare sharing the same macro system: the roads.%7hey are related in additional ways than this&

';amples: 7he winter coat and the bi0ini are bothpart of the clothing wardrobe of the same person.

+.+.H. $icro systemic relations %$iS&:

Systems that are related because they share a rela-tion through a sub system:

';ample: 7he rubber in the tires of the cars and the

bi0es come from the same producer.

';ample: K $i;master and a hair dryer can sharesimilar electronic parts from the same manufac-turer.




+.F KSS=6IK7IX' S'$K7I6 K( 7#'$K7I6 '- *K7I=S %*A'& %K7&

+.F.+. 7hematic relations %7&:

7hematic relations are entities being part of thesame thematic Celd or category. 7hemes are man-made sorting devices and there needs not necessar-ily to be e.g. a causal relation between members ofa theme.

';ample: the relation between Aniversal (esignand 'rgonomics

';ample: enres of music. 7here are many possiblerelations between genres of music but if we thin0 of the relation between the music of the Kustralianaborigines and a symphony by ach we can onlythin0 of very few li0e biological %music being pro-grammed in our genes& and thematic relations %both

being music&.

+.F.F. epresentational relations %&:

Images! representation! videos! simulations! K

';ample: 7he relation between a map and a land-scape

+.F.H. Kssociative relations %K&:




$etaphors and analogies: 7hese are the types of re-lations that pop up in brain storms by associations.

';ample: If two people are very similar to eachother in their loo0 there is an associative relation.

';ample: If I say bird! you say Csh....

+.H. S=6IK* '*K7I=S %Uellows& %S&

+.H.+. Structural social relations %SS&

';ample: Bamily! friends etc

+.H.F. Institutional social relations %IS&

';ample: Wor0! municipality! nation! culture! lan-guage etc.

+.F.H. Kctions %KS&

Social relations created through action

';ample: Sharing political interests.




+.H. #K( '*K7I=S! 6KASK* '*K7I=S! B*=WS '76. %'(S& %6&

+.H.+ 6ausal relations %6&

6ause and eect models: 7he nodes depict what en-tities causes an eects and what entities are beingaected while the relations %normally arrows& de-pict the eect.

';ample: If the heat is turned on the 0ettle starts toboil

';ample: If the tolls for entering the city by car in-creases the passengers on public transportation goup.

+.H.F. Nualitative 6ausal elation %N6&

7he amount or intensity will not be inLuenced butthe @uality will be changed

';ample: 7he relation between architectural spaceand micro climate

+.H.H. 7ools %67&:

7ools are typically modifying and inLuencing the re-lations and not the entities directly.

';ample: K used to increase cultural understand-ing of biological systems.




+.H.G. Blows in human systems %B#S&:

7hese are the concrete Lows of values in our soci-ety. 7hey are driven by needs and economic forces.

';amples related to human society: $aterial Lows! 'nergy Lows! Information Lows! 0nowledge! 'co-nomic Lows! Stoc0 mar0eds.

';amples: 7rac Low! crowding of people.

+.H.E. Blows in natural systems %BS&

7hese are driven by pressure dierences %Celd con-ditions& and> or by nuclear processes. =n the highlevel these might be understood as causal relations!

but on a detailed level they need to be understoodas dierentiations in uniform Celds! li0e e.g. Lowsin water. 7hey are caused by heat impact causinginternal dierentiation of pressure! but the shapesof the Lows themselves are generated by internalchaotic principles resisting simple cause eectanalyses.

';amples related to natural phenomena: water! air!magma! cosmic particle Lows etc.

+.H.4. Xariables! stoc0s and Lows

7his is the normal way of describing systems in Sys-tems (ynamics. Xariables are nodes that might




change under the inLuence of other nodes. Blowsare the Lows of the content of the nodes form oneto the other or the inLuence from one node to theother. Stoc0s are the storing capacity of the nodes.

';ample: 6lassic e;ample is a bath tub: if the inLowis bigger than the Low out of the drain the bathtubwill be Clled and Looded. If the Low out of the tub isbigger the tub will eventually be empty.

';ample: 7he amount of predators and prey will in- Luence each other. If the amount %stoc0& of rabbitsis increasing the amount of fo;es will increasewhich will lead to a decrease of rabbits which will

lead to a decrease of fo;es which will lead to an in-crease of rabbits...etc...

';ample: the relation between the price of goodsand the availability

-

+.H.T. egative relation %6&

If node K increases! node decreases

';amples: 7he fo; and rabbit e;ample! %this tendsto be a self stabiliing system&

[

+.H.. Jositive relations %J6&:

If node K increases! the node increases or if node K decreases node decreases:




';ample: 7he increase of proCt on the stoc0 mar0etleads to the increase of the amount of traders

+.H.. Beedbac0 loops %Bloop&:

7he eect of a chain of causal relations betweenvariables returns to the Ostarting nodeO

Jositive feedbac0 loop %[Bloop&:

7he sum of the relations is positive! 7he system isunbalanced

';ample ? %I Cnd these very hard to get right be-cause it is very dicult to interpret and it is all de-pendent on the variables one ma0es up& #ostile ne-gotiations accelerating into war.

egative feedbac0 loop %-Bloop&:

7he sum of the relations is negative: the system isbalanced.

';ample? Bo; and rabbit.

';ample: if the price goes up the sales go down %-&then the price goes down %[& and then the salesgoes up %-& and the price goes up %[&. 7his is seem-ingly a self stabilising system but it\s not a negative

feedbac0 loop because it\s neutral %two Z and two[&. 7he model is never @uite li0e reality.

F. SUS7'$I6 '*K7I=S 7#K7 'SIS7 7#' $=('* =B =('S K( 6='67=S

ot all systemic relations can be abstracted tonodes with connections. they will have to be dia-




grammed with spatial maps! intensity maps oralong time lines.

F.+. Spatial pro;imity %SJ&:

'lements sharing the same space within an opera-tional pro;imity for the agent %e!g! user&

';amples: 7he relation between a chair and a table.7here is of course also a thematic relationship be-cause they both are furniture and also maybe a his-toric relationship because both belong to the same

style. 7here is also a functional > structural relation-ship. %Who said this is simple?&

';ample: the pro;imity between a neighbourhoodand a par0.

';ample: the pro;imity of the ygd]y museums

F.F. 7emporal pro;imity %7J&:

'lements share a temporal pro;imity in relation toan agent %e.g. user&

';ample: 7rac regulation systems that are timedaccording to rush hours that again are caused bythe wor0ing hours which again are inLuenced bythe planetary system %day length&.

';ample: K cafe serving lunch at lunch hours.

F.H. Spatial distribution %S(&:

Intensity Celds! variation and dierentiation of thedistribution of similar elements in space.

';ample: temperature across a room with a stove inone corner.




';ample: 7he density and distribution of sun-bathers in a par0.

F.G. 7emporal distribution %7(&

F.G.+. 7he distribution of elements over time!

';ample: the distribution of intensities in a musiccomposition.

';ample: 7he distribution of trac density duringone day

F.G.F 7iming! rhythms! repetitions %7&:

Same elements are appearing in a recognisable pat-tern.

';ample: 7he repetitions in a music compositions.

';ample: 7he rhythms of intensity in the density oftrac.

';ample: the rhythms and patterns of usage of therooms in a house.

How sin*le ty&e o! reltion could !or" **re*tes o! rel#

tionlity tht enco"&ss ll o! these ty&es o! reltions is not i"#

"editely ob(ious$ nor o! course how tht ty&e could obtin t

the lowest nd hi*hest *ener between non#&hysicl thin*s$ or in

our usul ter"inolo*y no-things,




7opological ecursive elations as Krchetypal elations

So"e o! the di1culties in delin* with the notion o! reltion

rise !ro" the (riety o! ty&es o! reltion$ s noted in the &reced#

in* ch&ter, Others rise throu*h the nture o! syste" itsel!,

Since subsyste"s cn be re&lced$ s lon* s the re&lce"ent is

!unctionlly equi(lent$ the syste" itsel! is better de-ned s the

networ' o! reltions tht obtin, This lso sol(es the initil issue

with non#&hysicl syste"s such s ln*u*e, There is !urther

question to be rised6 in wht do reltions the"sel(es consist8

I! .thin*/ is seen s unity o! reltions tht llow ny thin*

to beh(e s unity$ then the internl reltions beco"e se&#

rte &roble", In ter"s o! e%ternl reltions$ thou*h$ relti(e lo#

clity nd te"&orlity destroy the co""on sense (iew o! direct

e+ect o! one syste" on nother$ the .billird bll/ "et&hor o!

&hysiclis", Ontolo*y cnnot be bsed on scienti-c descri&tion$

"uch less scienti-c "et&hor$ but it does need to ccount !or the

&ossibility o! obser(tions tht re e(identilly correct, The no#

tion o! thin*s s topoi "y be o! so"e ssistnce,

To&os is !und"entl notion in both the &hiloso&hicl nd




"the"ticl senses, It hs lso beco"e &otentilly !ound#

tionl notion in &hysics$ s the "&ituhedron nd its ssocited

&ro0ecti(e "oduli s&ces de"onstrtes, It is noteworthy tht

to&oi$ nd to&olo*y s their descri&tion$ hs co"e to &ro"inence

in both "the"tics nd &hysics &recisely since its rise to &ro"i#

nence in the to&olo*icl :nd &erh&s e(en to&o*r&hicl; ontol#

o*y !ound in Heide**er/s lter wor's,

the concept of “place" has! in recent years! “e;-ploded" across many dierent areas and disciplinesin a proliferation of dierent forms and uses. Whilethere are many wor0s that deploy various senses ofplace and that also delineate the detailed te;turesand forms of particular places! when it comes to thetheoretical in@uiry into place! the focus for the mostpart is not on place as such but either on the eectsof place or on place itself as an eect of other pro-cesses.

elph notes that (avid #arvey! for instance! treatsplace as a social construction! claiming that theonly interesting @uestion then concerns the socialprocesses that give rise to place %#arvey +4! pp.

FH-G&. #ere! place is nothing more than an eect. (oreen $assey! on the other hand! treats place!which she refuses to distinguish from space! as sig-

niCcant largely in terms of the conse@uences of ourimagination of place %$assey F,,E! esp. pp. E-&.

#ere! the eects of place are given priority.

'ven the wor0 of a theorist such as #enri *efebvre%esp. *efebvre ++&! so often cited as a 0ey Cgurein the literature on place! turns out to be important!




less for his elucidation of the concept than for theprioritiation of space and place as acceptableterms within critical discourse %moreover! in *efeb-vre! one Cnds much the same treatment of space

and place as eects of social and economic factorsas is evident in #arvey2s own *efebvrian-inLectedwriting&. $uch the same is true of other prominenttheorists such as Boucault and even (eleue anduattari.

Jart of #eidegger2s importance is the central rolehis wor0 played in enabling the appearance of place%and space& as a 0ey theoretical concept in writerssuch as *efebvre and Boucault %a point that Stuart

'lden2s wor0 has done much to establish<see! forinstance! 'lden F,,+&. Burthermore! #eidegger isone of the few philosophers and the only ma8or

F,th

-century thin0er to thematie place as such andto provide an analysis of its structure and signiC-cance<so much so that the later #eidegger couldrefer to his own wor0 as a “topology of being." Boranyone interested in the attempt to say more aboutplace than is available in the wor0 of thin0ers li0e

#arvey and $assey %or *efebvre and Boucault&! #eidegger must be essential reading.

Ye $alpas - (isclosing the (epths of #eidegger2s7opology: K esponse to elph

An ele"entry to&os$ in the "the"ticl sense is ll o! the

!ollowin*6

locally cartesian closed! Cnitely cocomplete! a #eyt-ing category ! and a pretopos.




7he last two imply that it has an internal logic thatresembles ordinary mathematical reasoning! andthe presence of e;ponentials and power ob8ectsmeans that this logic is higher order.

An ele"entry to&os in "the"tics is too o&en cte*ory to

stis!y the require"ent o! thin* s syste", 3ny &ossible

to&oi under these rules could not "eet the required conditions o!

syste"$ lthou*h s rbitrry sets they re &er!ectly (ible, It

is si"ultneously too o&en to be o! use in quntu" "echnics,

The notion o! the "&lituhedron is bsed on s&eci-c 'inds o!

to&oi with s&eci-c &ro&erties$ which (stly si"&li-es the "the#

"tics required to ccurtely &redict the &robbility o! &rticle

interctions$ which "ust in some sense !or" te"&orry rel#

tion in order to interct,

Jhysicists have discovered a 8ewel-li0e geometricob8ect that dramatically simpliCes calculations ofparticle interactions and challenges the notion thatspace and time are fundamental components of re-ality.

“7his is completely new and very much simpler thananything that has been done before!" said Kndrew

#odges! a mathematical physicist at =;ford Aniver-sity who has been following the wor0.

http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/contact/details/hodges







7he revelation that particle interactions! the mostbasic events in nature! may be conse@uences of ge-ometry signiCcantly advances a decades-long eortto reformulate @uantum Celd theory! the body of

laws describing elementary particles and their in-teractions. Interactions that were previously calcu-lated with mathematical formulas thousands ofterms long can now be described by computing thevolume of the corresponding 8ewel-li0e “amplituhe-dron!" which yields an e@uivalent one-term e;pres-sion.

“7he degree of eciency is mind-boggling!" said Ya-cob our8aily ! a theoretical physicist at #arvard

Aniversity and one of the researchers who devel-oped the new idea. “Uou can easily do! on paper!computations that were infeasible even with a com-puter before."

7he new geometric version of @uantum Celd theorycould also facilitate the search for a theory of @uan-tum gravity that would seamlessly connect thelarge- and small-scale pictures of the universe. Kt-tempts thus far to incorporate gravity into the lawsof physics at the @uantum scale have run up againstnonsensical inCnities and deep parado;es. 7he am-plituhedron! or a similar geometric ob8ect! couldhelp by removing two deeply rooted principles ofphysics: locality and unitarity.

“oth are hard-wired in the usual way we thin0about things!" said ima Kr0ani-#amed! a profes-sor of physics at the Institute for Kdvanced Study in

Jrinceton! .Y.! and the lead author of the newwor0! which he is presenting in tal0s and in a forth-coming paper . “oth are suspect."

*ocality is the notion that particles can interact only from ad8oining positions in space and time. Knd uni-tarity holds that the probabilities of all possible out-

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbourj/


http://www.sns.ias.edu/~arkani/

http://susy2013.ictp.it/video/05_Friday/2013_08_30_Arkani-Hamed_4-3.html

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2007.pdf




http://www.sns.ias.edu/~arkani/

http://susy2013.ictp.it/video/05_Friday/2013_08_30_Arkani-Hamed_4-3.html






comes of a @uantum mechanical interaction mustadd up to one. 7he concepts are the central pillarsof @uantum Celd theory in its original form! but incertain situations involving gravity! both brea0

down! suggesting neither is a fundamental aspect of nature.

In 0eeping with this idea! the new geometric ap-proach to particle interactions removes locality andunitarity from its starting assumptions. 7he ampli-tuhedron is not built out of space-time and probabil-ities1 these properties merely arise as conse@uencesof the 8ewel2s geometry. 7he usual picture of spaceand time! and particles moving around in them! is a

construct.

Re!errin* to new "et&hor s .disco(ery/ is rther o(er#

sttin* the cse$ cllin* it .re(eltion/ is borderin* on ridicu#

lous, Notwithstndin* the !nci!ul re&ortin*$ thou*h$ the

"et&hor o! the "&lituhedron is noteworthy due to the si"&lic#

ity it brin*s in eli"intin* the (st nu"ber o! &robbilities tht

rise usin* Feyn"n di*r"s$ the "0ority o! which re never

obser(ed, :by .obser(tion/ I/" not intendin* direct obser(tion$

but indirect e%tr&oltion !ro" direct obser(tion o! thin*s on

"uch hi*her scle;, 3ny &ossibilities llowed in clcultions

usin* Feyn"n di*r"s s&eci-clly contrdict ther"odyn"ics$

which cts s n rbiter on the so"eti"es !nci!ul ides relti(e




7he rassmannian is a fundamental ob8ect of studyacross various subdisciplines of modern geometry.7hey are not only crucial in constructing other in-teresting varieties but have a rich structure and are

of basic interest in their own right. #istorically! thespace dates bac0 to Jluc0er! who studied the spaceof all pro8ective lines in the space P 3! the space G%F ;

G&.

In general the rassmannian G% k; V & as a set issimply the set of all k-dimensional linear subspacesin V . 7hus! it naturally is a space parametriing lin-ear subspaces of a vector space and and is useful

for enumerative problems. 7he %real or comple;&

rassmannian can also be given the structure of adierentiable manifold and studied from a dieren-tial geometry perspective.

As noted in the be*innin* o! the &&er on the "&lituhedron

by Ni" Ar'ni#H"ed nd rosl( Trn'$ the "&lituhedron is

*enerli9tion o! the &ositi(e Grss"nnin,

Jerturbative scattering amplitudes in gauge theo-ries have remar0able simplicity and hidden innitedimensional symmetries that are completely ob-scured in the conventional formulation of eld theory using Beynman diagrams. 7his suggests the e;is-tence of a new understanding for scattering ampli-tudes where locality and unitarity do not play a cen-tral role but are derived conse@uences from a dif-

ferent starting point. In this note we provide suchan understanding for R G SU$ scattering ampli-tudes in the planar limit! which we identify as the“volumeO of a new mathematical ob8ect -the Kmpli-tuhedron-generaliing the positive rassmannian.




*ocality and unitarity emerge hand-in-hand frompositive geometry.

'verything Lows from generaliing the notion of the“inside of a triangle in a planeO. 7he Crst obviousgeneraliation is to the inside of a simple; in pro8ec-tive space! which further e;tends to the positiverassmannian. 7he second generaliation is tomove from triangles to conve; polygons! and thene;tend this into the rassmannian. 7his gives us theamplituhedron for tree amplitudes! generaliing thepositive rassmannian by e;tending the notion ofpositivity to include e;ternal 0inematical data.

Aside !ro" llowin* !unctions tht re "*nitudes si"&ler to

clculte$ n i"&ortnt s&ect o! the new "odel is tht it eli"i#

ntes the need !or both in-nite nd -nite syste"s in order to de#

ter"ine locl obser(bles6

the deeper motivations for studying this physics! ar-ticulated in 3+G!+E5 have to do with some fundamen-tal challenges of @uantum gravity. We have long0nown that @uantum mechanics and gravity to-gether ma0e it impossible to have local observables.Nuantum mechanics forces us to divide the world intwo pieces: an inCnite measuring apparatus and a

Cnite system being observed. #owever for any ob-servations made in a Cnite region of space-time!gravity ma0es it impossible to ma0e the apparatusarbitarily large! since it also becomes heavier! andcollapses the observation region D




How "odel restricted to wht cn be *eo"etriclly obtined

throu*h the co"bintory rules o! s&eci-c ty&e o! to&os could

re&lce "ore co"&le% "odels tht include s&ce nd ti"e$ nd

thus loclity nd unitry$ is relted to the reson the trin*le ws

thou*ht by <yth*ors s the .&er!ect/ sh&e, It is the si"&lest

*eo"etry tht hs n interior $ nd cn there!ore !or" within$

necessry to our e%&erience o! both s&ce nd ti"e, 2e e%&eri#

ence oursel(es nd relity s in#s&ce nd in#ti"e$ nd this

within#ness hs to be "intined in ny "odel o! so"ethin* tht

could !ound both,

Scattering amplitudes in gauge theories areamongst the most fundamental observables inphysics. 7he te;tboo0 approach to computing theseamplitudes in perturbation theory! using Beynmandiagrams! ma0es locality and unitarity as manifestas possible! at the e;pense of introducing largeamounts of gauge redundancy into our descriptionof the physics! leading to an e;plosion of apparentcomple;ity for the computation of amplitudes for allbut the very simplest processes. =ver the last @uar-ter-century it has become clear that this comple;ityis a defect of the Beynman diagram approach to this

physics! and is not present in the nal amplitudesthemselves! which are astonishingly simpler thanindicated from the diagrammatic e;pansion 3+^T5.

7his has been best understood for ma;imally super-symmetric gauge theories in the planar limit. Jlanar

R G SU$ has been used as a toy model for real




physics in many guises! but as toy models go! its ap-plication to scattering amplitudes is closer to thereal world than any other. Bor instance the leadingtree appro;imation to scattering amplitudes is iden-

tical to ordinary gluon scattering! and the mostcomplicated part of loop amplitudes! involving vir-tual gluons! is also the same in R G SU$ as in thereal world.

Jlanar R G SU$ amplitudes turn out to be espe-cially simple and beautiful! en8oying the hiddensymmetry of dual superconformal invariance 3! 5!associated with a dual interpretation of scatteringamplitudes as a supersymmetric Wilson loop

3+,^+F5. (ual superconformal symmetry combineswith the ordinary conformal symmetry to generatean innite dimension “UangianO symmetry 3+H5. Beyn-man diagrams conceal this marvelous structure pre-cisely as a conse@uence of ma0ing locality and uni-tarity manifest. Bor instance! the Uangian symmetry is obscured in either one of the standard physicaldescriptions either as a “scattering amplitudeO inone space-time or a “Wilson-loopO in its dual.

7his suggests that there must be a dierent formu-lation of the physics! where locality and unitarity donot play a central role! but emerge as derived fea-tures from a dierent starting point. K program tond a reformulation along these lines was initiated in3+G!+E5! and in the conte;t of a planar R G SU$was pursued in 3+4^+5! leading to a new physicaland mathematical understanding of scattering am-plitudes 3+5. 7his picture builds on 6BW recur-

sion relations for tree 34! T5 and loop 3+! F,5 ampli-tudes! and represents the amplitude as a sum overbasic building bloc0s! which can be physically de-scribed as arising from gluing together the elemen-tary three-particle amplitudes to build more compli-cated on-shell processes. 7hese “onshell diagramsO%which are essentially the same as the "twistor dia-




gramsO of 3+4!F+!FF5& are remar0ably connectedwith “cellsO of a beautiful new structure in algebraicgeometry! that has been studied by mathematiciansover the past number of years! 0nown as the posi-

tive rassmannian.

The uthors d"it tht6

while these developments give a completeunderstanding for the on-shell building

bloc0s of the amplitude! they do not go fur-ther to e;plain why the building bloc0s haveto be combined in a particular way to deter-mine the full amplitude itself. Indeed! theparticular combination of on-shell diagramsis dictated by imposing that the Cnal result islocal and unitary: locality and unitarity spec-ify the singularity structure of the amplitude!and this information is used to determine the

full integrand. 7his is unsatisfying! since wewant to see locality and unitarity emerge

from more primitive ideas! not merely usethem to obtain the amplitude.

Howe(er they do "'e n tte"&t to wor' out

.dee&er/ understndin* o! why the s&eci-c co"bintory

rules obtin the correct "&litude, The result is the "#

&lituhedron6




the on-shell representation of scattering am-plitudes is not uni@ue: the recursion relationscan be solved in many dierent ways! and sothe nal amplitude can be e;pressed as a sum

of on-shell processes in dierent ways aswell. 7he on-shell diagrams satisfy remar0-able identities - now most easily understood

from their association with cells of the posi-tive rassmannian - that can be used to es-tablish these e@uivalences. 7his observationled #odges 3FG5 to a remar0able observation

for the simplest case of "$#XO tree ampli-

tudes! further developed in 3FE5: the ampli-tude can be thought of as the volume of acertain polytope in momentum twistor space.

#owever there was no a priori understandingof the origin of this polytope! and the pictureresisted a direct generaliation to more gen-eral trees or to loop amplitudes. onetheless!the polytope idea motivated a continuing

search for a geometric representation of theamplitude as “the volumeO of “some canoni-cal regionO in “some spaceO! somehow re-lated to the positive rassmannian! with dif-

ferent “triangulationsO of the space corre-sponding to dierent natural decompositionsof the amplitude into building bloc0s.

In this note we nally realie this picture. Wewill introduce a new mathematical ob8ectwhose “volumeO directly computes the scat-tering amplitude. We call this ob8ect the “Km-plituhedronO! to denote its connection both toscattering amplitudes and positive geometry.




7he amplituhedron can be given a self-con-tained deCnition in a few lines as done belowin section . We will motivate its deCnition

from elementary considerations! and show

how scattering amplitudes are e;tracted from it.

2hile the "odel o! the "&lituhedron is interestin* in

its own ri*ht$ the recursi(e reltions "entioned re

&recisely to&olo*icl recursi(e reltions &&lied to &r#

ticulr ty&e o! to&os$ the &ositi(e Grss"nnin, ust s

the !ull "&litude in(ol(ed in sctterin* "&litudes cn

be obtined !ro" n ob0ect &ro0ected !ro" such rel#

tions$ the co"&le% reltions in(ol(ed re recursi(ely de#

(elo&ed !ro" the "ost si"&le to&olo*icl recursi(e rel#

tion, These reltions re boundry e%&ressions !or the

'#th &ower o! the cotn*ent line clss on the "oduli

s&ce o! stble #&ointed *enus * cur(es re !ound !or '

\P *, The "ethod is by (irtul locli9tion on the "od#

uli s&ce o! "&s to the &ro0ecti(e line,




<rt o! the reson !or s&eci-c ty&e o! to&os is con#

tined in the notion o! pro8ectability , The to&oi in(ol(ed

h(e to h(e descri&tion tht utili9es set o! (ector re#

ltions tht include ll &ossible non#crossin* :n#di"en#

sionlly parallel; lines &ssin* throu*h s&eci-c origin$

i,e, ll &ossible non crossin* lines bein* &ro0ectble !ro"

de-ned loction,

Since "ost &eo&le re not ccusto"ed to (isuli9in*

wht it would be li'e to be t n rbitrry &osition on n

bstrct trin*ulr &lne *enerli9ed into con(e% &oly#

*on in !our di"ensions in structure tht hs no inter#

sectin* lines$ we cn si"&li!y the (isuli9tion to so"e#

thin* "ore !"ilir$ tht will still de"onstrte the neces#

sity o! the bo(e restriction in ter"s o! deter"inin*

(olu"e, Stndin* on the &lne o! K di"ensionl el#

li&se is &recisely nlo*ous to stndin* on the Erth/s

sur!ce$ which "ost o! us do quite re*ulrly, Fro" ny




*i(en &oint on tht &lne$ structure described by e(ery

&ossible non#intersectin* line tht &sses throu*h the

ori*in o! our &u&il would describe the Erth s it in !ct

is$ nd since we 'now the Erth to h(e deter"inble

(olu"e$ we cn &ro0ect tht nerly ny structure in n#di#

"ensions tht is bsed on such restriction could h(e

deter"inble (olu"e, The e%ce&tion is &er!ect s&here$

which could not h(e deter"inble (olu"e *i(en the

erlier$ "ore bsic restriction tht only the rel nu"ber

set be used$ since &i is not "e"ber o! tht set,




7he Bailure of ottom-Ap ';planation

The !ilure o! botto" u& e%&lntion :nd the i"&licit !ilure

o! deter"inis"; is due to the un&redictbility o! botto" u&

cuslity in ny syste" !or"ed o! syste"s o! lower *ener,

The "ost ob(ious e%"&le o! such syste" is the hu"n

"ind, 2hile neuro#&sycholo*ists continue to insist on deter#

"inistic botto" u& deter"inistic cuslity$ the &r%is o! &sychi#

try de"onstrte tht not only is botto" u& cuslity not deter#

"inistic$ it/s not &redictble sttisticlly or in ny other wy,

It/s well 'nown tht de&ression$ !or instnce$ hs stron* cor#

reltion with neurotrns"itter le(els$ &rticulrly serotonin$ but

lso do&"ine nd nore&ine&hrine, De&ression tri**ered by e%#

ternl e(ents :i,e, de&ression tht be*ins with e"otionl e+ects

tht e(entully cuse continuin* stte o! bein* o! de&ression

disclosed by "ood; &redictbly results in lower le(els o! these

neurotrns"itters, The ori*inl ide o! ntide&ressnt ther&y

ws there!ore to rise the le(els bc' within nor"l rn*e$

thus restorin* the &tient/s usul blnce o! neurotrns"itters$

with n underlyin* ssu"&tion tht restorin* these le(els would




result in &redictble restortion o! the &tient/s usul "ood

chrcteristics,

The relity$ thou*h$ o! ntide&ressnt ther&y is "uch di+er#

ent, 2hile SSRI$ SDRI$ nd SNRI "edictions$ ll o! which rise

the le(el o! serotonin$ the ltter two lso incresin* the le(els o!

do&"ine nd nore&ine&hrine res&ecti(ely$ they do so within

!ew dys o! be*innin* tret"ent$ yet it is well 'nown tht the

ti"in* o! "ood i"&ro(e"ent$ i! "ood i"&ro(e"ent in !ct oc#

curs$ is *enerlly "tter o! wee's !ro" the be*innin* o! ther#

&y, This in itsel! doesn/t co"&letely ne*te the notion o! &re#

dictble u&wrds cuslity$ since it cn be &osited tht the e!#

!ects o! di+erent neurotrns"itter le(els is indirect$ nd there#

!ore hi*her le(el t'es ti"e to indirectly tri**er the rel

chn*es tht result in "ood i"&ro(e"ent, Howe(er so"e o! the

other chrcteristics o! ntide&ressnt ther&y re !r "ore

&roble"tic !or botto" u& cuslity,

None o! the ntide&ressnt "edictions$ lthou*h their bene-t

o(er &lcebo is sttisticlly si*ni-cnt$ is (ery !r beyond sttisti#

cl insi*ni-cnce, Yet the ntide&ressnt !"ily s whole

de"onstrtes "uch hi*her bene-t o(er &lcebo, The result is




'nown to &tients s the "ediction "erry#*o#round, Since no

&rticulr ntide&ressnt hs &rticulrly hi*h chnce o! wor'#

in*$ co"bined with the si*ni-cnt dely be!ore ny ssess"ent

o! whether it will wor' or not cn be "de$ &tients o!ten h(e to

try *ood nu"ber o! ntide&ressnts$ e(en within the s"e !"#

ily :SSRIs !or instnce; be!ore -ndin* one tht is e(en no"inlly

e+ecti(e, E(en in the cse o! two ntide&ressnts tht re !unc#

tionlly nd che"iclly (ery si"ilr$ in ter"s o! both structure

nd co"&osition$ such s @ele% nd =e%&ro$ the success or !il#

ure o! one *i(es (ery little &redictbility s to the li'elihood o!

success or !ilure o! the other, E(en &st success with *i(en

"ediction hs little &redictbility on success o! the s"e "edi#

ction durin* rel&se o! de&ressi(e sy"&to"s, Gi(en tht the

neurolo*icl e+ects o! these "ediction is (ery si"ilr$ the lc'

o! ny &&rent &redictbility &uts deter"inistic u&wrd cusl#

ity in di1cult &osition, The (ery hi*h correltion downwrds$

between *i(en "ood nd &redictble$ &ro*ressi(e lowerin* o!

the neurotrns"itters while the "ood itsel! re"ins the s"e$

i"&lies tht contin*ent li!e e(ents cn h(e sttisticlly &re#

dictble e+ect on brin !unction,




The &r%is o! &sycholo*y &ro(ides n e(en stron*er e%"&le o!

downwrds cuslity in the !or" o! neuro*enic illnesses, Neuro#

*enic illnesses re$ ccordin* to nerly e(ery "0or &sycholo*i#

cl "odel$ &reci&itted by entirely contin*ent li!e e(ents nd

their e+ect on the indi(idul/s &sycholo*icl stte, 2hile sin*le

li!e e(ents do not &redict the li'elihood o! neuro*enic &tholo*y$

the co"bintion o! the e+ect o! &st li!e e(ents co"bined with

the current e(ent is *enerlly considered the bsic tri**er !or

this ty&e o! &tholo*y, Yet the &st li!e e(ents were the"sel(es

entirely contin*ent$ nd re*istered in the syste" o! "entl *en#

er$ rther thn &hysiolo*icl *ener, In ny res&onse to sti"#

uli$ the indi(idul/s neurolo*y res&onds in &redictble !shion$

yet the &sycholo*icl results o! the s"e sti"uli rn*e !ro"

si*ni-cnt &tholo*icl rection to no rection whtsoe(er,

2hile ob(iously the indi(idul/s neurolo*y is re*istered in so"e

wy by the syste" t the hi*her le(el o! syste"ic *ener$ the in#

di(idul "y res&ond &sycholo*iclly or not$ we re !ully c&ble

o! co"&letely i*norin* the de"nds o! our neurolo*y or res&ond#

in* to the", Neurolo*icl de"nd#!unctions do not si"&ly *o

wy i! i*nored, The study o! dre"s de"onstrtes "&ly tht




&recisely those de"nd#!unctions o! both neurolo*y nd subco"#

&onents o! &sycholo*y$ when i*nored t the !unctionl le(el while

w'e$ re stis-ed in "nner tht doesn/t *enerlly +ect

dily li!e throu*h the dre" !unction, Neuro*enic illnesses$ how#

e(er$ o!ten "ni!est in bloc' o! the de"nd#!unction resultin*

in n inbility o! the de"nd#!unction sti"ultin* the &&ro&ri#

te contin*ent &sycholo*icl !unction$ nd insted ttch the"#

sel(es incon*ruously to co"&letely di+erent &sycholo*icl

!unction, In itsel! this si"ultneously doesn/t &redictbly result

in &tholo*y$ &tholo*y si"&ly beco"es &ossible result$ &thol#

o*y is de&endent on the nture o! the contin*ent li!e e(ents tht

re both bloc'ed !ro" bein* sti"ulted$ nd the nture o! the

contin*ent !unction the de"nd !unction in !ct does sti"ulte,

Since these re necessrily contin*ent &heno"en tht ori*inte

in &sycholo*icl$ nd not neurolo*icl e(ents$ the &redictbility

o! the &resence or nture o! the &sycholo*icl e+ect is e+ecti(ely

9ero,

The bsic insi*ht o! Drwin$ in ter"s o! the totlity o! nture$

delt si*ni-cnt blow to Lth century "echnistic deter"inis"$

since the en(iron"ent is ne(er *i(en but is &roduced &recisely




the Lth century$ newer de(elo&"ents in &hysics h(e de"on#

strted it s !lse nd si"&listic notion, 2ithin the stndrd

"odel o! "odern &hysics$ lthou*h succession o! "ore bsic

&rticles h(e been &osited s the bsis o! "teril relity$ the

&rticulr beh(ior o! these :&ossibly only sy"bolic; &rticles is

deter"ined not !ro" their own constitution but by the syste"s

they co"&ose$ nd e(en this to& down cuslity is only sttisti#

clly &redictble$ there is lwys n e"&iricl residue o! rndo"

results, Tht these &rticles re sy"bolic is de"onstrble by the

intentionlly contrdictory i"*ery used to describe the"$ where

n un'nown &ro&erty is *i(en the n"e .s&in/$ nd then di+erent

.s&ins/ re distin*uished by rbitrry colors, .S&in/$ side !ro"

bein* n unobser(ble nd co"&letely rbitrry distinction$ hs

nothin* to do with color in ny ob(ious sense$ nd on tht le(el o!

&osited relity there is no "echnis" by which color could rise

in the -rst &lce,

The ideolo*ue who hs t'en "teril reductionist to its !ur#

thest &oint is the O%!ord theorist @in Dorr$ whose "ereolo*icl

nihilis" only cce&ts un(eri-ble "et&hors :unobser(ble nd

there!ore not directly (eri-ble bse &rticles; s the only c#




&hysics itsel!, Howe(er !ro" n ideolo*icl stnd&oint it "'es

&er!ect sense to sto& t le(el tht cn be "et&horiclly !oisted

on others s n i"*e o! the relity they e%&erience dily in

co""on sense "nner, Its !urther !ilure rises !ro" the relity

tht the e%istence o! such &rticles$ itsel! not de"onstrble by di#

rect obser(tion$ is only indirectly de"onstrted by the beh(ior

o! hi*her *ener o! syste"s$ the e%istence o! which is &recisely

the ide Dorr is t such &ins to in(lidte,

Si"ilr reductionist sto&&in* &oints include the *enes o!

Dw'ins$ which is Sel!#de!etin* ide$ since side !ro" the i"#

&ossibility o! deter"inin* the nture o! *ene !ro" its &ers&ec#

ti(e$ the notion o! it s *ene in the -rst &lce$ nd not "erely

rndo" "olecule$ i"&lies its telos s &recursor to *i(en or#

*nis"$ nd ori*intes in hu"n bein*s/ inc&city to under#

stnd non#hu"n relities other thn s &recursors to the"#

sel(es i,e, !or ech hu"n indi(idul$ they &ersonlly re the te#

los o! history$ whether tht history is &ersonl$ societl or biolo*i#

cl, He*el/s deter"intion o! hi"sel! s the .end o! history/ ws

not n ccidentl cse o! &ersonl e*ois"$ but to He*el hi"sel!

ws necessry nd uni(ersl &osit o! e(ery hu"n bein*,




Dw'ins/ !eeble res&onse to the critique o! Richrd =ewontin

: reco*ni9ed *eneticist who hs ctully de"onstrted (lid

ori*inl wor' in the -eld; -rstly conBtes reduction s -rst de#

scribed by Aristotle s (lid &rt o! the scientist/s "ethodolo*i#

cl rsenl with reductionism! belie!#syste" su&&orted only by

!urther belie!#syste"s o! conser(ti(e ideolo*y$ nd undoes itsel!

co"&letely in the cli" tht =ewontin is inco"&rehensible$ which

is de"onstrbly !llcious since in !ct nu"erous &eo&le under#

stnd =ewontin &er!ectly well, Dw'ins/ &ersonl insincerity is

"de !ully ob(ious by his .de"onstrtion/ o! the cli" tht

=ewontin is inco"&rehensible by quotin* hl! sentence !ro"

=ewontin/s critique, Ob(iously not "ny sentences hl! quoted

re "enin*!ully co"&rehensible$ but s well the sentence in

question$ red in !ull$ is in !ct the core o! =ewontin/s critique

tht Dw'ins/ !ulty "ethodolo*y is due to ideolo*iclly "oti#

(ted &ersonl bis,




, The notion tht so"e sort o! ethicl bnd#id could set sci#

ence ri*ht "isses the relity o! the ontolo*icl criticis" in#

(ol(ed,

K, 2here Heine *ets the ide tht ethics e(er in(ol(ed cer#

tinty$ thus "'in* so"ethin* li'e n uncertinty &rinci&le n

ddition to ethics$ is uncler, The &re#ethicl "orl lw could

o! course be bsolutely certin$ but "odern ci(il nd cri"inl lw

c'nowled*es the need !or n ethics tht ccounts !or di+erent

situtions$ nd c'nowled*es tht the &&liction o! lw :decid#

edly n ethicl concern; is !r !ro" certin o! distributin* 0ustice

in ny *i(en instnce,

“7he main argument of #eidegger-ishitani is thatscience represents a false ob8ectiCcation based oninauthentic sub8ectivity without being aware of itsdeCciencies. 7hus the Crst step in overcoming thisdrawbac0 would be for science to ac0nowledge andaccept its Laws."

This is si"&listic notion o! either r*u"ent$ ne(er "ind the

ssu"&tion tht their r*u"ents re the s"e to be*in with, I

will del here &ri"rily with Heide**er/s r*u"ent nd le(e

Nishitni/s to so"eone "ore (ersed in the totlity o! his wor',



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '9'

Si*ns o! the indequcy o! Heine/s understndin* o! Heide**er/s

critique re lredy here &&rent in the &hrses !lse

ob0ecti-ction : redundnt &hrse !or Heide**er; nd inu#

thentic sub0ecti(ity :uthenticity nd inuthenticity re "odes

o! Dsein$ which Heide**er shr&ly distin*uishes !ro" sub0ec#

ti(ity;,

“Jreviously! science was seen as striving for ob8ec-tive! universal! and predictable 0nowledge indepen-dent of the sub8ect! while the goal of religion wasconsidered sub8ective! personal! and variable e;pe-rience unbound by ob8ectivity. 7he convergence the-sis! however! argues that science necessarily con-tains a sub8ective component. that is reLected inwhat Yohn Wheeler calls Othe participatoryuniverse!OF or the notion that reality is not some-thing e;ternal! Oout there!O but an underlying unitysimultaneously involving observer and observed!and mind and matter. ecause of such a brea0-through! the structure and function of conscious-ness as much as of the material world can be e;am-ined with reference to the principles of @uantumphysics.

7he convergence theorists Cnd signiCcant reso-

nances and parallels between the holistic paradigmof the participatory universe %and other models&and the doctrines of traditional mysticism and 'ast-ern thought as well as contemporary process theol-ogy and phenomenology. enee Weber! for e;ample!argues that the paradigm shift in modern physics isradical and parado;ical in that Othe more nearly




physics approaches the twenty-Crst century! thecloser it seems to get to the cosmology of the re-mote past. 7hus! the scientiCc discoveries of ourown time are moving us toward ideas indistinguish-

able from those held by the sages and seers of Indiaand reece""

There re nu"ber o! issues when "odern science$ e(en in its

con(er*ent "ode$ is co"&red to ides !ro" other cultures nd

e&ochs, Firstly$ it/s not "uch o! n r*u"ent to cli" tht qun#

tu" "echnics hs si"ilrities to so"e o! Aristotle/s ides$ *i(en

tht it ws <lnc'/s reli9tion tht on nu"ber o! crucil &oints

re*rdin* !und"entl notions o! s&ce nd "otion Aristotle hd

been ri*ht nd "odern &hysics u& until L hd been ded

wron* tht resulted in his cll in L !or quntu" "echnics$

nswered J yers lter by Heisenber*, 2hen you *o !urther

-eld those ty&es o!

connections re less esily disco(ered$ but it hs been de"on#

strted in (rious "nners tht est nd west$ s instnces o!

two bstrcted &oles o! thou*ht$ h(e lwys inBuenced nd

+ected ech other,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '9"

In this cse$ thou*h$ the co"&le%ities o! cross culturl &ollin#

tion nd the reltionshi& between thin'in* nd doin* science

don/t e(en need to be e%"ined, The ides o! con(er*ence theo#

rists re si"&ly inc&ble o! ddressin* the critique "de by

Heide**er$ "on* others$ becuse they "intin the ssu"&#

tions t the root o! the critique$ nd rther thn &ut those into

question &osit !urther "ysterious -ctions nd in(lid distinctions

to ccount !or their inbility to ccount !or relity with those s#

su"&tions in &lce,

The ide o! the &rtici&tory uni(erse retins the !etures o!

the onto#theolo*icl uni(erse o! "odern science$ with the ddi#

tion o! !urther -ctionl unity underlyin* the initil "the"t#

icl &ro0ection$ "ysteriously in(ol(in* obser(er nd obser(ed

si"ultneously, This ide llows !or sub0ecti(e co"&onent to

ob0ecti(e scienti-c ides, Heine discusses :nd to de*ree I be#

lie(e "isre&resents; Ro*er S, ones/ notions on sub0ecti(ity,

“y sub8ectivity! I am not referring to the eects onscientiCc thought of the individual tastes! prefer-ences! and pre8udices of scientists! which changewith time! are inLuenced by peer pressures! and Cg-ure prominently in the formation of scientiCc para-digms. ather! I mean the basic role that mind andthe Self play at some unfathomable level in the




wor0ings of the universe. Sub8ectivity in sciencehas both a personal and impersonal aspect! and fun-damentally I mean it to refer to the dependence ofthe physical world on consciousness. $ind and mat-

ter are not separate and distinct! but form an or-ganic whole in my view. 7o distinguish a sub8ective from an ob8ective viewpoint is ultimately illusory. -

Yones\s passage highlights two levels of sub8ectivityin modern science: the personal and the imper-sonal. 7he Crst! personal sub8ectivity! is the role ofparticular commitments that determine the forma-tion and shifting of scientiCc paradigms. Yones nei-ther dismisses nor denies the e;istence of this level!

but discounts its importance in loo0ing for what isconsidered a more signiCcant and fundamental di-mension.

“If the sub8ect is truly interconnected with the ob- 8ect in the most essential and OunfathomableO way!then sub8ectivity necessarily involves a personal orcollective decision ma0ing that reLects particularpreferences and 8udgments. Yones\s suggestion thatthere is an impersonal! or impartial and value-free!level of sub8ectivity tends to recreate the ontologi-cal deCciency of the earlier scientiCc paradigm thathe and other convergence theorists are criticiing."

Heide**er/s critique$ howe(er$ centers on the reduction o! the

"enin*!ul world to -ctionl uni(erse "the"ticlly &ro#

0ected &riori to ny theory$ obser(tion or e%&eri"ent$ with the

resultin* bndon"ent o! the s&here o! truth nd !lsity !or tht

o! correctness nd incorrectness, This reduction in itsel! re#




sulted in the in&&ro&rite notions o! sub0ecti(ity nd ob0ecti(ity$

"on* other &seudo &roble"s o!ten discussed s whole under

the rubric o! e&iste"olo*y, Addin* to these &seudo &roble"s

with new dulistic ty&e o! sub0ecti(ity is not n nswer to the

critique$ becuse the type o! sub0ecti(ity is not in question t ll

!or Heide**er$ sub0ecti(ity itself is in question$ becuse it is in#

herently s -ctionl s ob0ecti(ity$ nd ob0ecti(ity is "erely

"odi-ction o! the sub0ecti(e stnce, The ontolo*icl de-ciency

o! both the erlier nd the con(er*ent scienti-c &rdi*" lies in

the se&rtion o! obser(er nd obser(ed t ll$ whether so"e !ur#

ther "ysterious underlyin* unity is &ostulted lon* with the

se&rtion$ &rticulrly when in &rctice the se&rtion contin#

ues to *o(ern e(ery ide nd theory$ nd e(ery !ctul inter&ret#

tion o! relity,

2orld !or Heide**er is -nite$ in !ct world is inse&rble !ro"

-nite Dsein, Not only is it -nite$ but it is &ers&ecti(l nd hori#

9onl$ in sense o! s&tio# te"&orlity co"&red with which tht

the s&ce#ti"e o! science is "erely deri(ti(e &&ro%i"tion,

Dsein$ is$ lso$ lwys "ine$ in &ersonl$ indi(idul sense$ t

the s"e ti"e s !or the "ost &rt it e%ists in shred "nner



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '9)

:s the one$ the they$ nobody;, The notions o! sub0ecti(e

nd ob0ecti(e (iew&oints$ when deconstructed in this "nner$

turn out to be si"&ly bstrct li"it#cses o! indi(idul nd

shred (iew&oints, 4ut shred (iews re s -nite$ &ers&ecti(l

nd hori9onl s indi(idul (iews, Indeed$ !or the "ost &rt co"#

"only held shred (iew&oints re less relible thn indi(idul

(iew&oints$ due to the "bi*uous "nner in which such (iews

re shred,

A tellin* sentence cn be !ound in the quote !ro" 2eber$ the

"ore nerly &hysics &&roches the twenty#-rst century$ the

closer it see"s to *et to the cos"olo*y o! the re"ote &st, I!

the uni(erse is reduction o! world$ cco"&lished (i "the"t#

icl &ro0ection !ro" !und"entlly inuthentic (nt*e &oint #

the (nt*e &oint o! nobody$ wht is the resultin* sitution !or

ny cos"olo*y bsed on tht &ro0ection8 @os"olo*y is nothin*

but onto#theolo*icl hubris bsed on the ssu"&tion tht &ri(i#

le*ed (nt*e &oint !ro" which relity s whole cn be &ro#

0ected e%ists, It is onto#theolo*icl becuse tht (nt*e &oint$

did it e%ist$ could only be described s God/s (iew nd is$

s&eci-clly$ the &osited (nt*e &oint o! the <rotestnt inter&re#




ttion o! the @hristin theos, It is hubristic becuse it is then s#

su"ed tht the scientist$ or science s whole$ throu*h so"e

"ysterious in!llibility o! science$ in !ct has this (nt*e &oint

:science/s Sel!#correctin* "ethods re o!ten rther Sel!#contr#

dictorily &ointed to s so"e sort o! de"onstrtion o! this in!lli#

bility;, The cos"olo*icl &rinci&le is nothin* "ore thn stte#

"ent c'nowled*in* tht cos"olo*y hs to ssu"e it hs this

(nt*e &oint in order to be "enin*!ul in ny wy, The ssu"&#

tion tht it cn h(e this (nt*e &oint$ nd there!ore is "en#

in*!ul in nywy$ is neither de"onstrted nor &rticulrly e(i#

dent,

Further$ Heide**er/s critique does not sto& t the ide tht

science in its "odern *uise only disco(ers bein*s :*i(es truth; in

li"ited$ use!ul$ but ulti"tely not co"&lete wy, For Heide*#

*er$ it is "odern technology tht cco"&lishes this, Nor does he

see "odern technolo*y s in ny wy result o! "odern science$

rther "odern science li"&s lon* s best it cn to ccount !or

wht technolo*y hs lwys lredy re(eled, As result$ the

!oundtionl "odern science is not &hysics or e(en "the"tics$

but ccountin*,




Heisenber*$ to his credit$ &&ers to h(e been !ully wre o!

this stte o! +irs in the sciences, There is "ore recently

"o(e"ent "on* !ir nu"ber o! "the"ticins nd &hysi#

cists$ "ore wre thn their &redecessors o! the !oundtions o!

their disci&lines$ to relocte theoreticl "the"tics nd &hysics

within the hu"nities$ since n &&ro&rite understndin* o!

those disci&lines requires n understndin* o! the contin*ent on#

tolo*ies underlyin* the sciences$ nd their resultin* inbility to

co""ent "enin*!ully on questions o! truth$ since those ontolo#

*ies do not contin ny "ens !or deter"inin* truth$ "erely cor#

rectness, 2hen n understndin* o! &ost#@ntorin "the"tics

nd &ost#"odern &hysics inherently de"onstrtes the inbility o!

ny o! the sciences to li(e u& to their cli"s s rbiters o! truth$

it see"s &er!ectly sensible !or thin'in* &eo&le in those disci#

&lines to not wnt their wor' to be seen s "'in* cli"s they

the"sel(es h(e de"onstrted it cnnot,

The ontolo*icl critique$ then$ is not sideline to n ethicl

critique, It/s "ore true to sy tht "odern science is inc&ble o!

bein* ethicl in itsel! :ny *i(en scientist "y o! course be ethi#

cl$ but s Heisenber* &oints out$ the !und"entl decisions




bout the use o! science "ust be "de not !ro" within science;$

becuse ethics requires co"&ort"ent towrd relity tht "od#

ern science does not &ossess,




K 6riti@ue of 6losing the ap: Jhenomenology and *ogi-cal Knalysis

by Sen Dorrnce Melly

htt&6www,&eo&le,!s,hr(rd,edu^sd'elly<&ers@losin*]the]G&,&d!

Melly/s i" in his &&er is to ostensibly "rry the &hiloso&hicl

wor' o! Serle nd Drey!us,

His own trinin* in nlytic &hiloso&hy$ howe(er$ !ils hi" in

this ts'$ nd in doin* so &oints to so"e !und"entl inco"&ti#

bilities between ny &heno"enolo*icl stnce nd n nlytic

one,

In the reduction tht cco"&nies the ty&e o! nlysis done

within nlytic "ethod$ the e%&erience *ets isolted in "nner

tht "'es it di1cult to see wht/s ob(iously "issin* in the c#

count !ro" &heno"enolo*icl &ers&ecti(e6

Bor surely! one might thin0! what counts as the con-tent of a perceptual e;perience ought to be tied insome close way to its phenomenology. If that is

right! then we need to as0 ourselves this @uestion: Is it a part of the phenomenology of seeing things<is it! in other words! either what I am or what Icould be conscious of when I have a perceptual e;-perience of an ob8ect<that the thing I seem to seeis causing me to have my e;perience of it? In theirdebate with Searle over this issue (reyfus and




(agCnn B]llesdal argued that it was not. Kfter all!what would it be li0e! e;perientially! to see some-thing to be causing the e;perience I am having ofit?

The question bo(e is esily nswerble i! the e%&erience isn/t

lredy isolted to n idel (isul e%&erience se&rted !ro" the

!cticl conte%t o! ny ctul (isul e%&erience, 2hen we re e%#

&eriencin* o! rel thin*$ our e%&erience o! it is both ne(er

sttic$ nor is it only (isul, 2hen shown the &intin*s o! ultr re#

lists$ nobody con!uses the content o! the &intin* with the rel

thin* it de&icts$ insted the i""edite co"&rison is with &ho#

to*r&h$ which only shows sttic (iew tht does not chn*e

when we "o(e in reltion to it in the s"e "nner s rel thin*

de&icted would, As we e%&erience &heno"enl &rt o! relity$

howe(er$ our eyes nd "ost o!ten our bodies s well re con#

stntly "o(in*$ (iewin* the thin* !ro" "ulti&le &ers&ecti(es,

We also may physically bump into something real!whereas something imaginary doesn2t have the tan-gibility we e;perience through our other senses. If

we ta0e the simple e;ample of a mirage! we cometo 0now it is illusory by moving towards it! duringwhich movement its loo0 changes and Cnally disap-pears! demonstrating its illusory nature. y con-trast real water in the landscape remains what it isas we move towards and around it! and we have thepotential of e;periencing its wetness by dipping our




feet in it. 'ven when our bodies are not in motion!our eyes are constantly moving! which reframes any perceived thing in dierent ways relative to otherthings that are always part of the perceptual e;peri-

ence. If we simply stare without moving our eyesvery @uic0ly we don2t see anything whatsoever. amely! it is part of the imagination! though notpart of the visual e;perience! that I am causing thisvisual e;perience.

The i"*inry e%&erience$ in other words$ lc's the cusl

Sel!#re!erentility, Since e% hy&othesis this is the only di+erence

between the two e%&eriences$ it shows tht cusl Sel!#re!eren#

tility "ust be &rt o! the &heno"enolo*y o! nor"l (isul e%&e#

rience,

I belie(e this is n in*enious$ but Bwed$ tte"&t to s(e the

cusl Sel!#re!erentility cluse, It is Bwed becuse it does not

*i(e us ny reson to belie(e tht cusl Sel!#re!erentility s

Serle understnds it is &rt o! the content o! (isul e%&erience,

To see this$ thin' *in bout the &heno"enolo*y o! (i(id i"*i#

ntion, =et us cce&t$ t lest !or the &ur&oses o! r*u"ent$ tht

i"*ined scenes !eel s thou*h they re cused by "e, And let

us e(en cce&t tht (isul e%&eriences re such tht they !eel

li'e they re not i"*inin*s, E(en *i(in* Serle ll this$ the "ost

one is 0usti-ed in &uttin* into the content o! the (isul e%&eri#




ence is tht the thin* seen is not cused by "e, <ut si"&ly$ the

notion tht the cuse o! the e%&erience is the only di+erence is

Bwed$ due to the inbility in rel sitution to se&rte the

sttic (isul e%&erience &ostulted !ro" the "ulti&licity o! other

e%&eriences o! the s"e rel thin*, Since this se&rtion occurs

only in the nlytic i"*intion$ it/s no sur&rise tht it/s indistin#

*uishble !ro" &osited i"*inti(e &ro0ection$ becuse indeed

it is nothin* "ore thn n i"*inti(e &ro0ection itsel!$ &ro0ec#

tion only &ossible s result o! Bwed notion o! cuslity,

In short$ i! (isul e%&eriences !eel li'e they re not i"*inin*s$

nd i"*ined scenes !eel li'e they re cused by "e$ then (isul

e%&eriences !eel li'e they re not cused by "e, 4ut to sy tht

the (isul e%&erience I " h(in* is not cused by "e is substn#

tilly we'er thn to sy tht the (isul e%&erience I " h(in* is

cused by the ob0ect it is n e%&erience o!, The i"*intion cse

only 0usti-es the we'er o! these two cli"s,

Insted o! r*uin* tht cusl Sel!#re!erentility is &rt o!

the &heno"enolo*y o! (isul e%&erience$ there!ore$ Serle so"e#

ti"es see"s to cce&t tht it is not, J 2hen &ursuin* this line o!

thou*ht$ howe(er$ he does not conclude tht cusl Sel!#re!eren#




tility is e%cluded !ro" the content o! e%&erience$ but rther tht

&heno"enolo*y is i"&o(erished, He r*ues tht since cusl Sel!

re!erentility is &rt o! the conditions o! stis!ction o! &erce&#

tul e%&erience$ nd since this cusl Sel!#re!erentility condition

is beyond the rech o! &heno"enolo*y$ &heno"enolo*y is not

su1cient !or lo*icl nlysis,

Rther thn closin* the *& between nlytic "ethodolo*y

nd &heno"enolo*y$ or de"onstrtin* ny inherent we'ness in

&heno"enolo*y in ter"s o! lo*icl nlysis$ Melly de"onstrtes

where the *& rises6 in the inherent inbility o! nlytic "ethod

nd si"&le lo*ic to *rs& the e%&erience o! relity$ which is to

sy its inbility to *rs& relity itsel!,

There is si*ni-cnt di+erence between &erce&tion nd &er#

ce&tul e%&erience, In order to e%&erience nythin* t ll$ Sel!

re!erentility "ust be n inherent &otentil o! the e%&eriencin*

syste", It is not the e%&erience itsel! tht is Sel! re!erentil$ the

one e%&eriencin* is lredy Sel! re!erentil throu*h its conscious

re!erence to itsel! s the one &ercei(in*$ nd here &erce&tion be#

co"es &erce&tul e%&erience, There is no intrinsic cuslity

within the content o! the e%&erience o! the rel tht is di+erent




!ro" the i"*inry or the illusory other thn the dyn"ic "o(e#

"ent nd resultin* "ulti&licity o! &erce&tions ori*intin* !ro"

the "o(e"ent o! the &ercei(in* syste"$ tht re intrinsiclly &rt

o! ny ctul &erce&tul e%&erience,

Serle co""only in(o'es the Fre*en ter"inolo*y o! "odes

o! &resenttion or the relted &hrse s&ectul sh&e when he

is discussin* the @onnection <rinci&le$ s he does in the inter#

(iew on &, , @ontrst with this$ howe(er$ the "oti(tions !or

the cli" tht lo*icl nlysis e%tends beyond &heno"enolo*y,

2hen Serle is de!endin* cli" li'e this$ the third#&erson &#

&roch o! Russell is his "odel, As he sys in the inter(iew on &,

$ 2ht does the &heno"enolo*ist sy bout the utternce

_The Min* o! Frnce is bld8` The Russell#style nlysis is below

the rech o! Husserl$ Heide**er$ or 3erleu#<onty becuse the

conditions o! stis!ction :in this cse truth conditions; re not

&heno"enolo*iclly reli9ed in the consciousness o! the s&e'in*

*ent, 4ut why should they be8, I! conditions o! stis!ction re

the s"e s intentionl content$ thou*h$ then Serle`s own @on#

nection <rinci&le see"s to &ro(ide the rele(nt reson,




This is the 'ind o! &seudo &roble" nlytic "ethod is con#

stntly !llin* &rey to, Tht there is intentionlity in &erce&tul

e%&erience is in no wy chllen*ed by Russell/s stte"ent$ not

becuse it is third &erson &ers&ecti(e :nother robe dr&ed on

the nlytic -ction o! ob0ecti(e e%&erience;$ but becuse it is :t

lest; second hnd e%&erience, The &erce&tul e%&erience the

stte"ent re!ers to is the s&e'er/s e%&erience o! so"eone else/s

stte"ent, This is crucil ele"ent o! the "bi*uity o! &ublic#

ness dissected in detil by Heide**er, 2ithin the stte"ent it is

"bi*uous whether the stte"ent "'er e%&erienced the stte#

"ent o! so"eone who the"sel(es hd -rst &erson e%&erience

o! the rel &ointed to in the stte"ent$ or the"sel(es only e%&eri#

enced nother/s stte"ent$ thus whether ny ctul *rs& o! the

"tter is &resent or only *ossi& bout the "tter is "bi*uous,

The "in thin*s chllen*ed by Russell/s stte"ents re the bil#

ity to t'e Russell seriously$ nd the bility to understnd n#

lytic "ethod s nly9in* nythin* other thn i"*inti(e -c#

tions, Russell hi"sel! ws ne(er ble to critique his n*lo$ u&&er

"iddle clss$ O%brid*e en!orced ssu"&tions,




2hen it co"es to their res&ecti(e conce&tions o! socil relity$

nd I *ree with Serle tht he di+erences here re distinct !ro"

nd &erh&s dee&er thn those in the cse o! intentionl content,

Serle/s centrl question in this do"in$ he sys$ is this6 How do

hu"n "inds i"&ose institutionl sttus !unctions on ob0ects nd

&eo&le in the world8 For e%"&le$ how do we *et !ro" the bits o!

&&er to dollr bills8 :&, U;, Now$ this relly is question

bout ontolo*ybout wht it is !or so"ethin*$ whether coin or

&&er or nu"bers on "y l&to& screen$ to be t'en s "oney

with n intrinsic e%chn*e (lue not relted to their "teril

!or"$ not 0ust bout wht the intentionl content o! our "entl

sttes is when we interct with or h(e thou*hts bout or use

"oney, So it "i*ht see" ob(ious$ s Serle su**ests$ tht the

&heno"enolo*ists h(e no wy o! *r&&lin* with or e(en under#

stndin* this question, Fro" &heno"enolo*icl &ers&ecti(e

it/s nother &seudo &roble" bsed on n indequte ontolo*y,

Socil relity hs n i"&ortnt nd &eculir !eture$ one tht

&&ers to distin*uish it !ro"$ !or instnce$ &hysicl relity, At

-rst &ss$ we cn !or"ulte this !eture by syin* tht i! there

were no hu"n bein*s there would be no socil relity) socil re#




lity$ in other words$ de&ends on hu"n bein*s in so"e essentil

res&ect, Serle/s wy o! describin* this is to sy tht socil rel#

ity is obser(er de&endent or obser(er relti(e :in !ct$ so is ll re#

lity # "otion nd loclity the"sel(es re only bsolute !or

*i(en rel thin* !or itsel!$ nd "y &&er di+erently !or ny

other obser(er;, For Serle this does not "erely "en tht socil

institutions li'e "oney de&end on us becuse we crete or in(ent

the", This is true o! course$ but it is 0ust contin*ent !ct bout

the history o! "oney, Socil relity is de&endent on hu"n be#

in*s in "ore intrinsic wy$ ccordin* to Serle, In ddition to

h(in* creted the institution o! "oney in the -rst &lce$ "oney

is nd continues to be the thin* it is &recisely becuse s

shred Sel! we collecti(ely i"&ose its !unction on it, Howe(er

our i""edite reco*nition o! "oney s "oney$ nd not s &ri#

"rily "etl or &&er or &i%els$ co"es bout !ro" the wy we

oursel(es de&end s Sel(es on our initition into society where

"oney is n lredy constituted socil relity,

This succeeds in de"onstrtin* quite clerly the !lse ssu"&#

tions nlytic "ethod is itsel! bsed on, <heno"enolo*ists h(e



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ''9

no wy o! *r&&lin* with the question becuse the question itsel!

is &heno"enolo*iclly in(lid, It is not the cse tht !cticl hu#

"n bein*s e%ist &riori nd then *o bout in(entin* socil insti#

tutions nd clothin* the" with "enin*, Rther hu"n bein*$

inso!r s tht re!ers to the bein* whose structure &heno"enol#

o*y hs well described$ cn only co"e to be in the s&eci-c "n#

ner it is$ i,e, !cticl "nner$ !ro" out o! n lredy e%istin* so#

ciety, In other words$ there would be no !cticl hu"n bein*s i!

there were no socil relity,

In the cli" tht socil relity is obser(er de&endent or ob#

ser(er relti(e we see nothin* "ore thn the continution o! the

&retense o! n i"&ossible bsolute ob0ecti(ity,

Melly/s essy dri(es ho"e the distnce o! the *& between &he#

no"enolo*y nd nlytic "ethod$ nd &lces &recisely wht tht

*& consists o!, It is the *& between obser(ble e%&eriences o!

relity nd i"*inti(e &ro0ections o! relity, Anlytic "ethod is

bsed on n inherently -ctionl "odel o! relity nd cn ne(er

*et behind tht bsis$ which results in its nlyses lwys bein*

only nlyses o! -ctionl &ro0ection,




7echnology and the Sub8ect of $odern Science

3odern$ here$ is de-ned s be*innin* in tht &ost#renissnce

&eriod where the ter" ."odern/ ws &&lied to (rious thin*s$

*enerlly to distin*uish itsel! !ro" the .bd old dys/ in 'ee&in*

with the ide o! constnt &ro*ress, The ltter cn be counter#r#

*ued e(en in ter"s o! the o(erll de(elo&"ent :*reter co"&le%#

ity does not equl .better/$ the *ood cn be de-ned in "yrid o!

other wys;$ but i! technicl de(elo&"ent equls &ro*ress$ it cer#

tinly doesn/t &roceed !orwrd s the sort o! .triu"&hl "rch/

so "ny &eo&le ssocited with the nturl sciences h(e tended

to &ortry, Recently there h(e been ru"blin*s o! nother .crisis/

in the sciences$ where e(en the one science to h(e questioned

!ew o! its onto#theolo*icl ssu"&tions$ &hysics$ is -ndin* the s#

su"&tions it didn/t question co"in* round to turn its !ondest

ides into !rces,

One question is$ o! course$ why the sudden need !or re(ision$

li'e others be!ore it$ wsn/t ob(iously round the corner, Not 0ust

this ti"e$ but e(ery ti"e the sciences h(e been in .crisis/ it hs

been due to hn*in* on to &rdi*" tht wouldn/t stnd si"#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '''

&le test o! worth in ny other -eld, The do*"s o! the nturl

sciences$ &erh&s becuse the results re questioned nd tested$

re too o!ten seen s either necessry or irrele(nt, The best e%#

"&le is the in!"ous Occ"/s R9or$ which is still held s

&rinci&le o! science$ des&ite bein* de"onstrted s in(lid by

re*ulr re&lce"ent o! scienti-c theories with "ore co"&le%

ones$ on the bsis tht the ori*inl theory ws too si"&le to c#

count !or obser(ed relity,

In the title o! this section sub0ect re!ers to both "enin*s o!

the ter" i,e, sub0ect "tter nd the sub0ect tht en**es in study

o! tht "tter, Scientists don/t h(e s&eci-c$ co""on "ode o!

bein*$ e%ce&t when en**ed in science, In the other &rts o!

their li(es they "y be "others or !thers$ cti(e "e"bers o!

locl church con*re*tion$ bsebll !ntics or nythin* else, It/s

only when doin* science tht s&eci-c set o! co""on ttributes

tht &oint to &r%is shred only with other scientists is (isibly

co""on,

The "odern !or" o! the nturl sciences ori*inted in theol#

o*y$ the theolo*y o! nture, 2hile Aristotle "y h(e de"rcted

"ny o! the ontolo*icl the"es &ro&er to ech science$ s "od#




ern science both the &r%es o! scientists nd their underlyin* s#

su"&tions ori*inted in the onto#theolo*icl studies o! nture,

The socil sciences$ o! course$ hd si"ilr &ro(ennce in theol#

o*y o! the &syche$ which in studyin* both the indi(idul nd

shred &syche ws the ori*in o! the (rious socil sciences tht

study indi(idul nd collecti(e beh(iors,

For both the nturl nd the socil sciences tht ori*in ws

!te!ul be*innin*$ i! not !tl, <rt o! the erly success o! the &ro#

*r" o! the re&etble e%&eri"ent$ the require"ent tht the#

ory be dis&ro(ble in so"e wy$ etc, resulted !ro" sitution

where the sciences initilly distnced$ or tried to distnce$ the"#

sel(es !ro" their theolo*icl under&innin*s$ but didn/t stry !r

!ro" the @hristin ssu"&tions they were !ounded on, 3ny o!

those under&innin*s were trns&rent to the scientists in(ol(ed$

unsur&risin*ly since "ost re"ined @hristin nd there!ore

shred set o! ides tht weren/t (iewed s ides$ tht were

seen s si"&ly .how thin*s re/, In contrst to Aristotelin sci#

ence$ which ws e%&erientil in tht it loo'ed !or une%&ected

s"eness in di+erence$ nd (ice (ers$ "odern science loo's !or

the e%&ected nd continues to do so, 2hene(er relity doesn/t



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ''"

co#o&erte with those e%&ecttions the result is seen s .crisis/$

des&ite doubtin* or t lest &retendin* to doubt one/s theories

bein* luded &rinci&le o! science, It cn be r*ued tht science

is Sel!#&olicin*$ in tht e(entully obser(tions o! relity will

de"onstrte the in(lidity o! the "ost stubborn ssu"&tions$

nd tht ide is correct in certin sense$ but doesn/t contin

the !ull truth o! the "tter$ becuse the theories tht re&lce dis#

credited theories continue to rely on ssu"&tions tht science it#

sel! denies s (lid$ while science continues to deny tht those

ssu"&tions re either &resent or rele(nt, 3ore &roble"tic

thou*h thn s&eci-c ssu"&tions$ which do chn*e$ i! only

slowly$ is "odern science/s reltion to technolo*y, This relince

on technolo*y nd the s&eci-c "nner in which technolo*y re#

(els relity is "ore &roble"tic becuse it isn/t corrected .o(er

the lon*er ter"/$ In !ct the relince hs insted *rown !ro" si"#

&ly ssistin* to directin* science$ nd science is now con!rontin*

the relity tht technolo*y is no lon*er interested in scienti-c

&r%is$ becuse .'nowled*e wor'/$ which doesn/t use or require

scienti-c "ethod$ is both "ore i""editely use!ul nd li*ns

better with how technolo*y re(els relity s such, The recent




(ehe"ence o! the sciences$ usully "is&lced in rther &r#

noid ttc' on reli*ion$ which science continues to see s its en#

e"y when in !ct reli*ion is relti(ely &owerless e(en in co"&ri#

son with science$ rises !ro" the w'enin* &erce&tion tht the

re&uttion o! scientists nd the estee" science itsel! ws once

held in hs di"inished *retly, For technolo*y$ nd e%&ressed in

the technolo*ists nd c&itlists who rely on the"$ scienti-c

"ethod is n e%&ensi(e nd not es&ecilly use!ul burden on the

&ro*ressi(e re(elin* o! relity s technolo*icl$ hence !or the

c&itlists/ (iew$ e%chn*eble in n unli"ited "nner,

The !eture o! science "ost &ushed on non#scientists s wht

de-nes .*ret/ scientist is the notion o! disco(ery, Heide**er

resurrected the literl "enin* o! lethei$ truth$ in Gree' s

.unco(eredness/$ nd occsionlly science hs used tht to bol#

ster its cli"s to be the rbiter o! truth$ des&ite Heide**er/s

wor' continin* !und"entl critique o! "odern science tht

so !r I h(e seen no con(incin* res&onse to, One question$

thou*h$ tht i""editely &resents itsel!$ is wht hs "odern sci#

ence ctully .disco(ered/ or .unco(ered/8 For nythin* to be#

co"e n ob0ect !or scienti-c in(esti*tion it hs to lredy be




disco(ered in so"e wy$ re(eled by so"ethin* itsel! not scien#

ti-c, The source o! this re(elin*$ nd wht "'es "odern sci#

ence s&eci-clly "odern$ is technolo*y, Glileo didn/t disco(er

the "oons o! u&iter$ they were re(eled by the technolo*y o! the

telesco&e$ to *i(e si"&le e%"&le, Technolo*y$ thou*h it re#

(els entities tht were co(ered o(er nd there!ore un'nown$

does so only in li"ited "nner$ one tht &recludes ccess to

the !ull truth o! the entity in(ol(ed by &redeter"inin* the" s

so"ethin* they re !und"entlly not$ s resources, The scien#

ti-c .ob0ect/ is the bstrct double o! the resource) both re

stri&&ed o! their inherent "enin* s thin*s$ nd re&lced with

deter"intion tht co"es !ro" elsewhere nd not !ro" the entity

itsel!, This lc' o! ccess to the truth o! scienti-c entities$ o!

course$ "'es science s the rbiter o! truth itsel! bsurd, The

relince on technolo*y "r's out !urther delinetion o! the

sco&e o! the sciences nd their &ro(ennce, Science in the "od#

ern sense does not disco(er$ it is inc&ble o! disco(ery becuse

the certinty o! its ob0ects hs to be *urnteed be!orehnd by

their bein* re(eled technolo*iclly$ re(eled s "esurble, In

de!errin* disco(ery to technolo*y$ thou*h$ science itsel! is no



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '')

lon*er science in the ori*inl sense, The bsic science !or Aristo#

tle ws &hysics$ the science o! "otion$ since it includes ll

chn*e nd ny obser(tion is !und"entlly n obser(tion o!

chn*e, The bsic science in "odern ter"s is ccountin*, 3od#

ern science$ in its desire !or *urntee !or its ob0ects tht is it#

sel! !ounded in "is&lced sub0ectity$ cn t best ccount#!or

wht hs lredy been disco(ered, The e"brrss"ent o! "od#

ern science is tht e(en si"&ly s n ccountin*#!or wht is l#

redy 'nown$ it hs been &heno"enlly unsuccess!ul in the (ery

cretion o! ccurtely &redicti(e "odels$ which since they h(e

no de"onstrble ontolo*icl sttus re co"&letely worthless i!

their &redicti(e &ower is !ound lc'in*,

... the In-itself repeatedly eludes the sub8ect! all contentsupposed to pertain to the In-itself reveals itself as havingbeen put there by the sub8ect itself! so that the sub8ect be-comes increasingly caught up in the web of its own phan-tasmagorias. 7he sub8ect passes from the attitude of 6on-sciousness to that of sub8ectivity when it reLe;ively as-

sumes this failure as a positive result! inverting the prob-lem into its own solution: the sub8ect2s world is the resultof its own /positing.2 H+

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egeland the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p. HT&. or-ton. )indle 'dition.




The 5ob0ecti(ity5 o! science requires si"ultneous sub0ecti(#

ity, The certinty tht science stri(es !or de(ol(es into certinty

only o! its own &hnts"ic -ctions, It ssu"es its rtionlity s

&ositi(e result$ when the rtionl sub0ect is &urely ne*ti(e$

&oint o! sin*ulrity tht !ils to *rs& "ulti&licity, Science is l#

wys serchin* !or the 5one5 ori*in, 3ereolo*icl nihilis" si"&ly

e%tends tht desire to thin*s the"sel(es$ with the result tht the

only 5thin*s5 tht re certin re -ctionl "odels with no ontolo*#

icl relity,

In de!endin* its &r%es nd results science hs consistently t#

te"&ted to conBte theolo*y$ which is itsel! &ositi(e science

li'e the nturl nd socil sciences$ with &hiloso&hy$ which is not

&ositi(e science, The &osits tht underlie ech &ositi(e science

!unction "uch li'e the %io"s o! "the"tics$ &ro&ositions tht

the"sel(es re neither &ro(ble nor dis&ro(ble$ hence cnnot

quli!y s theories$ but ne(ertheless re required in order to &ur#

sue the science s science$ nd there!ore unquestionble s &rt

o! tht science, :An indi(idul scientist o! course cn question

those &osits$ but in doin* so !or tht "o"ent he ceses to &er#




!or" science$ he is in(ol(ed in &hiloso&hy or theolo*y; The di+er#

ence between the &osits o! the (rious sciences nd the %io"s

o! "the"tics is tht the ltter re &ro&erly "the"ticl$ in

the sense tht they require no &roo!$ becuse no "tter wht the

ssu"&tions we be*in with$ we lredy 'now tht the %io"s o!

"the"tics re lwys true, 3thesis in Gree' denoted wht

we .lwys lredy 'now/ in so"e "nner$ nd the %io"s o!

"the"tics e%&ress "thesis itsel!, <hiloso&hy$ theolo*y$ e(en

&oliticl ideolo*y$ cn ll be the ori*in o! the &osits nd ssu"&#

tions o! *i(en science, Howe(er s ori*ins they re not equi(#

lent, <oliticl ideolo*y$ !or its &rt$ is relint on n ttitude o!

not#questionin* !und"entl ssu"&tions, Theolo*y$ o! ll the

&ositi(e sciences$ hs historiclly *one the !rthest in question#

in* its bsis, Des&ite the co""on "yth tht theolo*ins sit

round discussin* the nu"ber o! n*els tht cn -t on &in$ the

relity is tht you/re !r "ore li'ely to -nd *rou& o! 9oolo*ists

sittin* round discussin* the &ercent*e o! *enetic di+erences

required to delinete n indi(idul (ersus *enus (ersus

s&ecies$ which is "ore bsurd con(erstion$ since t lest n#

*els re belie(ed in by "ny &eo&le$ wheres bstrctions such




s *enus nd s&ecies re lwys lredy 'nown s h(in* no &os#

sible bsolute de-nition,

Tht bein* sid$ ctul &hiloso&hy$ not the &o&ulist (iew o! &hi#

loso&hy s world(iew buildin*$ but the study nd &ursuit o! thin'#

in* in "nner not lredy li"ited to wht is use!ul in *i(en

-eld$ hs nothin* in co""on with the &ositi(e sciences$ includ#

in* theolo*y$ becuse it hs nd cn h(e no &redeter"ined con#

tent, I! the ter" .&hiloso&hy/ is restricted to the thin'in* 'nown

s "et&hysics$ s so"e thin'ers &re!er$ nd nother ter" such

s criticl thin'in*$ or si"&ly thin'in*$ is used$ the deter"intion

o! the content o! tht thin'in* re"ins non#deter"intion, This

&&lies to e(ery ssu"&tion tht underlies thin'in* lon* with

the s&eci-c "tter o! s&eci-c thin'in*$ includin* ssu"&tions

bout the wy the thin'er is s bein* itsel!, To s' bout$ ne(er

"ind deter"ine$ the truth o! &rticulr bein*$ e(ent or situ#

tion requires tht the "enin* o! the &rticulr be llowed to un#

!old !ro" tht &rticulr bein*$ e(ent or sitution$ not &redeter#

"ined by belie!$ or &redeter"ined by the s&eci-city o! deter"i#

nte ty&e o! seein* tht in d(nce hs deter"ined wht cn be

(iewed s .rel/ nd wht cnnot,




The !ilure o! "odern science is not !ilure o! science s

'nowin*#understndin* in the Aristotelin sense$ o! science s

*therin* o! 'nowled*e in understndin*$ nor !ilure o! scien#

tists$ who res&ond to the cll in the &&ro&rite wy tht is de#

ter"ined by the content o! the cll itsel!, The !ilure o! "odern

science ori*intes in turnin*#round in which science hs be#

co"e the s&r*"os o! society$ the terin* li"b !ro" li"b o! be#

in*s !or consu"&tion s directed by the technolo*icl (iew o! be#

in*s s resources$ nd the si"ultneous ccountin*#!or the belie!

syste" tht underlies the s&r*"os, Science in tht turn#

in*#round chn*ed !ro" *therin* o! 'nowin*#understndin*

to "echnis" o! distribution nd e%chn*e o! s&eci-c ty&e o!

'nowled*e$ "echnis" tht necessrily 0ud*es 'nowled*e c#

cordin* to its e%chn*e (lue nd not its truth, The turn#

in*#round is e%hibited in the (ery word .science/ in En*lish$

which "ens to cut$ to ter &rt$ !ro" the s"e ori*in s

scythe, The older Ger"nic word !or science$ .wissensch!t/$ in

contrst$ indictes .'nc'/ !or 'nowin*#understndin*$ becuse

it ori*inted &rior to the turnin*#round, @orrelti(ely the issue

with technolo*y is not with technolo*y s technolo*y$ s wor'




:in the s"e sense s wor' o! rt$ lso techne in the ori*inl

Gree' . so"ethin* tht re(els wht it itsel! is not in s&eci-c

"nner;$ but with the underlyin* belie! syste" tht &lces tech#

nolo*y bo(e other wor's by (iewin* the "nner in which it re#

(els relity s the only "nner in which relity truly is$ which in

the cse o! technolo*y is s "esurble, This in itsel! is only &os#

sible when the e%&erience o! relity is obscured$ the . dr'enin*

o! world/ in Heide**er/s ter"s, Relity is then e%&erienced s

so"ethin* which cn be li"ited to s&eci-c "nner o! bein*

tht is si"ultneously co""on to ll entities, The !oundtion o!

this &ossibility is tht e%&eriencin* theoreticlly s the I#Sub0ect

is lredy e%&eriencin* relity (i wor'$ the I#Sub0ect itsel! s

si"&listic &rocess o! the Sel!$ tht cn only e%&erience relity (i

re#&resentti(e sche" tht is lredy li"ited ccordin* to its

&rticulr "nner o! bein* re#&resented nd its &riori sche"#

tis",

The sub0ect is .the trnsition o! the cte*ory !ro" its conce&t

into e%ternl relity) it is &ure sche" itsel!,/ As sche"$ the r#

tionl sub0ect cn only *rs& the sche"tic$ the si"&listic !r"e#

wor' we &lce on relity to circu"scribe its uncnniness with




!lse o(erdeter"intion, It is this sche"ti9tion tht requires

belie!$ nd results in ideolo*y s the sche"ti9tion o! belie!, The

!er t the root o! the rtionl sub0ect$ the e*o$ cn only be cer#

tin o! its own bstrct -ctions, It reches its &o*ee in the re#

0ection o! the uncnniness o! relity by re0ectin* relity itsel! in

!(or o! its own bstrct -ctions, Its &o*ee is the 9ero#&oint o!

"et&hysics itsel! in totl nihilis", The scienti-c world(iew$ !r

!ro" bein* unssilble in its certinty$ coll&ses u&on itsel!

when its certinties turn out to be &ure -ctions tht cn only

(oid relity rther thn tte"&tin* ny understndin* o! it, In

itsel! the scienti-c world(iew is "enin*less sche"ti9tion

tht !ils in its tte"&t to ccount !or wht is re(eled by tech#

nolo*y$ becuse e(en in the li"ited wy technolo*y re(els

thin*s$ it does so in "enin*!ul wy$ which the "enin*less c#

countin* o! science cn ne(er ccount !or, Its !ilure cn be seen

in the -ction o! the stndrd "odel in &hysics to ccount !or LU]

o! obser(ed relity) in the !ilure o! cos"olo*y to &ro0ect relity

without the cos"olo*ist t the center o! ll relity without the

cos"olo*icl !ud*e) nd "ost ob(iously in the !ilure o! rtionl

&sycholo*y nd co*niti(e science to *rs& its own sub0ect "tter




nd subsequent re0ection o! its sub0ect "tter s unrel,




7he Jroblems with $odern 6osmology

The &roble"s with "odern cos"olo*y re "ulti(rite,

2orse$ ech &roble" &&ers to crete !urther &roble"s, I/ll *o

throu*h !ew o! the inherent issues tht "'e "odern cos"ol#

o*y Sel!#contrdictory,

, S&tility s unbounded,

<ositin* s&tility s bounded results in nu"ber o! issues

tht resulted in its bein* &osited s unbounded by cos"olo*ists,

Howe(er &ositin* s&tility s unbounded results in !urther is#

sues with s&eci-c cos"olo*icl "odels tht render the" contr#

dictory to the o(erll "odel,

, The e%&ndin* uni(erse "odel6

I! s&tility is unbounded$ t lest in n &&rent sense$ we

h(e to understnd how it cn si"ultneously be -nite nd "e#

surble, The &roble" with the ltter is tht it requires &er#

s&ecti(e outside relity$ which is not &ossible with the o(erll

"odel, 2e cn loo' t the &roble" in this "nner,




The Erth is itsel! -nite but &&rently$ t lest !ro" the &er#

s&ecti(e o! so"eone on it$ unbounded$ i,e, the hori9on &&ers

in-nite$ it lwys re*resses no "tter how !r we tr(el, 2e

'now tht in &rctice it would &ro(e -nite e(en to so"eone on

the Erth$ since e(entully s&til tr(el in *i(en direction

would lnd tht so"eone bc' where they strted, The &roble"

is tht the si"ultneous &&ernce o! unboundedness with the

rel boundry o! the Erth requires t lest &otentil &ers&ec#

ti(e outside the Erth, Since technolo*iclly this &ers&ecti(e is

no lon*er "erely &otentil but reli9ed &ers&ecti(e$ we 'now

tht it is &ossible &ers&ecti(e tht hs in !ct been ctuli9ed,

The &roble" with relity s whole bein* &&rently unbounded

but -nite is tht there is no &otentil &ers&ecti(e outside relity

tht would render it -nite by *i(in* it boundry, This si"ult#

neously "ens tht there is no &ers&ecti(e tht cn "esure

such boundry,

The !urther &roble" this cretes with the e%&ndin* uni(erse

"odel is tht$ s un"esurble in e(en &otentil sense$ there is

no wy to understnd this e%&nsion s&tilly, 2e would h(e no

"ens o! de"onstrtin* tht relity is in !ct bi**er tody thn it




ws billion yers *o$ since we cn/t "esure relity now nor

&osit its si9e in the &st,

b, The Te"&orl 4oundry6

Since s&tility is "odeled s unbounded$ nd te"&orlity is

understood s n s&ect o! s&tility$ there is contrdiction in

tht te"&orlity is itsel! understood s bounded, Thou*ht bout

in the di"ensionl "odel$ this would "en tht s&til di"en#

sions re unbounded while the te"&orl di"ension is bounded$

t lest in the &st$ s&eci-clly in the current "odel bounded t

, billion yers, This boundry o! te"&orlity$ li'e ny &osited

s&til boundry$ requires &ossible &ers&ecti(e outside te"&o#

rlity, This &ossible &ers&ecti(e is &osited s the &ers&ecti(e o!

the sin*ulrity itsel!$ since it is te"&orlly tensed$ i,e, it ws but

no lon*er is$ nd is there!ore te"&orlly &ers&ecti(l, This

would i"&ly$ thou*h$ tht the &&rently in-nite hori9on o! s&#

tility is itsel! &otentilly &ers&ecti(l s&til &osition, How#

e(er tht &otentilly &ers&ecti(l &osition is si"ultneously de#

nied by the i"&ossibility o! there bein* s&til &oint outside

s&tility itsel!, Another wy o! describin* the &roble" is tht




the &ers&ecti(e o! the sin*ulrity is not te"&orl$ since the cre#

tion o! te"&orlity is !unction o! the destruction o! the sin*u#

lrity$ yet si"ultneously is te"&orl$ in the sense tht it no

lon*er is but in so"e sense ws, I! it is not te"&orl then it is

not &otentil &ers&ecti(e on te"&orlity$ which i"&lies tht

te"&orlity would lso h(e to h(e n in-nite hori9on$ i,e, it

could not h(e te"&orl boundry$ which "ens !ro" ny &er#

s&ecti(e within relity it could not h(e n &&rent be*innin*,

2ithout n &&rent be*innin*$ thou*h$ the sin*ulrity could not

be tensed, In sense it would h(e to lwys be$ in whte(er

wy we understnd bein* in tht cse, This chn*e in under#

stndin* is &recisely the chn*e in understndin* o! the cre#

tor#bein* !ro" &olo*etics to theolo*y, In the !or"er cretion

ws understood s h(in* s&eci-c te"&orl boundry$ to the

ltter understndin* o! relity s constnt Sel!#e%&ression o!

the in-nite hori9on itsel!,

c, 4oundry itsel! s bein* necessrily Sel!#&osited by the

bounded bein*$ nd there!ore destructi(e to the cusl ssu"&#

tions o! the "odel itsel!6




I! we loo' t ny bein* s syste"ic entity$ the boundry o!

tht bein* hs to be Sel!#&osited$ nd Sel!#&osited retrocti(ely$

in order tht the syste" itsel! rises$ which destroys the "ech#

nistic cuslity tht is !und"entl &resu"&tion o! cos"olo*y,

This cn be understood throu*h s&eci-c e%"&le$ but &&lies

to ny syste"ic entity !ro" hu"n bein* to *l%y nd be#

yond to relity itsel!$ i! it is understood s uni-ed entity, As

s&eci-c e%"&le$ we cn loo' t sin*le celled or*nis",

The boundry issue rises !or "echnistic cuslity t the "o#

"ent tht the boundry itsel! rises s te"&orlly s&eci-c "o#

"ent, At the "o"ent the boundry co"es into bein*$ the cell is

not yet di+erentited !ro" its en(iron"ent$ the boundry itsel!

cretes this di+erentition$ nd there!ore si"ultneously cretes

the cell nd its en(iron"ent s di+erentited, Howe(er t tht

"o"ent the interior o! the cell is still undi+erentited !ro" the

rest o! relity$ since it is &recisely the boundry nd the resultin*

cell "e"brne tht be*ins to di+erentite the interior by llow#

in* "oleculr "o(e"ents to be di+erentited inbound nd out#

bound$ cretin* n interior tht is di+erentited in "oleculr

sense !ro" its en(iron"ent, The boundry$ then$ is t its ori*in



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '"9

si"&ly &osited boundry$ since e(en s "e"brne the bound#

ry hs to &recede the &hysicl "e"brne !or the ltter to co"e

bout, This in turn i"&lies tht the &ositin* is done by bein*$

which in the cse o! sin*le celled or*nis" cn only be tht or#

*nis", This Sel!#&ositin*$ thou*h$ hs to be done in te"&o#

rlly retrocti(e "nner, As cuslity$ then$ the "o(e"ent o!

cuslity is te"&orlly retrocti(e$ which is contrdictory to the

te"&orl &riority o! "echnistic cuses$ lthou*h it llows the

&&rent &rdo% o! telic cuslity to be &ro&erly understood,

Further$ this is true o! ll syste"ic entities$ which includes re#

lity s whole i! understood s uni-ed entity$ s uni(erse in

ny sense o! the ltter ter", The result is tht relity itsel!$ s

uni(erse$ would h(e to h(e Sel!#&osited its te"&orl boundry

retrocti(ely, In the cse o! cell within relity we cn under#

stnd this retrocti(e &ositin* in ter"s o! the relity o! te"&orl#

ity s bidirectionl s di+erentited !ro" its &&ernce s unidi#

rectionl$ since the cell hs &otentil te"&orl &ers&ecti(es out#

side itsel!, 2e cnnot understnd retrocti(e cuslity thou*h

without such n e%ternl &ers&ecti(e$ which is &roble"tic i! it

&&lies to relity s whole s uni(erse, A&&lyin* it to relity




s whole would in(ol(e the cusl ori*in o! the sin*ulrity to be

te"&orlly retrocti(e &ositin* by relity itsel!$ but this is i"#

&ossible i! the sin*ulrity is si"ultneously understood s the

ori*in o! te"&orlity, I! it is not understood in this "nner it cre#

tes the s"e in-nite cusl re*ress tht theolo*y re"o(ed !ro"

the understndin* o! &olo*etics by re"o(in* the tensed nture

o! the cretor s the in-nite hori9on$ si"ultneously re"o(in*

the &ossibility o! te"&orl boundry to relity, The &roble"s

this en*enders cn be seen in the &olo*etics o! cos"olo*ists$

s&eci-clly the nthro&olo*icl &rinci&le itsel!$ nd the !urther

&olo*etic s e%&ressed by Hw'in*$ tht since relity is so co"#

&le%$ (ried nd rdiclly i"&robble$ we shouldn/t be sur&rised

tht its ori*in s the sin*ulrity is e(en "ore co"&le% nd (ried$

nd in-nitely i"&robble, These &olo*etics re the s"e s

those o! &re#theolo*icl @hristin &olo*etics$ which i"&lies tht

the nture o! the cretor#bein*$ which is the &&rent di+erence

between "odern cos"olo*y nd &re#theolo*icl @hristin cos#

"olo*y$ is in !ct !lsely di+erentited$ since the cretor#bein* o!

"odern cos"olo*y hs the s"e s&ects s the cretor#bein* o!

@hristin &olo*etics$ includin* rtionle !or its inherent co"#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '"'

&le%ity nd i"&robbility, Theolo*y hs re*rded the cretor s

untensed since Duns Scotus nd "ore de-niti(ely since Aquins$

nd s untensed nd si"ultneously necessry is not within the

rel" o! &robbility equtions,

:As n side$ I/(e o!ten wondered how the "0ority o! Ro"n

@tholics$ who re not theolo*iclly educted$ si"ultneously un#

derstnd relity s te"&orlly bounded$ i,e, the "o"ents o! cre#

tion nd end s rel nd not "et&horicl$ while not only her#

in* but re&etin* bc' in the wee'ly ritul o! the 3ss de-ni#

ti(e belie! tht the world is without be*innin* nd end, Fro"

theolo*icl &ers&ecti(e there is no issue$ since be*innin* nd

end re understood s "et&hor$ not s relity, Relity is under#

stood theolo*iclly s the Sel!#e%&ression o! the in-nite hori9on

o! relity s the untensed ori*in o! constnt cretion nd destruc#

tion$ nd there!ore itsel! in-nite,;




7he #yper-Bocus on 'volution in (efending $odern Sci-ence

Tody the theory o! e(olution$ which is &ri"rily (iewed s

"tter o! understndin* the "echnics o! e(olution$ since out#

side those with either childish (iew o! relity or &oliticl

*end e(olution is (iewed s si"&ly n obser(ble !ct$ s it hs

been !or those who ctully obser(e nd thin' bout such thin*s

!or &&ro%i"tely U yers$ is do"inted by the con(er*ed

theories 'nown s Neo#Drwinis",

The rel r*u"ent is not the strw "n r*u"ent o! si"&listic

theists whose only "ens o! r*u"ent is to o&&ose the i*nornt

nd childish (iews o! "inority o! the reli*ious$ nd the corre#

s&ondin* r*u"ent o! the i*nornt nd childish which i*nores

ob(ious obser(ble relity, The "ore co"&le% nd interestin* r#

*u"ent concerns "echnics o! e(olution bsed on &urely rn#

do" cuslity (ersus "instre" cretion theories tht ori*i#

nted s n tte"&t to su&&le"ent e(olutionry "echnis"s

with both telic cuslity nd n ddendu" to the "echnics o!

"uch older e(olutionry theories, The co""onlity between



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '""

both r*u"ents$ nd the reson they re so esily con!used by

the non#scienti-c &ublic$ ste"s !ro" the hy&er#!ocus in both

cses on e(olutionry theory itsel!, 3instre" cretion theories

lr*ely re in li*n"ent with Heisenber*/s stte"ent on science

in *enerl6 The -rst tste o! the nturl sciences will "'e you

n theist$ but God is witin* !or you t the botto" o! the *lss,

This isn/t de!ense o! cretion theory$ but rther loo' t the

resons underlyin* the hy&er#!ocus on one scienti-c theory by

both sides, =ewontin hs lredy delt with the -rst r*u"ent

in ter"s o! &oliticl use o! the childish (iews o! certin sects o!

@hristinity to bttle one o! the lst res o! sttes/ ri*ht in the

7,S,$ tht o! the sttes/ ri*ht to o(ersee eduction, As result I

will !ocus on the second r*u"ent$ tht which t'es &lce t

"uch "ore co"&le% le(el o! r*u"ent between ctul scientists$

o! who" =ewontin hi"sel! is resonble e%"&le$ nd ctul

theolo*ins nd scientists who see the s"e &roble"s with

Neo#Drwinis" s with old e(olutionry theories whose li"it#

tions led to the cretionis" o! the Neo#<ltonists$ nd see no new

solutions to those issues,




On the ltter side$ the !ocus on e(olutionry theory co"es out

o! s&eci-c &roble"s with Neo#Drwinist theory, On the !or"er$

the !ocus rises both !ro" distste !or theolo*icl solutions to

scienti-c &roble"s$ nd n underlyin* unese with Neo#Drwin#

is" s solution tht renders the theolo*icl ddend irrele(nt,

A lr*e &rt o! the issue with Neo#Drwinis" lies in its bro*#

tion o! two o! the !und"entl insi*hts o! Drwin hi"sel!$ in#

si*hts not (ilble to the ori*intors o! e(olutionry theory &rior

to the theolo*icl ddend be*un by the Neo#<ltonists,

The -rst &roble" concerns the !ct tht Drwin/s ide o! ntu#

rl selection only dels with one o! the two "o"ents o! e(olution,

The second concerns the cuse o! e(olution itsel!, Neo#Drwin#

is" i*nores the -rst "o"ent o! the two which Drwin s&eci-clly

stted could not be e%&lined by nturl selection due to its issue

with the second$ since the "echnistic ssu"&tions on which it

is bsed does not llow !or telic cuslity in ny sense,

The two "o"ents o! e(olution$ well e%&ressed by 4ernrd =on#

er*n in the boo' Insi*ht$ concern the !ollowin*6

, The li'elihood o! s&eci-c schemes of recurrence ctully oc#

currin*$ &hrse tht co(ers the recurrence o! e%"&les o!




s&eci-c s&ecies nd the li'elihood o! *reter co"&le%ity risin*

s those s&ecies chn*e$ nd the recurrence o! s&eci-c en(iron#

"entl conditions,

, The survivability o! e%"&les o! sche"es o! recurrence s

s&eci-c s&ecies$ which is lr*ely de&endent on the recurrence o!

s&eci-c en(iron"entl conditions,

Nturl selection is &r"ount only in the second o! these two

"o"ents, Rther thn bein* driver o! e(olution$ it cts &ri"r#

ily s br'e on the de(elo&"ent o! s&ecies into "ore co"&le%

!or"s,

The di1culty !or the Neo#Drwinists rises in -ndin* ny re#

son !or the historicl increse in the co"&le%ity o! s&ecies when

co"bined with the relti(e success in ter"s o! sur(i(bility o!

si"&ler !or"s o! li!e when co"&red with the "ore co"&le%

!or"s, Drwin hi"sel! ws !"ilir with the "ost d(nced cur#

rents in &hiloso&hy o! his ti"e$ in &rticulr the ides o! He*el in

ter"s o! historicl de(elo&"ent nd the "echnics o! telic

cuslity$ nd co"bined with his reli*ious u&brin*in* sw di1#

culty in &rcticl sense o! ccountin* !or the "echnics o! the

historicl increse in co"&le%ity$ but not the di1culty the



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '")

Neo#Drwinists h(e in cce&tin* either nture s historicl

de(elo&"ent or the e%istence o! telic cuslity itsel!, As result$

side !ro" sttin* in the introduction tht the de(elo&"ent o!

new s&ecies could not be "tter o! chnce or h&&enstnce$ he

!ocused on the second "o"ent the "echnics o! sur(i(bility o!

s&eci-c s&ecies under chn*in* en(iron"entl conditions,

Drwin/s studies nd resultin* theories re&resented "0or

d(nce in co"&rti(e 9oolo*y$ "de &ossible by technicl d#

(nces in the bility to tr(el nd there!ore cco"&lish co"&r#

ti(e 9oolo*y on lr*er nd "ore (ried scle$ nd re&resented

n d(nce$ lr*ely cco"&lished in the &rcticl sense by others

but -*urin* lr*ely in his theories$ in ter"s o! &leontolo*y s

"ens o! dr"ticlly e%tendin* the 'nowled*e o! the historicl

s&ect o! nturl history, At the s"e ti"e Drwin/s theories c#

co"&lished le& bac0 to the ori*inl ides on e(olution s

co"&le% inter&ly o! telos nd h&&enstnce tht o(er histori#

cl &eriod led nturlly to s&ecies d"irbly d&ted to their en#

(iron"ent, Nturl selection &ro(ided "echnics !or the h&#

&enstnce tht is lr*ely res&onsible !or the sur(i(bility o! e%is#

tent nd new s&ecies$ howe(er it hs no berin* on the telic




cuslity$ which Drwin hi"sel! !elt ws too co"&le% to&ic to

tc'le t the ti"e o! his writin*,

The Neo#<ltonists/ issue in ter"s o! telic cuslity rose !ro"

the de(elo&"ent o! the ide o! cretor bein* initilly by the

Stoics$ nd ws si"ultneously nswered by the nture o! the

cretor bein* in question, I! relity hd be*innin* intentionl

telic cuslity ws necessry to ccount !or nture s nturl his-

tory nd the resultin* need to ccount !or the increse in the

co"&le%ity o! li!e !or"s o(er li"ited &eriod, For E"&edocles

the &st ws li"itless$ which ws si"&ly n ssu"&tion co""on

to his society, For lter thin'ers$ in &rticulr Aristotle$ the te"#

&orl in-nity o! the uni(erse ws lo*icl deduction bsed on

the notion tht ny be*innin* to the uni(erse would crete situ#

tion o! n in-nite re*ression in ter"s o! the cuse o! such be#

*innin*, The de(elo&"ent o! theories such s the 4i* 4n* the#

ory o! relity/s ori*in doesn/t !und"entlly ddress the &roble"

becuse the sin*ulrity t the be*innin* in !ct re&lictes the

!etures o! the cretor bein* e%ce&t !or the intentionlity o! such

bein*, As result the theory still &re(lent o! the be*innin* o!

the uni(erse ctully co"&lictes the sitution !or e(olutionry




theory$ becuse the historicl increse in co"&le%ity cnnot be

ccounted !or by n intentionl telic cuslity risin* !ro" the in#

tentionlity o! the cretor bein* itsel!,

E(olution$ then is neither !ct nor theory$ but the descrip-

tion o! the historicl de(elo&"ent o! nture (iewed s nturl

history, This historicl de(elo&"ent is itsel! deter"ined by

co"&le% inter&ly o! creti(ity nd destruction$ Sel!#or*ni9#

tion nd entro&y$ Sel!#o&ti"i9tion nd the li"itin* !ctors o! the

en(iron"ent nd resultin* nturl selection, The renor"li9#

tion o! Drwin/s (ision o! nturl history with the in(lid ssu"&#

tions o! "echnistic deter"inis"$ !r !ro" ob(itin* cretionis"$

render it necessry in order to ccount !or the de-ciencies in &#

&lyin* their e%&lntion to the ctul historicl record o! nture,$

s it ws ori*inlly necessry co"&le"ent to the erly e(olu#

tionry ides in order to ccount !or the obser(ed e(idence,

Drwin/s !ull (ision o! nturl history s e(olutionry$ howe(er$

does not h(e the de-ciencies &resent in either the ori*inl no#

tions o! e(olution nor the renor"li9tion o! Neo#Drwinis"$ nd

s result require no co"&le"entry cretionis" to ccount !or

nture/s historicl de(elo&"ent described by e(olution,




7he Jroblems with enetic Kccommodation 7heory

The theory o! Genetic Acco""odtion$ s e%&ounded "ost

!ully by 3ry ne 2est#Eberhrd$ is tidy wy o! understndin*

how &riori &henoty&icl chn*es beco"e e"bedded in the

*eno"e, For the s'e o! bre(ity nd si"&licity o! understndin*

I will quote the !ollowin* succinct e%&ression o! the theory by

D(id Dobbs6

enetic accommodation involves a three-stepprocess.

Birst! an organism %or a bunch of organisms! a pop-ulation& changes its functional form < its phenotype< by ma0ing broad changes in gene e;pression.Second! a gene emerges that happens to help loc0in that change in phenotype. 7hird! the gene

spreads through the population.

(ie! selCsh gene! die

(avid (obbs

2hile this is see"in*ly nturl wy o! understndin* how

&henoty&e/s reinter&rettion o! *ene is .written bc'/ into the




*eno"e$ the questions rise s to whether it ; relly "'es

sense$ b; is t ll li'ely nd c; "tches the (ilble e(idence,

The nswer to ll three$ when the theory is thou*ht throu*h

su1ciently$ is no,

In ter"s o! whether the theory relly "'es sense$ we need to

consider the !ollowin*6

1. In the *enertions tht !ollow the initil reinter&rettion o!

the *ene$ the &henoty&e hs to re"in s it ws in the initil

reinter&rettion$ witin* *enetic "uttion tht h&&ens to

be use!ul to re&licte the &henoty&icl chn*e, No "ens !or

this to occur is &ro&osed in the "odel,

2. 2hile the initil &henoty&icl chn*e occurs throu*h

.re#redin*/ or reinter&rettion o! n e%istin* *ene$ once the

&ro&osed *enetic "uttion occurs$ the new *ene is red liter#

lly$ nd this is ssu"ed to be "ore e1cient t cretin* si"#

ilr &henoty&e, In !ct the theory requires tht the new *ene

&roduce better &henoty&e thn the initil reinter&rettion

could,

The &roble"s re co"&ounded when the li'elihood o! the

bo(e$ nd the other i"&lictions o! the theory$ re ssessed6




1. The li'elihood o! n &&ro&rite "uttion occurrin* soon !#

ter *i(en &henoty&icl chn*e &&ro%i"tes the li'elihood

o! n &&ro&rite "uttion tht is &henoty&iclly d(nt#

*eous in stndrd con(er*ed e(olutionry theory, Tht is$

&heno"enlly unli'ely$ which is the "0or lo*icl ob0ection to

con(er*ed theory,

2. The li'elihood tht the "utted *ene so"ehow &roduces

better d&ttion thn the initil reinter&rettion$ *i(en tht

the !or"er is rndo" nd the ltter en(iron"entlly wre$ is

e(en lower thn the cse in :,;,

=stly we need to ssess whether the theory "tches the

(ilble e(idence$ *in we run into si*ni-cnt &roble"s6

The theory rose -rstly in order to understnd the identiclly

o! the *eno"es o! (rious ws& &henoty&es$ nd the identiclly

o! the *eno"e in the (ery di+erent &henoty&es 'nown s the

*rssho&&er nd locust$ the ltter &ir bein* ble to reinter&ret

the *eno"e on the By nd chn*e bc' nd !orth !ro" one &he#

noty&e to nother) secondly to understnd the lc' o! si*ni-cnt

enou*h di+erence between the *eno"es o! !und"entlly di+er#

ent s&ecies,




1. Since the *eno"e is both o! these cses is identicl$ the s#

su"&tion tht the *ene needs to so"ehow e%ist in the *eno"e

is not lwys true,

2. The theory !ils to ccount !or the lc' o! sucient di+er#

ence in *eno"es between rdiclly di+erent s&ecies$ since

were the "0ority o! &henoty&icl chn*es .written bc'/ into

the *eno"e$ the *eno"es would be nerly s di+erent s con#

(er*ed theory would &redict,

The question then rises s to why we need the second nd

third &rts o! the theory$ since the &roble"s "entioned cn be

dequtely ccounted !or si"&ly by the -rst &rt$ i,e, tht the

*eno"e is inter&reted di+erently de&endin* on the en(iron"ent

in dyn"ic !shion, Other thn "intinin* the ssu"&tion o!

so"e i"&ortnce to the ctul co"&osition o! the *eno"e$ it &#

&ers tht the second nd third &rts re su&erBuous, It see"s

unli'ely$ thou*h$ tht decdes o! reserch tht include the identi#

-ction o! so"e cuslly deter"inti(e *enes$ t lest in si"ilr

en(iron"ents$ hs bsolutely no rele(nce to *enetic or e(olu#

tionry theory, There is lso the e(identil issue tht di+erent

s&ecies do h(e di+erent *eno"es$ in !ct the deter"intion o!




s&ecies s unique is (i the !ct tht two li!e !or"s with su1#

ciently di+erin* *eno"es cn no lon*er e+ecti(ely re&roduce,

The nswers to the ltter two questions$ lthou*h h(in* !un#

d"entlly di+erent ssu"&tions thn either con(er*ed theory

or *enetic cco""odtion theory$ re ctully rther ob(ious in

ter"s o! the require"ents nd (ilble e(idence,

2e h(e e(idence tht or*nis"s cn nd in !ct do rewrite

the *eno"e$ t lest te"&orrily$ in the i""une syste", How#

e(er i""une syste" *eno"e chn*es do not re&licte between

*enertions, Gi(en tht the bility e%ists$ thou*h$ nd si"ultne#

ously is unnecessry !or lr*e (riety o! &henoty&icl chn*es$

it/s unsur&risin* tht we h(e no direct e(idence o! rewritten

*eno"e bein* &ssed on *enertionlly, It si"&ly isn/t required

o!ten enou*h !or us to h(e direct e(idence o! it,

2hether or not it is required :or t ll d(nt*eous; &&ers

to be de&endent$ e(identilly$ on whether the (ilble (riety in

the *eno"e$ without scri-cin* re&roducibility with others o! the

s&ecies$ is su1cient to "intin the &henoty&icl chn*es (i

consistent reinter&rettion, I! the &henoty&icl chn*es require

"ore thn reinter&rettion !or the &henoty&icl chn*es to reli-




ably .stic'/ *enertionlly$ the bility to re&roduce is scri-ced in

order to &ersist the *enoty&icl chn*es tht initilly di+erenti#

te s&ecies, O! course$ this is inherently di1cult nd ris'y

&ro&osition$ becuse it de&ends on co"bintion o! *enoty&icl

chn*es tht su1ciently di+erentite s&ecies risin* !ro"

rewritten *enes "er*ed !ro" two &rents who could re&roduce

with the ori*in s&ecies, These &rents re not s&ecies di+erenti#

ted$ but in co"bintion their o+s&rin* "y be, <recisely t this

&oint nturl selection inter(enes$ ctin* s br'e on the sur#

(i(l o! ine+ecti(e co"bintions$ since there is *ood chnce

these o+s&rin* re sterile nd cnnot re&roduce$ nd *ood

chnce tht the "er*ed$ rewritten *eno"es do not &roduce (i#

ble new s&ecies,

This lso nswers nother issue with stndrd con(er*ed e(o#

lutionry theory tht is not ddressed by *enetic cco""od#

tion6 tht the lredy low &robbility o! ny *i(en *enetic "ut#

tion ledin* to n e(olutionry d(nt*e is rendered dr"ti#

clly lower in the cse o! new s&ecies$ since the nu"ber nd

(riety o! (ilble re&roducti(e "tes is reduced initilly to o+#

s&rin* o! the same &rents, This disd(nt*e is *enerlly




(oided$ which hel&s understnd why i""une syste" (ritions

re *enerlly not inherited # the d(nt*es con!erred re !or the

"ost &rt o(erridden by the disd(nt*es, Only where su1#

ciently si*ni-cnt d(nt*e is con!erred do the &rents rewrite

their *eno"es$ nd only where "tin* results in (ible new

s&ecies does the chn*ed *eno"e h(e su1cient sur(i(bility to

o(erco"e the re&roducti(e disd(nt*es con!erred,




7he /$indlind2 7heory of Kutism as an ';ample of the lindness of 6ognitive Science

@o*niti(e Science hs the blindness to the &heno"en it t#

te"&ts to inter&ret s result o! "odern science/s inherent s#

su"&tions bout the nture o! "ind itsel!, These ssu"&tions

ori*inte in n/(e "terilis" :or Mntin Relis" without its

Idelist !oundtions; nd its &&liction to the "ind s neurolo*y,

The ."ind#blind/ theory o! utis" de"onstrtes this blindness

nd the results o! be*innin* with in(lid ssu"&tions,

Accordin* to the theory$ utistics cn/t .&osit/ the sel!#con#

sciousness o! the other in the .nor"l/ wy, There!ore they don/t

interct in usul "nner, An e%"&le is 'ids &lyin* &retend,

Accordin* to the co*niti(e science (ersion$ 'ids &osit "ind li'e

their own behind the beh(ior o! the other$ nd in &lyin* &re#

tend &ut their body into the correct "otions nd sy the &&ro#

&rite thin*s !or the &rticulr &retend *"e, Mids with utis"

re unble to do tht nd s result h(e di1culty 'nowin* how

to &ly the *"e, The in(lid ssu"&tion is tht .nor"l/ 'id

needs to do this theoreticl &ositin* nd inter&rettion in order

to &retend, The result is not si"&ly tht the ."ind#blind/ theory is




incorrect$ it is &recisely bc'wrds,

Non#utistic 'ids &ly &retend quite nturlly !ro" relti(ely

erly *e$ while utistic 'ids re only c&ble o! tte"&tin* to do

it t lter st*e o! de(elo&"ent, <rior to the de(elo&"ent o! the

theoreticl sub0ect tht "i*ht do the ty&e o! &ositin* co*niti(e

science belie(es is required$ it is s&eci-clly the utistic 'ids tht

cnnot t ll understnd &retend *"es, Autistic 'ids need the

bility to sub8ectively &osit the wy the other e%&eriences the"

nd then consciously beh(e in the &&ro&rite "nner in order

to &ly &retend t ll, So &recisely it is the utistic 'ids tht re

"ind#wre in the sense tht the word is used in co*niti(e sci#

ence, Other 'ids thou*h re ble to cco"&lish the *"e &rior to

tht ty&e o! theoreticl "ind#wreness$ becuse they h(e n

i""edite wreness o! the "enin* o! inner#worldly thin*s nd

&ersons, I! non#utistic child$ once tht wreness de(elo&s$

were to ctully use tht wreness in &retend *"e the ntu#

rl Bow o! the *"e would beco"e slowed nd hltin*$ the

child/s beh(ior w'wrd$ . sel!#conscious/ in the literl sense, It

would be indistin*uishble !ro" the "nner in which n utistic




child tte"&ts the *"e,

The non#utistic child &lys &retend in n i""editely in#

(ol(ed "nner tht co&es with the "enin*!ul ctions o! the

other, The child/s &riori e%&erience o! world s tht which

structures the "enin* o! the others/ beh(ior results in the"

h(in* no need to theoreticlly &osit "ind behind the bodily c#

tions o! the other$ those ctions re i""editely "enin*!ul in

the"sel(es nd i"&ly n &&ro&rite res&onse within the situ#

tion o! the *"e, Si"ilrly they do not e%&erience the"sel(es

durin* the *"e s "ind controllin* their &hysicl nd (erbl

res&onses$ they 'now how to bodily &ro0ect "enin* without

thin'in* bout it -rst$ the &&ro&rite words re sid with no

&rior reBection bein* in(ol(ed, They don/t . re#&resent/ the world

in so"e internl !shion nd then interct with tht re&resent#

tion$ they si"&ly interct in n in(ol(ed wy with the world s it

&resents in the sitution,

Not only do utistic children s&eci-clly &osit .sub0ect/ in

other &eo&le tht they subsequently res&ond to in sel!#con#

scious "nner$ u& to &oint this 'ind o! .sub0ecti(ity/ is &osited




towrds inni"te ob0ects s well, An utistic child$ h(in* !or#

*otten to dd wter to "icrow(eble "croni nd cheese

dinner$ c"e runnin* out o! the 'itchen :where the &lstic ws

&roceedin* to "elt in the "icrow(e; nd e%cli"ed .3o""y$

the "croni bo% is lyin*a . , The "enin* ws ob(ious$ he

thou*ht he hd !ollowed the instructions on the bo% correctly but

the results were not wht ws wnted, Howe(er$ rther thn not

&ositin* "ind in other hu"n bein*s$ he went so !r s to &osit

the uthor o! the instructions s the bo% itsel!, As youn* child$

&rticulrly one delyed in lernin*$ he couldn/t be e%&ected to

&osit the uthor behind the bo%$ howe(er n uthor ws s&eci-#

clly &osited$ one tht "oreo(er ws c&ble o! truth or lies,

This e%&erience o! world s structurin* "enin* is wht is in

so"e wy distorted !or the utistic child, 2orldly thin*s nd oth#

ers/ beh(iors re e%&erienced s initilly strn*e$ uncnny$

"enin*less, Only throu*h theoreticl inter&rettion cn they

"'e sense o! thin*s$ but this delyed reBecti(e understndin*

results in w'wrd$ . sel!#conscious/ beh(ior, Our e%&erience o!

world s "enin*!ul is itsel! te"&orl &heno"enon, The &st$




not s wht is no lon*er$ but s wht is retined s rele(nt to

sitution is the bsis o! this e%&erience$ e(en s si"ultneously

we e%&erience it s !uturl &ro0ection o! oursel(es, This &st s

. h(in*#been/ retined in the &resent llows us to *in !"il#

irity with thin*s$ n t#ho"e#ness in the i""edite sitution,

The distortion in n utistic/s sense o! world not only cretes the

di1culty in beh(in* without sel!#conscious "edition$ but lso

lends the world strn*e$ uncnny &lce, In tht world n utis#

tic child is cutious$ !er!ul o! ris' in wy tht "ost 'ids re

not, The inbility to inter&ret without "edition isn/t restricted

to other &eo&le$ but to thin*s s well, Autistic children re o!ten

sur&rised by the &hysicl senstions thin*s cuse, A nor"l child

o&ertin* cn o&ener e%&ects the disco"!ort in their own hnd

cused by its resistnce nd &resses hrder$ the disco"!ort is

brely e%&erienced becuse it is e%&ected nd the resistnce i"#

"editely i"&lies tht they need to increse the e+ort, An utis#

tic child tryin* to o&erte the s"e cn o&ener doesn/t nturlly

use "uch !orce nd is e(en then sur&rised t both the disco"!ort

in(ol(ed nd the !ct tht it/s not wor'in*$ nd needs to be

shown e%&licitly how to &&ly "ore &ressure$ which results in




"ore disco"!ort$ which is *in une%&ected !or the", The utis#

tic/s &hysicl sensiti(ity isn/t !unction o! their senses but their

lc' o! e%&ecttion o! the senstions they e%&erience,

The se(erely utistic child is unble to beh(e in "enin*!ul

wys until it *enertes the I#Sub0ect, The world o! &eo&le with

ASD is lwys inter&reted in "ore sub0ecti(e$ bstrct$ intellec#

tul "nner thn others, The utistic child does not s esily

&ic' u& the hbits tht in other &eo&le$ lthou*h they be*in s

&urely contin*ent i"ittions$ beco"e &rt o! who they re nd

led to the !eelin* o! !"ilirity the Sel! hs in its e(erydy cti(#

ities, Insted they occur in !or"li9ed wy in the e%tre"e

re&etiti(e beh(iour tht is one o! the hll"r's o! utis", In

so"e sense$ utis" hs to ori*inte in di1culty with the child/s

!und"entl e%&erience o! te"&orlity,




Kutism and 7emporality: on-Xerbal esponse to #umanXoices

One o! the irrittin* !etures o! the "odern hu"n sciences is

the inbility to sty with &heno"enon nd relte it to others$

nd then co"e to *reter understndin* o! both &heno"en

nd how they relte to one nother, Insted$ since no ob(ious

&re#understndin* e%ists$ reserchers 0u"& to hy&othesis &ur#

&ortin* to e%&lin the ori*in o! the &heno"enon$ usully reduc#

tionist$ &hysiclist e%&lntion,

The !und"entl &roble" with this is -rstly tht their sub0ect

"tter$ while it ob(iously hs &hysicl bsis$ doesn5t "ni!est

*enerlly in &hysicl wys$ "'in* &hysicl e%&lntion di1#

cult to obtin # they5re not delin* with the beh(ior o! roc' or

n "oeb, Secondly nd "ore i"&ortntly e(en i! the &hysicl#

ist e%&lntion h&&ened to be correct nd &hysicl e(idence ws

disco(ered !or it$ *enerlly there is no wy to do nythin* bout

the &hysicl issue$ nd s result the e%&lntion is o! no use




te"&orl distortion$ nd &erh&s other ty&es o! te"&orl distor#

tion s well$ but in the &rticulr cses I ws !ocusin* on$ two

utistic brothers ech (ery clerly dis&ly one nd the other ty&e

o! ter"&orl distortion in their e%&erience o! relity nd there#

!ore their res&onses to it,

In loo'in* t the &heno"enon o! utistic children not res&ond#

in* to the s"e de*ree$ in the s"e "nner$ nd so"eti"es

brely t ll to hu"n (oices$ so"ethin* tht distresses the &r#

ents o! youn* utistic children in &rticulr$ nu"ber o! &rob#

le"s with the 5&lesure center5 ide i""editely rise6

The di+erence between 5nor"l5 child nd n utistic child is

not bsolute$ where the res&onse is lwys there in the nor"l

child nd not there t ll in the utistic child, The &resence or

lc' o! s&eci-c &otentil due to the e%istence or none%istence

o! &hysicl !eture would be e%&ected to crete n bsolute

di+erence, The relity thou*h is tht 5nor"l5 children e%hibit

rn*e o! res&onses$ !ro" "ild interest to e%tre"e e%cite"ent,

Autistic children lso dis&ly rn*e o! res&onses$ !ro" so"e#




wht nonsensicl res&onses :which re ne(ertheless (lid re#

s&onses; to (irtully no res&onse t ll,

A &hysicl 5&lesure center5 would be unli'ely to be co"&le%

enou*h to res&ond di+erently to di+erent &eo&le$ nor to res&ond

di+erently to di+erent tonlities in wht is sid, Ob(iously chil#

dren t the non#(erbl st*e do not h(e !ully co"&rehendin*$

"enin*!ul res&onse (ilble$ but they do in *enerl res&ond

"ore to (oices tht re !"ilir$ nd res&ond in "ore e%cited

"nner when the tonlity is itsel! hi*hly &ositi(e, ust s the

hi*her ni"ls$ thou*h lso non#(erbl$ res&ond di+erently de#

&endin* on tone$ rhyth" nd the ori*intor o! hu"n (oices$

non#(erbl children understnd in certin wy the !eelin* o!

wht is bein* sid e(en thou*h the words "y not be understood

or e(en distin*uished !ro" one nother,

Autistic children lso res&ond di+erently to di+erent (oices$ in

*enerl h(in* *reter res&onse :lthou*h it "y still be "i#

nor; to !"ilir (oice thn n un!"ilir, The bi**est di+er#

ence noticed in the cse o! the brothers discussed in the &re(ious



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ')

&&er$ thou*h$ reltes to how child in tht sitution would e%#

&erience hu"n (oice nd there!ore res&ond to it,

The older brother$ who &&ers to h(e te"&orl distortion

in ter"s o! understndin* durtion$ ws n e%tre"ely quiet child

&rior to lernin* to s&e' :he is not &rticulrly (erbose to this

dy$ nd he is now ;, He rrely cried s bby$ only doin* so

when (ery hun*ry or in need o! di&er chn*e, Otherwise he

&&ered quite content to 0ust be, He didn5t res&ond "uch to

(erbl interction$ lthou*h he res&onded "ore to his "other5s

(oice thn to those he s&ent less ti"e with,

The youn*er child$ who &&ers to h(e te"&orl distortion

relted to te"&orl sequencin* o! e(ents$ ws (ery di+erent s

bby, He cried nd scre"ed "ost o! the ti"e$ s i! in &in nd

terror constntly, 2hen he could be "de co"!ortble he re#

s&onded to hu"n (oices quite quic'ly nd noticebly$ howe(er

his res&onses were "ost o!ten nonsensicl$ s i! he didn5t *et the

s"e sense o! "enin* in(ol(ed in (ocli9tion tht 5nor"l5

&re#(erbl children e%&erience, Althou*h in "ost wys the



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ')9

youn*er brother see"s less noticebly 5utistic5 thn the older$

he required "uch *reter inter(ention s&eci-clly in the re o!

s&eech ther&y, As te"&orl &heno"enon$ (ocli9tion is he(#

ily disturbed by sequencin* ti"in* issue in te"&orl e%&eri#

ence,

The older brother$ with durtionl distortion$ &&ers to

h(e hd trouble not so "uch with res&ondin* to hu"n (oices$

but s with his echoli$ his tendency to do the s"e thin* !or in#

de-nite &eriods until it5s &ointed out to hi" tht hours nd hours

h(e &ssed$ nd his tendency to res&ond to con(erstionl ele#

"ent dys or so"eti"es yers lter s i! the con(erstion were

current$ he didn5t res&ond with ny &rticulr ur*ency, Gi(en

the len*th o! ti"e tht 5durtion5 cn e%tend to in his cse$

there would h(e been no si"&le wy o! deter"inin*$ &rior to his

lernin* to s&e'$ wht he ws res&ondin* to t the ti"e tht he

e(entully did res&ond,

The youn*er brother res&onded i""editely$ howe(er the bil#

ity o! 5nor"l5 &re#(erbl child to understnd the tone nd

rhyth" nd to res&ond in n &&ro&rite wy$ is hi*hly de&en#

dent on the child5s bility to sequence the sounds$ herin* the"




in the ri*ht order nd with the ri*ht ti"in* between the", His

res&onse$ &&erin* nonsensicl nd not &rticulrly &&ro&ri#

te$ is entirely understndble in the sitution where he didn5t

h(e tht nturl bility to &ro&erly sequence te"&orl e(ents,

Tht this di1culty s&eci-clly "'es -ndin* thin*s in the world

"enin*!ul nd !"ilir &roble"tic lso *i(e hi" constnt

sense o! bein* in !erso"e nd uncnny &lce, To this dy he

is o(ercutious$ !er!ul$ !rid o! bein* hurt nd t'en bc' by

the sli*htest une%&ected &hysicl senstion, 4y contrst the

older brother hs no such constnt n%iety$ is "uch "ore re#

l%ed$ so"eti"es too "uch so s his lc' o! durtionl sense ren#

ders hi" &er!ectly content to do the s"e thin* !or hours nd

hours on end,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ')'

7he evelation of eason in #egel

In the He*elin "odel$ the rtionlity o! the world o! reBe%#

i(ely sel!#conscious "n ws e%&erienced -rst in re(eltory

"nner, It ws !ro" this re(eltion tht the . rtionl/ or "et#

&hysicl world ws initilly &ro0ected, This &ro0ection initited

wht we 'now s 2estern history,

He*el sttes tht the rtionlity o! history .is not &resu&&osi#

tion o! study) it is result which h&&ens to be 'nown to "ysel!

becuse I lredy 'now the whole,/ As in "ny other instnces$

He*el is "isunderstood "ost by not t'in* wht he sys s liter#

lly s he "ens it, As result tht . h&&ens/ to be 'nown to

He*el$ 'nowled*e o! the whole hs to be understood s so"e#

thin* tht . h&&ened/ to He*el$ s &rticulr concrete e(ent,

This e(ent hs to include n understndin* tht history s rtio#

nl history is lredy o(er$ otherwise the whole could not be

'nown, History s rtionl history ended when new &ossibilities

inherent in the initil &ro0ection o! the . rtionl world/ were e%#

husted, E"er*ence itsel! is lwys so"ethin* tht .0ust h&#

&ens/ , It is un&redictble s to whether$ when nd in wht wy it




"y occur,

The e(ent tht e%husted the &ositi(e &ossibilities o! the "et#

&hysicl &ro0ection o! the world is intrinsiclly tied to the e(ent

tht &otentited the &ro0ection, 4oth e(ents were si"ultneously

indi(idul nd societl$ such tht their occurrence initited

chn*es in society whose de(elo&"ent s society hd &roduced

the conditions !or tht &ossible e"er*ence$ but only those who

hd the concurrent indi(idul e%&erience o! the e(ent initilly e%#

&erienced those chn*es, The e(ent tht &otentited the &ro0ec#

tion o! the rtionl world ws the e"er*ence o! syste" o! the

Sel! tht is c&ble o! reBe%i(ely obser(in* &rticulr "nner

in which sel!#consciousness itsel! cn o&erte, This syste" is tht

s&ect o! the Sel! we ter" the .theoreticl/ $ nd the "nner o!

sel!#consciousness it is ble to obser(e is sel!#consciousness in

the "nner o! the rtionl I#Sub0ect, As .ble to shed li*ht/ $ the

theoreticl is lwys si"ultneously theolo*icl$ in the sense tht

it re!ers bc' to the ori*inl Gree' notion o! Theo s the &urely

(erbl .shinin*/ tht lets nythin* be e%&erienced, Howe(er idel

s ."entl/ shi!t this e(ent see"s t -rst *lnce$ it could only

rise out o! "teril &r%is, sel!#conscious "n hd been in#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ')"

(entin* tools !or "illenni$ but without the reBe%i(e obser(tion

o! sel!#consciousness in the &rocess o! in(ention those in(entions

were i""editely scribed to so"ethin* e%ternl$ such s *i!t

o! *od$ nd hence not &roducible, The idel chn*es si"ultne#

ously chn*ed the "nner o! "teril tool cretion itsel!$ s

so"ethin* &ro0ectble nd there !ore to de*ree &redictble nd

certin$ t lest inso!r s it bec"e &ossible to &redict tht !ur#

ther in(ention would li'ely occur, The ide o! cretion s &ro#

ducible is the !oundtion o! the technolo*icl$ 0ust s its essence

lys in the &otentil !or totli9in* "'in*#(ilble tht &ro#

ducibility con!ers, The Sel! in the ct o! cretin* the &rocess o!

the I#Sub0ect sees itsel! s cretion by withholdin* itsel! s

Sel!$ withholdin* itsel! s the *round o! the I#Sub0ect, As creted$

the I#Sub0ect si"ultneously &osits cretor s its .other/$ which

in n lterntin* !shion is lso its .identity/, The notion o! *od

s ori*in o! ll s cretion rises with the !or*ettin* o! Sel!#ori*i#

ntion nd the &ositin* o! e(erythin* s creted$ i,e, the techno#

lo*icl understndin* o! the world, He*el is o!ten "isunderstood

by not reco*ni9in* the !und"entl$ indeed bsolute di+erence

between the @rtesin I#Sub0ect nd the Absolute Sub0ect,




It is only this speculative notion of identity which en-ables us to fully grasp the thrust of #egel2s criti@ue of

)ant! namely his re8ection of the need for an a priori for-mal-transcendental frame as a measure or standard which

would allow us to 8udge from the outside the validity of allcontent %cognitive! ethical! or aesthetic&: /we do not needto import criteria! or to ma0e use of our own bright ideasand thoughts during the course of the in@uiry1 it is pre-cisely when we leave these aside that we succeed in con-templating the matter at hand as it is in and for itself.2 F7his is what #egel means by /absolute2 Idealism: not themagical ability of Spirit to generate all content! butSpirit2s thorough passivity: adopting the stance of /Kbso-lute )nowing!2 the sub8ect does not as0 if the content

%some particular ob8ect of in@uiry& meets some a prioristandard %of truth! goodness! beauty&1 it lets the contentmeasure itself! by its own immanent standards! and thusSelf-authories itself. 7he stance of /Kbsolute )nowing2thus fully coincides with thorough %absolute& historicism:there is no transcendental /big =ther!2 there are no crite-ria that we can apply to historical phenomena to 8udgethem1 all such criteria must be immanent to the phenom-ena themselves.

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egeland the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p. HT&. or-ton. )indle 'dition.

A re(eltory e%&erience is one o! .sudden/ understndin* or in#

si*ht into so"ethin*, The co""on e%&erience o! e&i&hny is re(#

eltory in this sense, In lernin* new sub0ect "tter$ !or in#

stnce$ we initilly t'e in in!or"tion tht is only tn*entilly

reltionl, 2e "y see certin reltions between di+erent s#




&ects o! the "tter$ but we don/t initilly e%&erience the !ull rel#

tionlity tht "'es it inherently .one/ "tter, At so"e &oint$ not

s&eci-clly &redictble$ we . ll t once/ see the "tter s

whole$ includin* how e(ery s&ect -ts into the "tter, The "t#

ter hs$ !or us$ beco"e one thin*$ nd s such syste"ic, The

word .re(eltion/ thou*h is here used in ter"s o! sudden under#

stndin* tht enco"&sses the entirety o! wht we 'now, ust s

sel!#conscious "n scribed his in(entions to n e%ternl !orce$

the re(eltion o! reBe%i(e sel!#consciousness itsel! s the rtionl

I#Sub0ect ws scribed to n e%ternl !orce, For "ytholo*icl

"n$ tool could be the *i!t o! . *od/, The re(eltion o! reson$

thou*h$ i"&lied so"ethin* beyond the notion o! the .*ods/ s

they hd been thou*ht to tht &oint, The i"&liction is the notion

o! the .One/ s the ori*in o! e(erythin* s cretion, 2ith <lto

the uni(erse s e(erythin*#there#is bec"e &ro0ectble i"*in#

ti(ely$ nd thus lso "the"ticlly, In the shi!t !ro" <lto to

Aristotle the &ro0ectbility o! the uni(erse s e(erythin*#there#is

bec"e *uidin* ssu"&tion$ one tht lo*iclly relied u&on the

.One/, Throu*h the Stoics$ <hilo$ <lotinus/ nd @le"ent reinter#

&rettion o! Aristotle ws inscribed into the new &r%is o! @hris#



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / '))

tinity$ the .One/ s the rtionl cretor o! e(erythin* ws &sted

onto the "ytholo*icl &erson o! eho(h, The resultin*

world#historicl &ro0ection$ itsel! e%&erienced in re(eltory

"nner$ ws then scribed s ori*intin* !ro" the cretor s .Di#

(ine Re(eltion/, The re(eltion o! the rtionl I#Sub0ect ws si#

"ultneously the re(eltion o! the One Di(ine @retor, The

world#historicl &ro0ection tht turned relity into .nture/ s r#

tionl cretion$ nd thus "de nturl lw nd nturl science

&ossible$ ws theoso&hicl &ro0ection$ "odi-ed in &olo*etics

nd *in in theolo*y &ro&er$ but retinin* its essentil theo#

so&hicl chrcter, In Heide**er/s ter"inolo*y$ ontolo*y bec"e

onto#theolo*y$ since bein*s the"sel(es were &redeter"ined by

their theolo*icl sttus s .creted/$ s the &roduct o! techne in

so"e !shion,

At the s"e ti"e the &ro0ection ws encted s "teril &r%is

throu*h the wor' o! technolo*y, Anythin* d"issible s relity

ori*intes in &r*"t, Our theoreticl bstrctions re lwys

bstrctions o! so"ethin* use!ul, 2ith the chn*e !ro" tools s

indi(idully .*i(en/$ where the reltionlity o! equi&"ent s

whole re"ined unseen$ to tools s technolo*icl$ s inherently




deri(in* their "enin* !ro" tht reltionlity$ relity is re(eled

in technolo*icl wy, The uni(erse s reltionl$ syste"ic

whole is n bstrction o! the equi&"entl totlity o! technolo*y,

The rtionlity o! rtionl history inheres in &ro*ressi(e re(el#

in* o! relity s en!r"ed$ in Heide**er/s ter", Throu*h the

technolo*icl en!r"in* o! relity e(ery s&ect o! relity is only

inso!r s it is "de#(ilble, Technolo*icl en!r"in* or

sche"ti9tion reduces or Bttens ny *i(en rel to its

ble#to#be#"de# lwys#(ilble or e%chn*eble s&ects,

E(entully this reduction o! relity is &&lied to the "ost i""edi#

te rel$ the Sel! itsel!$ but seen only s the rtionl I#Sub0ect$ re#

duced to hu"n resource, Since relity is t root seen s e%#

chn*eble$ the &roducibility o! relity turns into the e%chn*e#

bility o! relity$ nd c&itlis" s the econo"ic e%&ression o!

this e%chn*ebility beco"es the only &ossible econo"ic lo*ic,




7he Self as eligious

on-elief versus Ktheism and Kgnosticism

on-elief versus Ktheism

At -rst *lnce non#belie! would &&er to shre (rious !e#

tures with theis", =oo'ed t closer$ howe(er$ theis" is in !ct

!or" o! ne*ti(e belie! tht hs "ore in co""on with theis"

thn with either non#belie! or *nosticis",

K od who would operate and function as one indi-vidual being alongside of other beings and whowould! therefore! be a member of the large house-hold of all tangible realities! such a od simply doesnot e;ist. Knyone searching for such a od issearching for a false god and will only Cnd an idol.

oth atheism and a simplistic form of theism laborunder this false notion of od. Ktheism rightly de-nies this 0ind of od and a simplistic theism mista0-enly believes that it Cnds genuine signiCcance insuch a od.

#ussey! $. 'dmund %F,+F-++-,4&. 7he Idea of6hristianity: K rief Introduction to the 7heology of

)arl ahner %)indle *ocations HH-HG+&. . )indle 'dition.




Rhner sees only one d(nt*e in the usul theis" o(er n#

(e theis"6 the reco*nition tht the 'ind o! God belie(ed in by n#

(e theists does not nd cnnot e%ist, 4ut both re stuc' with the

s"e si"&listic notion o! God nd o! the necessity o! belie!$ lbeit

ne*ti(e belie! in the cse o! the n(e theist,

Rhner !requently insisted tht we do not e%&erience God in

the s"e wy s we do tree or nother &erson or ny other e%#

ternl relity within the rel" o! ti"e nd s&ce, 7sin* color!ul

nd dr"tic contrst$ he once sid tht God is not li'e son*

bird or li'e Austrli, The relities o! our li!e beco"e co"&rehen#

sible nd "n*eble becuse we cn &ut the" into cte*ories

o! si"ilr relities s well s s&ell out their s&eci-c di+erences

!ro" other thin*s, 4ut there is no such wy o! 'nowin* God$ who

is totlly di+erent !ro" ny o! the concrete relities which we e%#

&erience, The word God is &&rently without cler ety"ol#

o*y nd de-nite contour, And &&ro&ritely so$ !or it re!ers to the

n"eless one who is not &rt o! the world$ the silent one who

is lwys &resent but cn be o(erloo'ed or &ssed o(er s "en#

in*less,




'ven for militant atheists! od still e;ists at least asthat which they must declare is dead! whose ghostthey must banish and whose return they fear. 7heyare unable to be at peace about od until the word

itself no longer e;ists! that is! until there are nomore @uestions about od.


)arl ahner %)indle *ocations F-H,+&. . )indle 'dition.

Non#belie! cnnot &lce i"&ortnce on belie!s bout God or

belie!s bout lc' o! God, In this sense it &rllels *nosticis",




a_ve Ktheism as ';pounded by ichard (aw0ins

There re nu"ber o! issues with the nti#reli*ious wor' o!

Richrd Dw'ins nd his !ollowers, 2ithin the wor's the"#

sel(es$ such s The God Delusion$ Dw'ins is berrnt in both his

belie!s nd his r*u"ents, Rther thn &ic' &rt e(ery &ortion

o! "enderin* nd irrtionl boo' I will !ocus on wht Dw'ins

hi"sel! considers the cru% o! his r*u"ent6 the i"&robbility o!

bein* s co"&le% s God,

@o"&le%ity nd &robbility theory re not well understood

brnches o! "the"tics, Howe(er it is not di1cult to see how

Dw'ins uses (ery loose inter&rettions o! these "the"ticl

ides in n tte"&t to de"onstrte the unli'elihood o! cre#

tor#bein*$ Sel!#contrdiction in ny cse since the sin*ulrity

&osited s the ori*in o! the uni(erse is itsel! cretor#bein*$

which "'es his r*u"ent si"&ly theolo*icl r*u"ent on the

nture o! God$ not de"onstrtion o! cretor#bein*/s i"&rob#

bility,




7he Kreas Kected by 6omple;ity 7heory and Jrobability7heory

@o"&le%ity theory$ s "entioned by Dw'ins$ is entirely irrele#

(nt to his r*u"ent$ s co"&le% "the"ticl entities re in

!ct *enerted by re&eted clcultions o! si"&le equtions$ nd

re there!ore e%tre"ely &robble, As result I will !ocus on his

"isuse o! &robbility theory in order to bolster his we' r*u#

"ents,

4oth res o! "the"tics re concerned with the &robbility

o! co"&le% bein*s within#the#world inso!r s we cn obser(e re#

lity, 4oth re concerned with contingent bein*s tht h(e not in

!ct been lredy obser(ed, As si"&le e%"&le$ &robbility

theory "y t so"e &oint be ble to wor' out how li'ely or un#

li'ely the de(elo&"ent o! hu"n bein*s within relity "i*ht be$

but it cnnot &osit it s in-nitely i"&robble :the "the"tic

ter" !or i"&ossible$ since there is lwys t lest n in-nitely

i"&robble chnce tht nythin* "i*ht occur;, It cnnot &osit is

s in-nitely i"&robble due to the si"&le obser(tion tht$ in

ny e(ent$ there re hu"n bein*s,




Another re where &robbility theory is entirely in&&licble

is the re o! necessry bein*s, A necessry bein* is one tht$ in

order to ccount !or relity s we obser(e nd inter&ret it$ si"&ly

cnnot not e%ist !or relity to be s it is, A well#'nown e%"&le

is Aristotle/s un"o(ed "o(er, Howe(er we inter&ret the nture

o! this bein*$ n bsolute &ers&ecti(e which such bein* "'es

&ossible is necessry in order to ccount !or relti(istic "otion

within &osited relity#s##whole$ or uni(erse, 2hile the ltter

hs issues o! its own$ s lon* s there is such thin* s uni#

(erse &ro0ected s relity$ bein* with certin !etures o! the un#

"o(ed "o(er is necessry$ nd there!ore howe(er i"&robble by

stndrd &robbility theory$ hs n bsolute &robbility o! ]$

since without tht bein* relity#s##whole could not e%ist in the

!or" tht we obser(e relity to be,

Since God is &osited s such necessry bein* :nd in !ct the

conce&t de(elo&ed &redo"inntly !ro" Aristotle/s un"o(ed

"o(er$ thou*h with si*ni-cnt di+erences;$ God is !ro" the out#

set not sub0ect to Dw'ins/ &robbility theory,

Ironiclly$ the "ost i"&ortnt ob0ection to the use o! &robbil#

ity theory rises !ro" the !ct tht the sin*ulrity s cre#




tor#bein* in !ct is sub0ect to &robbility equtions$ nd by

those equtions is in-nitely i"&robble, This &&licbility co"es

!ro" the te"&orlly tensed nture o! the sin*ulrity6 i,e, since it

no lon*er is$ there hs to be so"e "nner in which it could co"e

into bein*$ howe(er tht is to be inter&reted te"&orlly :it would

h(e to be in so"e ty&e o! in-nite &st$ since the sin*ulrity it#

sel! is &osited s the ori*in o! ti"e;, 4y contrst$ the untensed

God o! @hristin &hiloso&hers nd theolo*ins is not sub0ect to

&robbility in the s"e !shion$ since s untensed it requires no

cuse$ nd there!ore no clcultion o! the &robbility o! such

cuse is necessry nor &ossible, Rther oddly$ Hw'in*/s de#

!ense o! the in-nitely i"&robble sin*ulrity is &recisely the

s"e s the ori*inl de!ense o! the e%istence o! God within @hris#

tin &olo*etics6 tht the "ssi(e co"&le%ity o! relity "'es it

unsur&risin* tht it would h(e n e(en "ore co"&le% ori*in,

These ob0ections re s true within the n(e theis" tht

Dw'ins is tte"&tin* to dis&ro(e s they re in "ore de(elo&

theolo*y$ but beco"e "ore &ower!ul within the de(elo&ed theol#

o*y tht too' o(er !ro" @hristin &olo*etics, 4y the be*innin*s

o! theolo*y &ro&er with Duns Scotus nd Tho"s Aquins$ the




notion o! God s cretor#bein* in te"&orl sense$ i,e, tht

God creted relity t &rticulr &oint in ti"e$ ws bndoned

s &roducin* the in-nite re*ress tht Aristotle initilly &osited s

the !und"entl reson !or not belie(in* in cretor nor ny be#

*innin* to relity, 2hile God re"ined s the *round o! relity$

relity s the ine(itble Sel!#e%&ression o! n eternl God could

not hel& but be eternl itsel!, @retion "yths were thus seen s

"ethod !or si"&le &eo&les to understnd the notion o! the

eternl &st in which God constntly cretes relity e% nihilo,

As Aquins sw clerly$ while God could not be &ro(en$ the r#

tionlity o! belie! in God could be de"onstrted, Howe(er once

be*innin* to relity is &osited$ the r*u"ent beco"es "oot be#

cuse tensed cretion by de-nition i"&lies n ori*in$ nd the

r*u"ent de(ol(es into discussion o! the nture o! the ori*in$

not the rtionlity o! belie(in* in such n ori*in, The @tholic

belie! in world without be*innin* nd world without end$ re#

&eted in e(ery ritul "ss$ is the co""on e%&ression o!

Aquins/ theolo*y,




on-elief vs. Kgnosticism

H(in* loo'ed t the &roble"s inherent in si"&listic theis"$

s not (rint o! non#belie! but in !ct ne*ti(e (rint o! the#

is"$ *nosticis" &&ers to be closer t ny rte to non#belie!$

since it does not tte"&t to either &ro(e or dis&ro(e the e%is#

tence o! God, A*nosticis" howe(er does !ll into si"ilr tr&

o! inconsistency,

2hile *nosticis" doesn/t !ll into the tr& o! tte"&tin* to

&ro(e or dis&ro(e the e%istence o! so"ethin* tht by its nture

cnnot be de"onstrted to be :in so"e sense; or not to be$ it c#

ce&ts the equi(lent nature o! the bein* tht cnnot be &ro(en or

dis&ro(en$ t lest in its "ini"l !or",

The &roble" is tht !or the "ost &rt *nostics cce&t the cos#

"olo*icl theories o! te"&orlly nd s&tilly tensed rel#

ity#s##whole$ i,e, uni(erse with be*innin* nd n end nd

deter"inte s&til -nitude, 2hile I will loo' in the ne%t section

t the inherent issues in such belie!$ the initil &roble" lies in

the !ct tht it is belie!$ not n obser(ble &heno"enon$ nd

thus cnnot be equted with non#belie!, Non#belie! cnnot be#




lie(e nor disbelie(e in God o! so"e ty&e$ but by the s"e to'en

cnnot belie(e in the e%istence o! relity#s# whole$ uni(erse$

in ny sense in which we "i*ht understnd such n entity, Addi#

tionlly "ost *nostics &osit their "bi(lence towrds the e%is#

tence o! God with the s"e understndin* o! the nture o! such

God s tht o! si"&listic theists nd theists,

<ut si"&ly$ *nostics still lie within the rel" o! belie!$ they

si"&ly belie(e tht &rticulr belie!s cnnot be &ro(en or dis#

&ro(en$ nd re there!ore "bi(lent s to the relity or non#re#

lity o! such belie!s, A*nosticis" is only *nostic re*rdin* the

e%istence o! determinate entity, It is this &riori deter"intion

o! the nture o! bein* in question tht "'es the o&enness o! the

*nostic o&enness to deter"inte &otentils$ rther thn indeter#

"inble &ossibilities, The o&enness is not o&enness to "ystery

s the inherently indeter"inble$ hence to "ystery s such,

N(e theis"$ (ul*r theis" nd si"&listic *nosticis"

o(er#deter"ine their notion o! God$ whether they belie(e in it$

disbelie(e in it$ or re "bi(lent bout it, <ut si"&ly$ God cn

ne(er be n nswer$ nor cn e(er &ro(ide n nswer) God is n

unnswerble question$ nd yet necessry question, How o&en




we re"in to the de"nds o! the question tht we thin' beyond

bein*s to the sense o! the hori9on *inst which we e%&erience

ny *i(en bein*s deter"ines to lr*e de*ree who we re s

Sel(es in both n indi(idul nd shred sense, The question o!

God lwys includes the question o! the Sel!$ s Hussey discusses

in his tretise on the theolo*y o! Mrl Rhner, The question o!

the Sel! is not question about the Sel!) the Sel! itsel! is the

question nd is$ li'e the question o! God$ ulti"tely not !ully n#

swerble, The "et&hor o! "n bein* in the i"*e o! God

should be understood in concrete wy s the !und"entl inde#

ter"incy tht en(elo&s e(ery bein*$ but beco"es trnscen#

dent :ble to loo' t itsel!; indeter"incy in the Sel!#wre hu#

"n bein*,

What is our e;perience of ourselves and of ourworld? #ow do we e;perience our lives? 7he @ues-tion is not only “what do I have" but “who am I?"7he @uestion is about my own identity.

#ussey! $. 'dmund %F,+F-++-,4&. 7he Idea of

6hristianity: K rief Introduction to the 7heology of )arl ahner %)indle *ocations +GF-+GH&. . )indle 'dition.




We have all had e;periences of emptiness! of fragility and of the absurdity of many things thatconfront us. ut we have also had e;periences ofhope! of the liberating freedom which imposes real

burdens on us but which also blesses those burdensand ma0es them valuable. Kt times! we may betempted to thin0 that these e;periences are only il-lusions or that the ultimate ground of everything isactually an empty nothingness. ut in a transcen-dental e;perience we do not create the inCnite hori-

on. ather the inCnite horion manifests itself tous.

#ussey! $. 'dmund %F,+F-++-,4&. 7he Idea of

6hristianity: K rief Introduction to the 7heology of )arl ahner %)indle *ocations FE-F4F&. . )indle 'dition.

2hether Rhner/s .in-nite hori9on/ is n ctul or &otentil in#

-nity is too nunced to&ic to *o into here, As &otentilly in-#

nite but in ny *i(en relity ctully -nite$ the &&rent discre&#

ncy between Heide**er nd Rhner would beco"e insi*ni-#

cnt$ howe(er this "i*ht lso discount "ny o! Rhner/s own in#

si*hts, I/ll -nish with Rhner/s bsic conce&tion o! God s the in#

-nite hori9on nd wht tht i"&lies,

7he realities of our life become comprehensible andmanageable because we can put them into cate-gories of similar realities as well as spell out theirspeciCc dierences from other things. ut there isno such way of 0nowing od! who is totally dierent

from any of the concrete realities! which we e;peri-ence.




7he word “od" is apparently without a clear ety-mology and deCnitecontour. Knd appropriately so!

for it refers to the “nameless one" who is not part of the world! the “silent one" who is always present

but can be overloo0ed or passed over as meaning-less.


)arl ahner %)indle *ocations FE-F&. . )indle 'dition.




7he $eanings of the Word “od"

1. Nobody$ s in God only 'nows$ which could si"ultneously be

restricted to .nobody I 'now/,

2. 4ein*$ in the ori*inl error underlyin* "et&hysics "isinter#

&reted s the hi*hest bein* nd si"ultneously bein*ness,

3. Tht which dis&enses 'nowled*e tht doesn/t appear to h(e

ny hu"n ori*in, This is the ori*inl sense o! .the *ods/$ nd Hei#

de**er returns to it$ dis&ensin* with the @hristin *od s only con#

cei(ble within the berrtion o! "et&hysics,

4. The hori9on$ which !or Rhner is in-nite nd !or Heide**er -#

nite$ but which *rnts bein* by itsel! recedin* or withdrwin*, For

Rhner this is n in-nite "ystery, 4ein* is -nite !or Heide**er

since it de&ends on$ lthou*h is distinct !ro"$ Dsein, This lso

"ens !or Heide**er tht 4ein* in(ol(es "enin* nd there!ore

ln*u*e is the .house o! 4ein*/, Heide**er si"ultneously

shr&ly distin*uishes 4ein* !ro" the *ods,

5. The rbiter nd *urntor o! the "orl lw,




6. Theo$ s the ori*inry li*htin* u& tht "'es ny 'ind o! seein*

&ossible, Theo is &urely (erbl$ the no"inl !or" Theos didn/t

co"e into use until the d(ent o! "et&hysics,

7. Tht towrds which worshi& nd we is directed,

8. The *round o! relity, Not God s cretor bein* but relity s

the intrinsic "o(e"ent o! God !ro" out o! his own *round, For

Schellin* the *round o! God nd relity is un'nown e(en to God$

nd is the s&irit$ or ori*inry -re o! "n'ind tht deter"ines ech

"n/s identity$ in sense circlin* round so tht relity is the in#

trinsic "o(e"ent o! God !ro" out o! his *round$ nd the ori*in o!

"n/s identity is si"ultneously the *round o! God which is un#

'nown e(en to God hi"sel!,

9. The (oid$ s the s&lit ne*tion tht ne*tes itsel!, As the cuse o!

rndo"ness within syste"s the (oid could be thou*ht o! s the

creti(e !orce both inu*urtin* nd cusin* !urther chn*e in re#

lity,

10. S&irit s the retrocti(ely e1ccious telic cuse towrds

which ll e(olution nd history "o(es,




)arl ahner and od as the InCnite #orion

Jarticular Cnite ob8ects! chairs and tables and eggs!are in the foreground of our 0nowing! but in the

bac0ground! the bac0ground which can itself neverbecome the foreground! is our awareness of inCnite

eing D as an orientation towards mystery.

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introductionto )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *oca-tions FE-F4&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.

Whether he is consciously aware of it or not! whetherhe is open to this truth or suppresses it! man2s whole spiri-tual and intellectual e;istence is orientated towards a holy mystery which is the basis of his being. 7his mystery is theine;plicit and une;pressed horion which always encirclesand upholds the small area of our everyday e;perience of

0nowing and acting! our 0nowledge of reality and our freeaction. It is our most fundamental! most natural condition!but for that very reason it is also the most hidden andleast regarded reality! spea0ing to us by its silence! andeven whilst appearing to be absent! revealing its presenceby ma0ing us ta0e cogniance of our own limitations. %7I

IM +FF&

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocationsH+G-H+4&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.




$ystery! as ahner wants to use the word! is that whichwe cannot control! that which we cannot grasp or compre-

hend or deCne or manipulate. ut mystery in this sense isnot 8ust something that meets us at the edge of our 0nowl-edge. It is not a mystery which! if we only had a bit moreinformation! or a new insight! we could solve. It is not 8ustthat as yet there remain gaps in what we can 0now andcontrol. $ystery! as ahner thin0s it should be under-stood! is much more fundamental! more all-pervasive inour lives: $an is he who is always confronted with theholy mystery! even where he is dealing with what is within

hand2s reach! comprehensible and amenable to a concep-tual framewor0:

the holy mystery is not something upon which man may/also2 stumble! if he is luc0y and ta0es an interest in some-thing else besides the deCnable ob8ects within the horionof his consciousness. $an always lives by the holy mys-tery! even where he is not conscious of it. %7I IX EG&

Knd it is because we thus live in the presence of mys-

tery! in ahner2s view! that we can interact with thenon-mysterious! that we can 0now! control and manipulate

Cnite ob8ects:

$an always lives by the holy mystery! even where he isnot conscious of it. 7he lucidity of his consciousness de-rives from the incomprehensibility of this mystery. 7hepro;imity of his environment is constituted by the distantaloofness of the mystery: the freedom of his mastery of

things comes from his being mastered by the #oly whichis itself unmastered. %7I IX EG&

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocationsHFH-HH,&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.




7he horion cannot be comprised within the horion ...7he ultimate measure cannot be measured1 the boundary

which delimits all things cannot itself be bounded by a stillmore distant limit ... %7I IX E+&

Knd yet! in spite of all this! transcendental e;periencecannot simply remain totally inarticulate! but must alwayssee0 to be e;pressed! if always inade@uately! in the realmof the categorical. =r to put it dierently! we must always

try to e;press our transcendental e;perience. 7he e;pres-sion can ta0e place in language Z in philosophy or poetry Zor through other means Z art! music! religious symbolsand actions. 7he attempt to articulate always in some way

fails Z the articulation can never be ade@uate to the origi-nal e;perience. ut the attempt must nevertheless alwaysbe made. Burthermore! the attempt itself is important. 7hevery e;pression of the e;perience! ahner maintains! is al-ways a shaping moment in the e;perience: what is e;peri-

enced is partly determined by how this e;perience is e;-pressed.

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocationsHE-H4E&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.

K stronger analogy can be found in the notion of anall-pervasive mood. K mood colours and shapes the wholeof one2s e;perience! and yet precisely because it is soall-pervasive one can be almost unaware of it. K personcan return to a city in which she once lived! for e;ample!and! seeing the old familiar landmar0s! suddenly realie




for the Crst time that she had been unhappy when livingthere. Kt the time she may only have been aware of theparticular goals she was wor0ing towards! the particularproblems she was confronting! the ever-changing

day-to-day concerns! and not of the underlying moodwhich was colouring all of these activities and the wholeof her e;istence. ut that does not ma0e the mood unrealor unimportant:

D though unnoticed! it may have been far more impor-tant in shaping her e;perience than the more obviousdaily goings on. In a similar way our transcendental e;pe-rience is all-pervasive! all-important! and yet easilymissed: what is most basic and original and most Self-evi-

dent can also be what is most able to be overloo0ed and ismost able to be suppressed. %B6B F&

Knd 8ust as it may be easier to concentrate on one2sday-to-day activities than to as0 if one is fundamentallyhappy! so we may not in fact particularly want to be awareof our transcendental e;perience. *ife may be simpler ifwe ignore it:

D 3many people5 live at a distance from themselves inthat concrete part of their lives and of the world aroundthem which can be manipulated and controlled. 7hey haveenough to do there! and it is very interesting and impor-tant. Knd if they ever reLect at all on anything which goesbeyond all this! they can always say that it is more sensi-ble not to brea0 one2s head over it. %B6B HF&

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocationsH4-H&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.




In one sense ahner2s basic picture of the human being!whether set out in terms of the Xorgri or of our orienta-tion to mystery or of our transcendental e;perience! is e;-traordinarily optimistic: everyone is at all times having to

do with od! e;periencing od! aware of od. ot 8ustmystics! but all human beings have a profound and contin-uous connection to od. ut in another way the picture isnot @uite so positive: if everyone is at all times having todo with od! e;periencing od! aware of od! it is alsotrue that no one ever has to do with od! e;periences od!is aware of od in the way in which we have to do with!e;perience or are aware of anything or anyone else.

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocationsH-HG&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.

7his is a point on which ahner insists again and again!a point which all his images underline and which all histal0 of mystery is intended to reinforce: od is never

0nown in the way that ob8ects are 0nown. 7he inCnity to-wards which the mind moves is never grasped in the sameway as are the ob8ects which become 0nowable in thismovement. 7he light is never 0nown directly! but only inits illumination of particular! concrete ob8ects. 7he light isonly 0nown as that which lights up what we see before us.7he ever-present mystery of our e;istence can never bepenetrated and grasped1 it can never be solved! so that itceases to be a mystery. 7he horion is never 0nown itself

as an ob8ect! for every 0nowing of an ob8ect occurs againstthe bac0ground of the horion. 7he horion! as ahnersometimes puts it! always recedes Z if we try to grasp it! total0 about it! to thin0 about it directly! we are necessarilyusing words and concepts which are really only appropri-ate for ob8ects. If we try to grasp the horion! if we try tospea0 of it or to focus our vision on it! we Cnd that what




we have in fact got is again an ob8ect! something that is it-self only 0nown against the horion.

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocationsHG-G,H&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.

od! in short! is never 0nown as one thing among oth-ers. od cannot ever be for us /a member of the largerhousehold of all reality2. ahner suggests indeed that

atheists are perfectly right in denying the e;istence of odif it is this sort of od! a od who can e;ist side by sidewith the things in the world! that they thin0 they are deny-ing.

)ilby! )aren %F,,E-,G-+&. 7he SJ6) Introduction to )arl ahner %SJ6) Introductions& %)indle *ocations G,G-G,4&. SJ6). )indle 'dition.




7he Self and 'vil

7he Kncient 6onception of 'vil:

The Erly Gree' Thin'ers The Gree' thin'ers co""only re#

!erred to s the &re#Socrtics dis&ly wide (riety o! hy&othe#

ses on the source nd nture o! e(il$ while s !r s the wor' tht

is still e%tnt the ides re lr*ely unde(elo&ed$ they re the

source !or "ny o! the (rious strnds o! thou*ht tht &&er in

lter !or"ultions, <rior to the Gree' thin'ers$ western thou*ht

on e(il &&ers to h(e been "inly bsed on the notion o! n b#

solute "orl lw :lthou*h ewish rbbis s&ent "uch o! their

ti"e inter&retin* the lw$ the notion o! chn*e to the "orl lw

ws chn*e o(er ll ewish society s ti"es chn*ed, Our le*l

syste" e"bodies si"ilr &ers&ecti(e in the notion o! &rece#

dent;, The Gree' thin'ers were the -rst to h(e &ro&erly .ethi#

cl/ &ers&ecti(e$ where *ood nd e(il hd to be deter"ined in the

s&eci-c sitution :Our le*l syste" e"bodies this s&ect in the

require"ent tht intent be de"onstrted in "ost cri"inl cses;,

For Herclitus$ *ood nd e(il re li'e di+erent notes in sy"#




&hony, He !ound tht "ny thin*s chn*e into their o&&osites6

!or e%"&le$ hrd ice "elts into wter$ which is so!t, This led hi"

to belie(e tht the co"bintion o! o&&osites resulted in hr"o#

nious whole, In "usic$ hr"ony results !ro" the co"bintion o!

low nd hi*h notes$ while in the uni(erse hr"ony Bows !ro" the

co"bintion o! o&&osites6 *ood nd e(il, Hr"ony continued to

be the"e in ter"s o! thin'in* bout the nture o! e(il$ lthou*h

in "ny cses e(il is lter seen intrinsiclly s dishr"ony$

rther thn &rt o! hr"ony,

De"ocritus$ s !r s we 'now$ ws the -rst thin'er in ncient

Greece to &ostulte the telos o! li!e s h&&iness, As result

wht is conduci(e to h&&iness is *ood$ wht o&&oses h&&iness

is e(il, He de-nes h&&iness itsel! s condition or stte o! trn#

quility o! the Sel!, De"ocritus lso hd relti(ely d(nced eth#

icl notion o! *oodness$ which ws not only "tter o! ction but

de&ends u&on "n/s inner desire6 the *ood "n is not deter#

"ined by his doin* *ood$ but by his lwys#wntin* to do *ood,

In these !or"ultions De"ocritus directly ssocites *oodness

with Sel!#will$ nd e(il i"&licitly with the s"e ori*in, Howe(er

e(il is not !or"ulted s &ositi(e &heno"enon directly$ but es#




sentilly lc'6 so"ethin* tht is not conduci(e to h&&iness)

not lwys#wntin* to do *ood, This dul de-nition lso ntici#

&tes the @hristin se&rtion o! .nturl e(il/ nd .(olitionl

e(il/,

<yth*ors &osited "n s the "esure$ the stndrd o! ll

thin*s$ includin* *ood nd e(il, How this &osit wor's out in &rc#

ticl delin*s is not entirely cler$ howe(er$ in wht hs sur(i(ed

o! <yth*ors/ own wor's, Followers o! <yth*ors &lced "orl#

ity squrely in socil trdition) thin'ers such s such s Thrsy#

"chus nd @llicles went ste& !urther nd sid tht there re

no "orl lws$ no &rinci&les o! ri*ht nd wron*, Good nd e(il

re si"&ly "tter o! trdition nd hbit, 3n is not bound by

"orl codes$ he is !ree to li(e s he desires nd to *et wht he

wnts by ny "ens &ossible nd to !r"e his own code o! li!e,

As i! ntici&tin* Niet9sche "illenni lter$ @llicles is quoted s

syin* . To Hell with "orlity$ this hs been &ro&ounded by the

we' to debilitte the &ower o! the stron*,/




7he Kncient 6onception of 'vil: Jlato

Althou*h the dulis" o! *ood nd e(il s !ounded in the se&#

rtion between the ides nd their e"bodi"ent in "tter is o!ten

ttributed to <lto$ it is ctully lter Neo#<ltonist !or"ul#

tion, <lto/s conce&tion o! the Good is the *uide to his ctul !or#

"ultion o! e(il,

<lto !ro" the be*innin* identi-es the Good with the true$ e(il

with the !lse, The hi*hest !or"$ or Ide$ is the Good$ which in

turn illu"intes ll the other Ides, As such the Ide o! the Good

is not only the hi*hest Good in itsel!$ but lso the truest truth, A

*ood !or "n is (irtue$ 'nowled*e o! Ide o! the *ood is the

hi*hest (irtue, Since <lto discusses the Ide o! the Good nd o!

(irtue "ore thn e(il nd its correlte in the Sel!$ nd both &#

&er to chn*e si*ni-cntly o(er the course o! the dilo*ues$ in

order to understnd his !or"ultion o! e(il n o(er(iew o! the

Ide o! the Good is necessry,

In the erly dilo*ues$ so"eti"es on wht &&er to be di#

rectly Socrtic ter"s$ so"eti"es on ter"s tht di+er !ro" wht




cn be *lened bout the ctul Socrtes$ the chrcters chl#

len*e the custo"ry notions o! .(irtue/ . the socil .s'ills/$ tti#

tudes$ or chrcter#trits tht were ll too o!ten *ered towrds

their &ossessors/ success$ to the detri"ent o! their nei*hbors/ or

the co""unity/s well#bein*, In "odi-ction o! Niet9sche/s

ter"s$ <lto/s erly dilo*ues "ount to .re(lution o! ll

(irtues/,

Towrds wht is o!ten t'en s the "iddle &eriod o! his de(el#

o&"ent$ his Ide o! the Good s wht illu"intes the (irtues$ nd

thus 'nowled*e o! which is the hi*hest (irtue$ t'es o(er tten#

tion !ro" &rticulr (irtues, In ter"s o! the (irtues$ this leds to

the result tht wisdo" :'nowled*e o! the Good; is the hi*hest

(irtue, In the Re&ublic$ !or e%"&le$ other (irtues such s

cour*e$ "odertion$ nd e(en 0ustice &resu&&ose certin

sted!stness o! &ur&ose nd hr"ony "on* the dis&rte

&rts o! the &syche$ but their *oodness de&ends entirely on wis#

do" s 'nowled*e o! the Good,

How "uch cn be in!erred on the de(elo&"entl "odel is de#

btble howe(er, Althou*h it/s not unresonble to ssu"e

<lto/s thou*ht did de(elo& o(er the course o! his li!e$ it/s not




cler within the literry structure o! the dilo*ues how "uch is

ctul de(elo&"ent o! thou*ht$ nd how "uch nrrti(e o! de#

(elo&"ent tht only e%ists in the &resenttion, For instnce$ the

.di(ine wor'"n/ in the lte dilo*ues is &re-*ured in the erly

dilo*ues nd the notion ridiculed, To "'e the ssu"&tion tht

<lto chn*ed his "ind on his initil disli'e o! the notion i*nores

the !ct tht wht is sid concernin* the .di(ine wor'"n/ is sid

by one o! his chrcters$ nd s such "y reBect <lto/s thou*ht$

"y reBect the chrcter/s belie!$ nd s such be rhetoricl de#

(ice !or <lto$ or "y e(en be "erely rhetoricl de(ice o! the

chrcter in question tht the chrcter hi"sel! doesn/t ctully

hold#!or#true, The ltter is$ in !ct$ the "ost li'ely inter&rettion$

since .di(ine wor'"n/ would *i(e the Ides n ori*in$ in which

cse they would not truly be eternl$ the requisite !or !ully .4e#

in*/ in the <ltonic syste",

For e(il to e%ist in the world o! &&ernce$ there hs to be n

Ide o! E(il !ro" which the &&ernces o! e(il cn *in their de#

ter"intion s e(il, The Neo#<ltonists si"&le identi-ction o!

e(il with "tter nd *ood with the Ides !lls &rt on this bsis,

In the lte dilo*ues <lto/s syste" is &resented "ore directly




thn in the erlier$ where the &roble" the notion o! the Ides is

"ent to sol(e is the !ocus, At the s"e ti"e$ thou*h$ <lto is

"ore !ocused on the ctul hu"n bein*$ rther thn the eternl

Ide o! the hu"n bein*, This !ocus on the ctul hu"n bein* is

the source o! the &&rent re(oction o! his disli'e o! the ide o!

the .di(ine wor'"n/ "entioned bo(e, The .di(ine wor'"n/ s

rel entity$ in <lto/s ter"s$ is so"ethin* to be "de !un o!$ be#

cuse the Ides s creted would be i"&er!ect$ not eternl, How#

e(er in delin* with hu"n bein*s tht re lso i"&er!ect nd

not eternl$ nd "oreo(er &rt'e o! the &er!ection o! the Ides

to *reter nd lesser de*rees$ it beco"es use!ul rhetoricl de#

(ice !or Socrtes in delin* with those &eo&le !or who" direct in#

tellectul &&rehension o! the Ides is not$ or not yet$ ttinble,

It/s i"&ortnt in this conte%t to recollect tht rhetoric$ s de-ned

in the erly dilo*ues$ cn only tech true or !lse belie!$ which

is distin*uished i""editely !ro" 'nowled*e,

<lto scribes to the &syche$ s to the stte$ tri&rtite struc#

ture6 lo*isti'on$ thu"oeides nd .&ithu"/ti'on, It "y be use!ul

to loo' t the r*u"ent underlyin* the &rtitionin* sche"e$

rther thn trnsltin* the" i""editely into ter"s whose




"enin* is lredy &rede-ned !or us$ &rticulrly since the

sche"e hs been "isinter&reted by "ny$ i! not "ost o! the co"#

"enttors on it$ *ood nu"ber o! who" -nd it contrdictory,

Socrtes/ r*u"ent in the Re&ublic !or the sche"e t'es

nu"ber o! !or"s$ bsed round the notion o! Sel!#conBict,

Socrtes/ -rst e%"&le is tht o! the o&ticl illusion o! stri*ht

stic' &rtilly sub"er*ed$ in which it &&ers bent, In e%&erienc#

in* the o&ticl illusion$ Socrtes &oints out tht lthou*h one

thin* cnnot hold o&&osites re*rdin* the s"e thin* t the

s"e ti"e$ we si"ultneously .belie(e/ both the clcultions

de"onstrtin* it to be illusory$ nd the illusion, Hence there hs

to be two .&rts/ o! the &syche in(ol(ed$ ech belie(in* one o! the

contrdictory ides, The illusion tr*ets n .in!erior/ &rt o! the

&syche$ the clculti(e &rt bein* the .su&erior/ &rt,

His second nd "ore i"&ortnt$ but "ore di1cult e%"&le is

tht o! i"itti(e &oetry, In e%"inin* the &oetic tr*edy$ <lto

-rst distin*uishes tr*edy s sub0ect "tter :the beh(iors it

re&resents; !ro" tr*edy s e+ect :the e"otions en*endered in

the udience;, He then &roceeds to describe how tr*edy hs the

e+ect o! risin* e"otionlity6 it . leds us towrd "e"ories o!




su+erin* nd towrd l"enttion nd is instible !or these

thin*s/ ) it . . hun*ers !or the stis!ction o! wee&in* nd thor#

ou*hly l"entin*$ bein* by nture such s to h(e &&etites !or

these thin*s/ , The .su&erior/ &rt o! the &syche is *in de#

scribed s clculti(e in the sense o! "esurin* nd "esured$

but not in the direct sense o! the -rst e%"&le$ where the stic'

cn be ."esured/ literlly nd de"onstrted to be stri*ht

where the illusion shows it s bent, <lto lso uses word trns#

lted *enerlly s deliberti(e interchn*ebly with clculti(e,

In bein* deliberti(e one is bein* clcultin*$ in ter"s o! the

"esure o! e"otion tht is &&ro&rite,

The bo(e *i(es us dulistic structure$ howe(er$ not tri&r#

tite one :the dulity o! the .in!erior/ &rt is discussed elsewhere

in the Re&ublic;, It is this not distin*uishin*$ in these two e%"#

&les$ between the two .in!erior/ &rts tht led so"e co""ent#

tors to -nd it Sel!#contrdictory, <lto doesn/t distin*uish here

thou*h becuse the distinction is not rele(nt to the !und"entl

distinction tht leds hi" to &osit the helthy &syche s the one

.ruled/ or .controlled/ by the clculti(e !culty$ which <lto

n"es the lo*isti'on, 2hile this is o!ten trnslted s the .rtio#




nl/ &rt o! the &syche$ the two .in!erior/ &rts contin "ny t#

tributes nd re res&onsible !or "uch tht we would *enerlly in#

clude under the hedin* .rtionl/,

The two .in!erior/ &rts re res&onsible !or the &ssions nd

&erce&tion$ but lso belie!s$ includin* nor"ti(e nd e(luti(e

ones$ the bility to be &ersuded by r*u"ent$ nd the bility to

reco*ni9e "ens towrd *i(en ends, These ttributes re con#

(entionlly ttributed to the rtionl s&ects o! the &syche, At

the s"e ti"e the .clculti(e/ &rt lso contins e"otion$ de#

sire$ hun*er nd other !etures con(entionlly described s irr#

tionl,

The .in!erior/ &rts re not$ in the "nner o! Freud/s id$ un#

thin'in* or unconscious, For <lto ll three &rts o! the &syche

re conscious nd Sel!#wre$ nd cn decide whether or not to

be ruled by the lo*isti'on, The lo*isti'on hs the bility to clcu#

lte$ 0ud*e$ nd reBecti(ely deter"ine the &&ro&riteness o!

thou*hts$ e"otions$ desires$ etc,$ nd ensure ."esured/ re#

s&onse to thin*s nd e(ents, 2hile thu"oeides nd .&ithu"/ti'on

re o!ten trnslted s .s&irit/ nd .&&etite/$ they "i*ht better

be described s .te"&er/ nd .desire/$ but their sttus s &rts o!




Sel!#wre consciousness shouldn/t be !or*otten in !(or o! "od#

ern &sycholo*y/s notions o! the unconscious, Tht <lto cn de#

scribe the lo*isti'on s .clcultin*/ &ro&er e"otionl res&onse

de"onstrtes the reduction tht hs t'en &lce in the notion o!

clcultion$ corres&ondin* to the reduction o! "thesis to "the#

"tics$ nd the reduction o! the sub0ect "tter o! the sciences to

wht cn be &hysiclly "esured,

<lto/s descri&tion o! the &syche thus corres&onds to the "et#

&hysicl Sel!, The lo*isti'on$ which <lto describes s&eci-clly s

not bein* &resent in the child$ is the I#Sub0ect, This clcultin*

s&ect o! the &syche is &recisely wht "'es bstrct thou*ht$

ethics nd "et&hysics &ossible, It is the lo*isti'on tht sees re#

lity in s&eci-clly technolo*icl wy$ nd only (i tht seein*

is technolo*y s wy o! re(elin* relity in s&eci-c wy &ossi#

ble, Tht the lo*isti'on contins the s"e !etures s the .in!e#

rior/ &rts$ but in di+erent$ reBected wy "'es it &ossible !or

lter thin'ers to conBte the I#Sub0ect nd the Sel!,

The lo*isti'on is lso tht which$ !or <lto$ cn &&rehend the

Ide o! Goodness (i the (irtue o! wisdo" :in co""on Gree' n

lo*isto*os re!ers to so"eone !oolish;, Fro" this we cn see how




e(il$ !or <lto$ consists in those thin*s in the Sel! tht do not !ol#

low the lo*isti'on/s clcultion o! the .ri*ht/ "esure, For chil#

dren$ s &re#"et&hysicl bein*s$ rules h(e to be !ollowed, The

"et&hysicl dult on the other hnd$ in sense does con!or" to

the <yth*oren !or"ul$ in tht it contins its own "esure,

This "esure$ thou*h$ rises throu*h the lo*isti'on/s bility to

"esure (i its ccess to the Ides$ &rticulrly the Ide o! the

Good$ which illu"intes ll the others,

<lto lso c'nowled*es e(il in the sense o! . nturl/ e(il,

7heodorus! it is not possible for evils to be destroyed2 for necessarily there must always be something oppositeto the good2 nor for them to get foothold among the gods!but out of necessity they fre@uent human nature and lo-cales. 7herefore it is necessary to attempt escaping fromthat place as @uic0ly as possible. 'scape is becoming li0ea god as far as it is possible! and this becoming is to be-come 8ust and holy with wisdom. %7heaet. +T4aE-bH&

<lto here s&eci-clly describes "et&hysicl 'nowin* s be#

co"in* . li'e *od s !r s it is &ossible/ $ since e(ils cnnot .

*et !oothold "on* the *ods/ , Reli*ion in <lto is not n esy

thin* to describe$ since n e%&ecttion o! totli9in* belie!#sys#

te" is not "et, 3et&hysics is not yet ssu"ed in <lto$ s re#




sult the reli*ion we -nd is itsel! not "et&hysicl$ it cnnot itsel!

be "et&hysicl belie!#syste" becuse such reli*ion hs to

h(e "et&hysics lredy s n ssu"&tion, It would be silly to

sy tht <lto is irreli*ious !or tht reson$ howe(er$ since e(en

his school ws !unded s&eci-clly s reli*ious institution, The

ide o! . beco"in* holy with wisdo"/ is !und"entl &rt o!

<lto/s notion o! the reli*ious nd is described s n esc&e !ro"

li!e,

It is li0ely that people do not notice that all those whocorrectly ta0e part in philosophy do nothing other thanma0e a practice of dying and of being dead. If this is trueit would be strange indeed for someone to be eager in hiswhole life for nothing other than that! but that when it ar-rives what for a long time they were striving for and prac-ticing would now grieve them. %Jhdo. 4GaG-&

Here the notion o! esc&e !ro" li!e is s&eci-clly *i(en the

!or" o! 'ind o! .deth in li!e/ ,

Eros is seen s n &&ro%i"tion to the e%&erience o! the di#

(ine in <lto, The e&i&hnic nture o! erotic &&rehension is

clue s to the ori*in o! the nlo*y,




7he man who has been tutored up to this point in mat-ters of love! viewing beautiful things in proper se@uenceand correctly! approaching now the end of the matters oflove! will suddenly behold in vision a beauty wondrous in

nature. %Sym. F+,e&This .sudden/ beholdin*$ tht howe(er only occurs !ter &re&#

rtion . in &ro&er sequence/ describes the notion o! e&i&hny s

tht "o"ent when indi(idul &ieces o! 'nowled*e on "tter

suddenly . -t to*ether/$ the i"&licit reltions tht "'e those in#

di(idul &ieces o! 'nowled*e &rt o! . one/ "tter in !unctionl

rrn*e"ent$ rther thn n rbitrry set$ *i(e us . sudden/ $

syste"ic &&rehension o! the "tter s whole, This &&rehen#

sion o! so"ethin* . s whole/ $ nd in &rticulr the e&i&hnic

nture o! e%&eriencin* this &&rehension "'e it &&er . *od#

li'e/ ,




(irtues$ but ctin* (irtuously, =i'e De"ocritus$ Aristotle &osits

h&&iness s the telos o! ctin* (irtuously, Howe(er !or Aristotle

h&&iness is not .eudi"on/$ or !(ored :by the *ods;$ but .eu

9/n/$ li(in* well, 2hile Aristotle *rees with <lto in the sense

tht the !oundtion o! li(in* well is li(in* ccordin* to the (irtues

o! the rtionl &syche$ Aristotle/s de"rction o! di+erent s#

&ects o! the &syche is "ore &hysiclly oriented$ such tht wht is

the rtionl &syche !or Aristotle co"&rises the whole o! <lto/s

&syche, Aristotle ssu"es tht i! the &syche is helthy$ the lo*is#

ti'on rules the others nd s result the &syche cts in uni-ed

"nner des&ite not e%&eriencin* in uni-ed "nner, As result

the distinction$ !or Aristotle$ is only o! interest to those ttendin*

to &eo&le with "entl illness, 2hile Aristotle hi"sel! does not

conBte the lo*isti'on nd the &syche$ his lc' o! interest in the

distinction in ter"s o! ctin* led lter thin'ers to do 0ust tht,

H&&iness !or Aristotle is not$ thou*h$ de"r'ed by the us#

terity o! <lto/s (irtues, In order to be h&&y one "ust &ossess

others *oods s well # such *oods s !riends$ welth$ nd &ower,

And one/s h&&iness is endn*ered i! one is se(erely lc'in* in

certin d(nt*es # i!$ !or e%"&le$ one is e%tre"ely u*ly$ or hs




lost children or *ood !riends throu*h deth, He de!ends this &osi#

tion by sttin* tht (irtuous cti(ity will be di"inished or de!ec#

ti(e i! one lc's these thin*s, A lc' o! !riends$ children$ &ower$

welth$ stren*th$ or beuty will "'e it di1cult to -nd "ny o&#

&ortunities !or consistent (irtuous cti(ity$ nd the o&&ortunities

tht do co"e will not de"onstrte ny *ret "erit in the &erson

in(ol(ed, =i(in* well requires *ood !ortune, irtuous cti(ity is

not so"ethin* tht co"es to us by chnce$ lthou*h the o&&ortu#

nity does, 2e "ust be luc'y enou*h to h(e &rents who hel& h#

bitute the (irtues$ nd !riends nd ssocites who encour*e

their use, 2e oursel(es thou*h "ust wor' t cquirin* the

(irtues$ nd h(e ll the res&onsibility !or e%ercisin* the" to the

e%tent tht we h(e the o&&ortunity to do so,




7he Kncient 6onception of 'vil: It2s *ate Borm in Jloti -nus

For <lotinus$ the -rst &otentility o! e(il occurs t the le(el o!

Soul) !or it see"s tht here$ bein* be*ins to &resent with cer#

tin instbility6

The chrcteristic o! the li!e o! Soul is "o(e"ent !ro" one

thin* to nother) unli'e intellect$ it does not &ossess bein* s

whole$ but only one &rt t ti"e$ nd "ust lwys be "o(in*

!ro" one to the other) it is on the le(el o! discursi(e thou*ht$

which does not hold its ob0ect in i""edite &ossession but hs to

see' it by &rocess o! resonin*) nd its continul "o(e"ent

!ro" one thin* to nother &roduces ti"e$ which is .the li!e o! the

soul in "o(e"ent/ ) this "o(e"ent o! soul is the cuse o! ll

&hysicl "o(e"ent in s&ce nd ti"e,

4ein* see"s to bre' down t this le(el, The entry o! ti"e nd

its counter&oint "otion$ see" to &(e the wy !or corru&tion

when !or"erly there ws none in the bsence o! ti"e nd "otion,

4ut wouldn/t there$ o! necessity$ h(e been so"e "otion in Soul

s creti(e source8 Is "otion not &ri"ry$ or ele"entry$ to cre#

tion8 <lotinus relly see"s to h(e issues with nythin* tht is




c&ble o! "otion6

7he nature of bodies! in so far as it participates in mat-ter! will be an evil! not the primal evil. Bor bodies have a

sort of form which is not true form! and they are deprivedof life! and in their disorderly motion they destroy eachother! and they hinder the soul in its proper activity! andthey evade reality in their continual Low! being secondaryevil. %I..G&

And he denies "otion in the cts o! the Good6

7hat intellect is the Crst act of the ood and the Crst

substance1 the ood stays still in himself1. . . %I.F.4&

Howe(er$ <lotinus does not d"it to the &ossibility o! e(il ris#

in* our o! "otion within the tertiry o! !or"s :One$ Intellect$

Soul;6

/ 7his is the life of the gods!2 without sorrow andblessed1 evil is nowhere here! and if things had stoppedhere there would not have been any evil! only a Birst andthe second and third good. %I..F&

And !ter this ssess"ent on the nture o! these three *oods$

<lotinus &lces e(il outside the rel" o! the e%istent6

/ If! then! these are what really e;ists and what is beyond e;istence! the evil cannot be included in what reallye;ists or in what is beyond e;istence1 for these are good.So it remains that if evil e;ists! it must be among non-e;is-tent things! as a sort of form of non-e;istence! and pertainto one of the things that are mingled with non-being orsomehow share in non-being. %I..H&




W#K72S 7#' $K77' WI7# $K77'? =7#I.

2e eli"inte e(ery 'ind o! For") nd the ob0ect in which there

is none whte(er we cll 3tter :I,,L; 3tter$ to <lotinus see"s

to be the <ltonic ,,,) it is utter !or"lessness$ onto which the eter#

nl Ides so"ehow &lce !or" nd so &roduce the sensible

world, It is n ulti"tely &ssi(e &heno"en$ h(in* on its own

no (oliti(e c&bility, ohn Hic' &ut it succinctly when he wrote6 .

4y itsel!$ howe(er$ nd &rt !ro" its condition s h(in* been

*i(en !or" by the Ides$ "tter cnnot e(en be sid to e%ist,/

This would see" to be the hei*ht o! &rdo% within the <lo#

tinic syste") tht tht which see"s to be n essence o! &ssi(ity

should be res&onsible !or wht beco"es the reco*ni9ble qulity$

e(il, For ll o! its lc'$ &ri(tion$ ne*tion$ !or"lessness$ etc,$ it

see"s to h(e n cti(e &otentility within it$ ins&irin* the qul#

ity o! e(il into whiche(er For" is &lced u&on it, So how is it tht

tht which is Non#4ein* is ble to +ect tht which hs bein*8

How is Non#4ein* &&rently ble to +ect bein* to the &oint o!

&&rent corru&tion8




. . . and everything which participates in it and is madeli0e it becomes evil! though not essential evil. %I..H&

3tter here see"s to e%hibit &ositi(e !orce$ it see"s c&ble

o! e%ertin* cti(e !orce u&on For", Indeed <lotinus hd e(en

*one so !r s to sy tht "tter &er&etully s&ires towrds

substnce$ tht it is lwys tryin* to be$ but ne(er bein*) lwys

tryin* to sei9e bein*$ but lwys thwrted$ indeed it does these

thin*s by "ens o! Sel!#ssertion :t,,/,; nd be**in* :,,s(,t,,;:III$

U$ V$ K;, At the (ery lest$ "tter chr*es For" with certin

instbility6

Bor matter masters what is imaged in it and corruptsand destroys it by applying its own nature which is con-

trary to form! not putting cold to hot but putting its own formlessness to the form of heat and its shapelessness tothe shape and its e;cess and defect to that which is mea-sured! till it has made the form belong to matter and nolonger to itself %+..&

The <lotinic use o! ne*tion$ the &o&htic "ethod$ is !ru*ht

with *ret di1culty nd &rdo% in nu"ber o! its uses in de-n#

in* e(il$ &rticulrly when it is contrsted with the Good, It is

curious thin* tht <lotinus re*rds the Good s . the "esure

nd bound o! ll thin*s/ while "intinin* tht e(il is boundless#




ness :I,,K;, 2ould this not "en tht e(il is *reter thn Good$

tht i! in its bein* it is not bounded :,&e,,,,;it "ust occu&y

*reter "esure thn Good$ which cn be s&o'en o! with quli#

ties such s "esure nd bounded8 In the <lotinic e"ntion$

e(il is ine%tricbly lin'ed with the Good which ssocition neces#

srily trnishes the i"*e o! the Good$ cllin* into question the

qulity o! intellect o! the Intellect, . this is the li!e o! the *ods$/

without sorrow nd blessed) e(il is nowhere here$ nd i! thin*s

hd sto&&ed here there would not h(e been ny e(il$ only First

nd the second nd third *oods,

%I..F& #ow! since the ood had not stopped here! couldits goodness still be maintained? Bor it has allowed evil tospill out from the furthest limits of its emanation. =nemust @uestion whether in this system! if matter! which hasno place within Intellect! wherein Borm is conceived andhas its being! somehow more powerful than Borm? #owcould meontic being be more dynamic! more inLuentialthan that which is elemental to the creative source! theood? Why was it that Jlotinus was unwilling to spea0purely of such things as motion or potentiality when hecame to spea0 of evil? In his boo0 od! eing! and oth-ing! eorge Seidel notes this of the Ktomists: Bor as (em-

ocritus put it laconically! /othing %2.d..& e;ists 8ust asmuch as does anything % &.2 If non-being e;ists 8ust asmuch as does being! then we may well wonder what (em-ocritus means by being. Knd the answer is clear: being ismotion. Bor after Jarmenides2 sharp and incisive thoughton the sub8ect! there could be motion only if there would




be some /place!2 that is! /no place2 %non-being&! into whichbeing might move.

It would see" tht "tter is &lce within which For" cn e%#

&ress its bein*$ which "o(e"ent is quli-ed e+ecti(ely in boo'

bout <lotinic &hiloso&hy by ohn Dec'6

/ ut since no real being departs from real being! it fol-lows that the images of real being! which are the logoi of

sensible things! must be received into another / into mat-ter. If real being appears! or appears to appear! in the visi-ble cosmos! this receptacle! matter! is necessary. owmatter is not real being and so it cannot receive real be-ing: it is and remains non-being. It is a seat of place pre-pared for being! it /strives2 for being! but being does notcome to it: thus it is and remains being in potency. Jloti-nus leaves a close reader with the impression that hisgreatest concern was to safeguard the unity and absolutegoodness of the =ne! and was perhaps more concerned

about this than developing a feasible system with which toaccommodate evil. 7his it seems to me! would account forhis e@uating non-being with evil. It had of necessity to beplaced outside the 8urisdiction of the =ne! which is noth-ing short of all! of Kbsolute eing! and as it had to havebeen this remote from the ood! Jlotinus had to associatewith it the word evil. %I would suggest the word / de.2 to bean editorial error! though I could not Cnd an edition of

(emocritus to verify this. 7he meaning intended! however!

is clear.&




7he 6atholic 6onception of 'vil

An ccount o! e(il "y be *thered !ro" the techin* o! St,

Tho"s Aquins$ by who" the &rinci&les o! St, Au*ustine re

syste"ti9ed$ nd to so"e e%tent su&&le"ented, E(il$ ccordin*

to St, Tho"s$ is &ri(tion$ or the bsence o! so"e *ood which

belon*s &ro&erly to the nture o! the creture, :I$?, %i($ , ) ?,

%li%$ , K) @ontr Gentiles$ III$ i%$ %;, There is there!ore no .su"#

"u" "lu"/$ or &ositi(e source o! e(il$ corres&ondin* to the

.su""u" bonu"/$ which is God :I$ ?, %li%$ , K) @, G,$ III$ ) De

3lo$ I$ ;) e(il bein* not .ens rele/ but only .ens rtionis//i,e, it

e%ists not s n ob0ecti(e !ct$ but s sub0ecti(e conce&tion)

thin*s re e(il not in the"sel(es$ but by reson o! their reltion

to other thin*s$ or &ersons, All relities :enti; re in the"sel(es

*ood) they &roduce bd results only incidentlly) nd conse#

quently the ulti"te cuse o! e(il i! !und"entlly *ood$ s well

s the ob0ects in which e(il is !ound :I$ ?, %li%) c!, I$ ?, ($ K) De

3lo$ I$ K;, Thus the 3nichen dulis" hs no !oundtion in

reson,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / 7'"

'vil is threefold! vi.! /malum natur22 %metaphysicalevil&! /culp22 %moral&! and /paen22 %physical! the retributiveconse@uence of /malum culp22& %I! N. ;lviii! a. E! 41 N. l;iii!a. 1 (e $alo! I! G&. Its e;istence subserves the perfection

of the whole1 the universe would be less perfect if it con-tained no evil. 7hus Cre could not e;ist without the corrup-tion of what it consumes1 the lion must slay the ass in or-der to live! and if there were no wrongdoing! there wouldbe no sphere for patience and 8ustice %I! N. ;lviii! a. F&. odis said %as in Isaiah GE& to be the author of evil in thesense that the corruption of material ob8ects in nature isordained by #im! as a means for carrying out the designof the universe1 and on the other hand! the evil which e;-ists as a conse@uence of the breach of (ivine laws is in the

same sense due to (ivine appointment1 the universe wouldbe less perfect if its laws could be bro0en with impunity.7hus evil! in one aspect! i.e. as counter-balancing the de-ordination of sin! has the nature of good %II! N. ii! a. +&.

ut the evil of sin %culp2&! though permitted by od! is inno sense due to him %I! N. ;li;! a. F&.1 its cause is the abuseof free will by men %I-II! N. l;;iii! a. 41 II-II! N. ;! a. F1 I-II!N. i;! a. H&. It should be observed that the universal perfec-tion to which evil in some form is necessary! is the perfec-

tion of this universe! not of any universe: metaphysicalevil! that is to say! and indirectly! moral evil as well! is in-cluded in the design of the universe which is partially0nown to us1 but we cannot say without denying the (i-vine omnipotence! that another e@ually perfect universecould not be created in which evil would have no place.

St, Tho"s lso &ro(ides e%&lntions o! wht re now *ener#

lly considered to be the two "in di1culties o! the sub0ect$ (i9,$

the Di(ine &er"ission o! !oreseen "orl e(il$ nd the question -#

nlly rri(in* thence$ why God choose to crete nythin* t ll,




First$ it is s'ed why God$ !oreseein* tht his cretures would

use the *i!t o! !ree will !or their own in0ury$ did not either bstin

!ro" cretin* the"$ or in so"e wy s!e*urd their !ree will

!ro" "isuse$ or else deny the" the *i!t lto*ether8 St, Tho"s

re&lies :@, G,$ II$ %%(iii; tht God cnnot chn*e His "ind$ since

the Di(ine will is !ree !ro" the de!ect o! we'ness or "utbility,

Such "utbility would$ it should be re"r'ed$ be de!ect in the

Di(ine nture :nd there!ore i"&ossible;$ becuse i! God/s &ur#

&ose were "de de&endent on the !oreseen !ree ct o! ny cre#

ture$ God would thereby scri-ce His own !reedo"$ nd would

sub"it Hi"sel! to His cretures$ thus bdictin* His essentil

su&re"cy/ thin* which is$ o! course$ utterly inconcei(ble, Sec#

ondly$ to the question why God should h(e chosen to crete$

when cretion ws in no wy need!ul !or His own &er!ection$ St,

Tho"s nswers tht God/s ob0ect in cretin* is Hi"sel!) He cre#

tes in order to "ni!est his own *oodness$ &ower$ nd wisdo"$

nd is &lesed with tht reBection or si"ilitude o! Hi"sel! in

which the *oodness o! cretion consists, God/s &lesure is the

one su&re"ely &er!ect "oti(e !or ction$ li'e in God Hi"sel!

nd in His cretures) not becuse o! ny need$ or inherent neces#




sity$ in the Di(ine nture :@, G,$ I$ %%(iii) II$ %%iii;$ but becuse

God is the source$ centre$ nd ob0ect$ o! ll e%istence, :I$

?, U6, ) c!, <ro(erbs U nd @onc, t,$ cn, 6() @onst,

Do*",$ ,; This is ccordin*ly the su1cient reson !or the e%is#

tence o! the uni(erse$ nd e(en !or the su+erin* which "orl e(il

hs introduced into it, God hs not "de the world &ri"rily !or

"n/s *ood$ but !or His own &lesure) *ood !or "n lies in con#

!or"in* hi"sel! to the su&re"e &ur&ose o! cretion$ nd e(il in

de&rtin* !ro" it :@,G,$ III$ %(ii$ c%li(;, It "y !urther be under#

stood !ro" St, Tho"s$ tht in the di(ersity o! "et&hysicl e(il$

in which the &er!ection o! the uni(erse s whole is e"bodied$

God "y see certin si"ilitude o! His own three!old unity :c!, I$

?, %ii;) nd *in$ tht by &er"ittin* "orl e(il to e%ist He hs

&ro(ided s&here !or the "ni!esttion o! one s&ect o! His es#

sentil 0ustice :c!, I$ ?, l%($ , ) nd I$ ?, %%i$ , $ K;,

It is ob(iously i"&ossible to su**est reson why this uni#

(erse in &rticulr should h(e been creted rther thn n#

other) since we re necessrily inc&ble o! !or"in* n ide o!

ny other uni(erse thn this, Si"ilrly$ we re unble to i"*ine




why God chose to "ni!est Hi"sel! by the wy o! cretion$ in#

sted o!$ or in ddition to$ the other wys$ whte(er they "y be$

by which He hs$ or "y h(e$ ttined the s"e end, 2e rech

here the ut"ost li"it o! s&ecultion) nd our inbility to concei(e

the ulti"te reson !or cretion :s distinct !ro" its direct "o#

ti(e; is &rlleled$ t "uch erlier st*e o! the inquiry$ by the

inbility o! the non#cretionist schools o! thou*ht to ssi*n ny

ulti"te cuse !or the e%istence o! the order o! nture, It will be

obser(ed tht St, Tho"s/s ccount o! e(il is true Theodicy$ t'#

in* into considertion s it does e(ery !ctor o! the &roble"$ nd

le(in* unsol(ed only the "ystery o! cretion$ be!ore which ll

schools o! thou*ht re eqully hel&less, It is s i"&ossible to

'now$ in the !ullest sense$ why this world ws "de s to 'now

how it ws "de) but St, Tho"s hs t lest shown tht the cts

o! the @retor d"it o! co"&lete lo*icl 0usti-ction$ notwith#

stndin* the "ystery in which$ !or hu"n intelli*ence$ they cn

ne(er wholly cese to be in(ol(ed, On @tholic &rinci&les$ the

"eliortion o! "orl e(il nd its consequent su+erin* cn only

t'e &lce by "ens o! indi(idul re!or"tion$ nd not so "uch

throu*h increse o! 'nowled*e s throu*h sti"ultion or re#di#




rection o! the will, 4ut since ll "ethods o! socil i"&ro(e"ent

tht h(e ny (lue "ust necessrily re&resent nerer &#

&roch to con!or"ity with Di(ine lws they re welco"ed nd

!urthered by the @hurch$ s tendin*$ t lest indirectly$ to cco"#

&lish the &ur&ose !or which she e%ists,/ 3ny o! Aquins/ ides$

o! course$ ori*inted in Aristotle nd were . @hristini9ed/ by

Aquins, As result the @tholic conce&tion bers "ore thn

&ssin* rese"blnce to the ides in the Nicho"chen Ethics,

7nli'e <lto$ !or who" e(il ws lwys ttributble to i*nornce$

Aristotle sees &ositi(ely (olitionl e(il$ which is crried o(er in

the @hurch doctrine, Howe(er$ Aquins hs to del with the e%is#

tence o! &ositi(ely (olitionl e(il in the conte%t o! n o"ni&o#

tent$ o"niscient cretor bein* which is !ree o! ny &ossible ble"#

ish, This di1culty is succinctly e%&ressed in the e&i*r""tic

style o! E&icurus6

. Is God willin* to &re(ent e(il$ but not ble8

Then he is not o"ni&otent,




Is he ble$ but not willin*8

Then he is "le(olent,

Is he both ble nd willin*8

Then whence co"eth e(il8

Is he neither ble nor willin*8

Then why cll hi" God8/ #E&icurus

The 'ey &rt o! the @tholic conce&tion where Aquins t#

te"&ts to nswer this r*u"ent is contined in the !ollowin*

&r*r&h6

7his is accordingly the sucient reason for the e;is-tence of the universe! and even for the suering which

moral evil has introduced into it. od has not made theworld primarily for man2s good! but for #is own pleasure1good for man lies in conforming himself to the supremepurpose of creation! and evil in departing from it %6..! III!;vii! c;liv&. It may further be understood from St. 7homas!that in the diversity of metaphysical evil! in which the per-

fection of the universe as a whole is embodied! od may




see a certain similitude of #is own threefold unity %cf. I! N.;ii&1 and again! that by permitting moral evil to e;ist #ehas provided a sphere for the manifestation of one aspectof #is essential 8ustice. /

- 7he 6atholic 'ncyclopedia

The r*u"ents re so"ewht di1cult to se&rte out in the

bo(e e%cer&t$ but in tryin* we cn see whether in !ct Aquins/

r*u"ent$ nd the resultin* @hurch doctrine$ in !ct nswers the

di1culties rised by E&icurus,

The .This/ in . This is the su1cient reson !or the e%istence o!

the 7ni(erse/ re!ers to God/s bsolute o"ni&otence nd *oodness

s&eci-clly$ the 7ni(erse to the 7ni(erse s it is :in the "et#

&hysicl conce&tion o! it; with e(il &resent$ which "'es the &s#

s*e res&onse to both E&icurus/ r*u"ent$ nd =eibni9/ . 4est

o! All <ossible 7ni(erses/ r*u"ent, =eibni9/ r*u"ent !ils E&i#

curus/ nd the @hurch/s ssu"&tion tht God is o"ni&otent$

since :!or the"; o"ni&otence i"&lies He cn crete ny uni(erse

He wnts with ny set o! nturl lws He wnts, :=eibni9/ r*u#

"ent is *ood del "ore subtle thn I/(e "de it &&er here$

since his r*u"ent is tht no set o! nturl lws cn be Sel!#con#




trdictory$ since this would in itsel! be ble"ish on God/s &er!ec#

tion;,

/od has not made the world primarily for man2s good!but for #is own pleasure.2

This is one o! the crucil ides in the @tholic r*u"ent$ tht

the world :relity s whole$ or the uni(erse; ws creted !or

God/s &lesure, This cn/t si"&ly be t'en s sel-sh &lesure$

the wy si"ilr &hrse bout hu"n bein* would be inter#

&reted$ since tht would di"inish God/s &er!ection, The di1culty

is in understndin* how n o"niscient$ eternl$ o"ni&otent God

would e%&erience &lesure$ which !or the Sel! is n e%&erience

tht *oes#lon*#with the world e%&erience tht Sel! is in(ol(ed in

t the ti"e, This .*oin*#lon*#with/ &oints to the Sel!#outsideness

o! the Sel!$ in Heide**er/s ter"s .ecsttic/ :"enin* outside one#

sel!; te"&orlity, <lesure in this sense is only &ossibility !or

-nite$ te"&orl Sel!,/ The notion o! 5God5s &lesure5 cretes the

nlo*y o! the rtist rther thn the <rotestnt ide o! the en*i#

neer$ which sur(i(es in the theist ide, <redestintion is "ore




e1cient thn the tin'erin* o! the rtist, E1ciency is ssu"ed to

be the ulti"te *ol,

/7he most ecacious way to prove that od e;ists is onthe supposition that the world is eternal!2 advised 7homas

K@uinas. /Bor! if the world and motion have a Crst begin-ning! some cause must clearly be posited to account forthis origin of the world and of motion . . . ! since nothingbrings itself from potency to act! or from non-being to be-ing.2+ In 7homas2s thin0ing! once it is conceded that the

world began to e;ist! the argument is for all practical pur-poses over: it is obvious that a Birst 6ause must e;ist. #etherefore sought to prove od2s e;istence on the moreneutral presupposition of the eternity of the world1 be-sides! the temporal Cnitude of the world could be 0nownonly by revelation! since the philosophical arguments for abeginning of the universe were! in his opinion! unsound.2-od and the Initial 6osmological Singularity: K eply toNuentin Smith! William *ane 6raig

Since Aquins is t &ins to not &osit God !ro" the &ers&ecti(e

o! bein* nothin* but -rst cuse$ &rtly becuse he !ound the r#

*u"ents !or te"&orlly -nite uni(erse unsound$ the cretion it#

sel! is not necessity !or God, I! God creted the uni(erse$ s n

o"ni&otent bein*$ it could only be becuse in so"e sense it

&lesed hi" to do so, Aquins is usin* . God/s &lesure/ in "uch

the s"e wy$ here$ s Aristotle/s notion o! h&&iness$ which is




s&eci-clly o&&osed to sel-sh &lesure, H&&iness in(ol(es$ in

si"ilr !shion to the notions o! the 4uddh$ !reein* !ro" will

by co"&letion o! will, In so"e sense$ then$ Aquins is in(o'in*

the stis!ction o! God/s will in cretion s . God/s &lesure/ in

cretin*, It re"ins &roble"tic$ thou*h$ how n intrinsiclly

co"&lete bein* could require *oin* . out o! itsel!/ into cretion s

cretion$ nd then returnin* to itsel! s its will stis-ed, Notions

such s the di+erentition between the *round o! God s His own

Sel!#&er!ection nd the li(in* God o! cretion co"&licte the "t#

ter !urther without *inin* "uch *round on E&icurus/ r*u"ent,

2hile so"e o! these ides "i*ht i"&ly solution$ the solution it#

sel! is unli'ely to be one tht !und"entlly stis-es the r*u#

"ent, As with ny r*u"ent tht uses &rdo%$ de"onstrtin*

tht one o! the ssu"&tions is in(lid is the only wy to relly un#

set the r*u"ent,

/ good for man lies in conforming himself to thesupreme purpose of creation! and evil in departing from it2

This stte"ent returns to the notion o! hu"n Sel!#will s the




ori*in o! e(il, Since !reedo" llows hu"n Sel!#will to .con!or"

to the su&re"e &ur&ose o! cretion/ or not$ nd e(il lies in de#

&rtin* !ro" it$ hu"ns re uniquely ble to &ositi(ely will e(il,

The di1culty here o! how hu"n bein*s re su&&osed to under#

stnd .the su&re"e &ur&ose o! cretion/ when it &&ers inco"#

&rehensible e(en to those who belie(e they h(e e%&erienced it

throu*h re(eltion$ is rther s'irted round in Aquins, It does

howe(er &lce the ori*in o! e(il &recisely bc' into the Sel!$ s

Sel!#will,




Schelling and the $etaphysics of 'vil

Schellin*/s re"r'ble tte"&t to sol(e the &roble" o! e(il in

@hristin conte%t dels directly with so"e o! the (enues so#

lution "i*ht be sou*ht tht re i"&licit in the @tholic (iew$

which &ri"rily deri(es !ro" Aquins, I! E&icurus/ r*u"ent cn

be contro(erted$ it hs to be in the wy E&icurus/ ssu"es the

bein* o! o"ni&otence or &er!ection, At the s"e ti"e hu"n

Sel!#will is still the ssu"ed ori*in o! e(il$ nd one o! the *uidin*

ssu"&tions Schellin* retins, Howe(er in Schellin* . will/ be#

co"es &recisely the n"e !or the bein* o! thin*s in *enerl$ not

si"&ly hu"n bein*$ or e(en only ni"te bein*,

Since hu"n Sel!#will$ !or Schellin*$ di+ers !ro" Di(ine will

&recisely in its bility to intend e(il$ it is only (i this will#to#e(il

tht the &ure *oodness o! God/s will cn be 'nown, This co"es

bc'$ thou*h$ to the &hrse . God/s &lesure/ in Aquins, How is

the de"onstrtion o! God/s *oodness$ i! it requires e(il in order

to di+erentite itsel! !ro" it$ not sel-sh will8 Throu*h &he#

no"enlly co"&le% series o! s&ecultions$ Schellin* is ble to

&osit the ori*in o! the .who/ o! hu"n bein*$ the will o! ech hu#




"n bein* itsel!$ &recisely in God$ or "ore s&eci-clly$ the

*round o! God$ the dr' *round tht God Hi"sel! cnnot 'now, It

is this ori*in$ !or Schellin*$ which *i(es us our sense tht we

h(e lwys been who we re,

This series o! s&ecultions thus leds to the strtlin* conclu#

sion$ !ro" the @hristin &ers&ecti(e$ tht the source o! hu"n

Sel!#will is si"ultneously the cuse o! God co"in* out o! His

*round nd beco"in* the li(in* God o! cretion,

The question unnswered$ thou*h$ is how Sel!#will intends e(il,

Sel!#will intends (rious thin*s$ !or the "ost &rt in &r*"tic$

co&in* !shion, E(ery s&ect o! the Sel!$ t the s"e ti"e$ is &r#

til, 2e only &rtilly understnd$ we re only &rtilly with#oth#

ers$ etc, Goin* bc' to the erly de-nitions o! e(il s so"ethin*

dis&ro&ortionte$ so"ethin* not o! &ro&er "esure$ wht the

Sel! wills$ !und"entlly$ in dis&ro&ortionte wy is deter"in#

tion itsel!, Thin*s re thin*s by bein*#deter"ined$ but in (oidin*

the uncnniness o! the world we re te"&ted to deter"ine thin*s

in&&ro&ritely, This in&&ro&riteness cn be due to insistently

deter"inin* so"ethin* or so"eone (i &reconce&tion$ &re0u#

dice tht is held onto *inst e%&erience, It cn lso occur by




holdin* &rtil deter"intion tht is not equl to the bein* s

!ull deter"intion$ cretin* reduction in the &otentil "enin*s

inherent in the bein*, Finlly it cn occur by endin* bein*/s &o#

tentils &re"turely$ thus !ully deter"inin* so"ethin* tht in it#

sel! hd !urther deter"intions to co"e, The ontolo*y o! e(il

de"onstrtes e(il to be$ essentilly$ n e(il ontolo*y, In o(er#will#

in* our bility to deter"ine thin*s we will their deter"intion to

their end$ includin* our own, This will#to#deter"ine#to#the#end is

wht is seen$ lbeit di"ly$ in Freud/s . deth dri(e/ $ tht is it

wills e(erythin* to be deter"ined in such wy tht it no lon*er

is, It is thntic ontolo*y$ dethly ontolo*y, Its thntic nture

is e%&osed (i its totli9in* qulity,




7he =rigin of #uman 'vil

=e(in* side nturl e(il$ the e(il o! interest is tht &roduced

by the Sel! s &rt o! its sel!#deter"intion, H(in* loo'ed t the

history o! the ontolo*y o! e(il$ the co""on the"e hs to do with

sel!#will, Howe(er &recisely how sel!#will cn nd does do e(il$

so"eti"es e(en unintentionlly$ is not itsel! understood,

3y &osit is tht hu"n e(il ori*intes in the will#to#deter"ine,

In ll bein*s there is lwys "ore to be understood$ nothin* is

e(er !ully deter"ined, Inso!r s our 'nowled*e$ s bsolute

identity o! 'nower nd 'nown$ it is only e(er &rtil, It is the to#

tli9in* nture o! the will#to#deter"ine$ to deter"ine e(erythin*

totlly$ tht is the sel!#will behind hu"n e(il,

2hether we o(erdeter"ine$ "isdeter"ine or belie(e we h(e

deter"ined so"ethin* we in !ct h(en/t$ there is n inherent

&retense$ n inherent lie in ll totli9in* deter"intions, This lie

is itsel! inherently bsed on belie!$ which reches the &o*ee o!

e(il in ideolo*y s belie!s tht h(e been "de syste"ic nd in#

tentionlly totli9in*, This leds to the conclusion tht belie!$ !r

!ro" bein* the nswer$ is in !ct the &roble",




Why elief is the Jroblem

It is &recisely throu*h belie! tht we co"e to the ide tht we

cn deter"ine thin*s to !uller e%tent thn we ctully cn,

2hether this deter"intion re*rds the nture o! rel#

ity#s##whole$ the nture o! *od$ or deter"intion o! who

so"eone is bsed on rce$ *ender$ clss$ or ny other &rtil de#

ter"intion$ it re"ins either n o(erdeter"intion or "isde#

ter"intion nd in "isre&resentin* the "tter tr&s it s so"e#

thin* it isn/t,

The &ro&er use o! belie! is in lernin*, <rior to 'nowin* so"e#

thin* one hs to sus&end disbelie! !or lon* enou*h to deter"ine

i! the techer is "erely s&outin* o&inions heshe hs herd$ or

ctully 'nows the "tter t hnd su1ciently well tht !ter

su1cient &eriod o! study$ you lso understnd nd there!ore

0now the "tter, Once you 'now so"ethin*$ belie! is irrele(nt,

2here belie! *oes the "ost wron* is where belie! turns into

!ith s ideolo*y$ s belie!#syste"s, The di+erence is tht$ while I

"y belie(e tht Austrli e%ists without h(in* been there$ I

h(e &lenty o! e(idence tht it does nd none tht I cn thin' o!




tht it doesn/t$ but "ore i"&ortntly its e%istence or ine%istence

doesn/t structure "y world (iew, I don/t need it to e%ist !or "y

understndin* o! relity to re"in &retty "uch the s"e, 2hen

your understndin* o! relity$ thou*h$ beco"es de&endent on

s&eci-c belie!s or belie!#syste"s$ those belie!s beco"e !ith$ be#

co"e non#o&tionl in ter"s o! "intinin* *ri& on the wy you

e%&erience the world, Syste"ti9in* &resu"&tuous nd un#

!ounded belie!s leds to ideolo*y s belie!#syste", It is throu*h

this !r"ewor' o! ideolo*y$ itsel! rrely questioned$ tht the

I#Sub0ect inter&rets wht the Sel! re&resents to it$ nd thereby

how it co"es to r&id 0ud*"ent, The ldder between &rt nd

whole in ny sub0ecti(e her"eneutic is &recisely the ideolo*y t

wor',

3ny theists re un!ortuntely s *uilty o! this s "ny the#

ists$ &recisely becuse neither 0now the thin*s they believe in, I!

you cli" to belie(e in science$ but cn/t e%&licte quntu"

"echnics$ don/t understnd the results o! the hu"n *eno"e

&ro0ect$ nd cn/t e%&lin di+erent Hilbert s&ces$ you/re no bet#

ter o+ thn theist who belie(es in (rious reli*ious "et&hors

without reco*ni9in* their "et&horicl nture$ or cli"s to h(e




indubitble 'nowled*e o! God nd God/s wishes when we h(e

no e(idence o! s&eci-c wishes o! di(ine ori*in,

The &roble" is not whether this or tht belie! is true$ but our

dependence on belie!s tht we cnnot 0ud*e s true or !lse, 2e

"'e &retense o! h(in* deter"ined thin*s we cnnot deter#

"ine to ny rel de*ree$ nd we ct on n understndin* we only

&retend to h(e, Scientists who "'e con-dent cli"s s to the

s!ety o! G3O cro&s$ !or instnce$ since tht s!ety hs not been

estblished in ny "enin*!ul wy$ re equi(lent to !und"en#

tlists who "'e con-dent cli"s tht God bhors ho"ose%ul#

ity, In neither cse hs nythin* been estblished other thn

conclusion tht is lredy deter"ined &rior to ny e(idence$

&re0udice tht leds to n ine(itble 0ud*"ent, In neither cse

cn the cli"s e(er be con-r"ed or denied$ since in the -rst

cse no nor" cn be estblished s n bsolute co"&rison$ nd

in the second there is no wy !or ny &otentil in-nite bein* to

si"&ly .sy/ nythin* whtsoe(er, 4oth re cli"in* .s&ecil

'nowled*e/ tht they do not h(e$ which hs been the "r' o!

e(ery !lse &ro&het nd !lse &riest hu"nity hs e(er 'nown,

Tht the "ost inBuentil !lse &ro&hets nd &riests tody re re#




serchers nd @EOs "'es no di+erence, They o&erte out o!

belie! in 'nowled*e they do not in !ct &ossess$ nd do so with#

out thin'in*$ questionin*$ or e%"inin* the belie!s tht o(erde#

ter"ine nd "isdeter"ine not only their 0ud*"ents$ but the &er#

ce&tions nd inter&rettions o! relity on which those 0ud*"ents

re bsed, 2hen one/s entire e%&erience o! relity is &riori

tinted by ideolo*y$ neither obser(tions$ nor hy&otheses$ nor

theories$ nor the inter&rettion o! tests o! those theories h(e

ny (lidity,

2e cn now see where the e%tre"es o! e(il e%&erienced under

totlitrin re*i"es re ine(itble$ since it is &recisely the totl#

i9in* belie!#syste"s o! such re*i"es tht in nd o! the"sel(es$ no

matter what the content$ re inherently e(il, A totli9in* liberl#

is" or c&itlis" is s inherently e(il s totli9in* !scis" or

n9is",

Gi(en the in(lid "et&hysicl ssu"&tions tht re de"on#

strbly !oundtionl to both western reli*ion nd western sci#

ence$ the cse to be "de is not si"&ly tht one or the other is

not true$ but tht neither cn "'e ny truth#cli"s$ nd there#

!ore ny 'nowled*e#cli"s, To the e%tent tht technolo*y$ s




"ode o! re(elin*$ does re(el so"ethin* correct bout thin*s$

there is (lid 'nowled*e#cli"$ howe(er tht 'nowled*e#cli"

is restricted to 'nowin* how so"ethin* beh(es when under#

stood s resource nd sub0ected to technolo*icl "ni&ultion,

Anythin* cn be deter"ined s resource$ but by tht deter"i#

ntion is li"ited$ en!r"ed within the deter"intion tht doesn/t

&&roch the relity o! the thin* it is tte"&tin* to deter"ine,

Anythin* cn be "ni&ulted techniclly nd its beh(ior deter#

"ined in sttisticlly &redictble "nner$ howe(er this does

not i"&ly thn n &&ro&rite ontolo*y hs thereby been de"on#

strted,




7he $eaning of 6hristian 'schatology

4rth/s Disin*enuous Descri&tion

*et us be honest: we do not 0now what we are say-ing when we spea0 of Yesus 6hrist2s coming againin 8udgment! and of the resurrection of the dead! ofeternal life and eternal death. 7hat with all thesethere will be bound up a piercing revelation< a see-ing! compared to which all our present vision willhave been blindness< is too often testiCed in Scrip-

ture for us to feel we ought to prepare ourselves for it. Bor we do not 0now what will be revealed whenthe last covering is removed from our eyes! from alleyes: how we shall behold one another and what weshall be to one another< men of today and men ofpast centuries and millennia! ancestors and descen-dants! husbands and wives! wise and foolish! op-pressors and oppressed! traitors and betrayed! mur-derers and murdered! West and 'ast!

4rth is bein* disin*enuous while si"ultneously *i(in*

cler descri&tion$ s to lesser e%tent re Rhner nd =oner*n$

&recisely becuse we do 'now wht we re syin*$ whether

"ny will d"it it or not, The eschtolo*y o! @hristinity s the

=st ud*"ent is the 0ud*"ent o! ll &re(ious hu"n 0ud*#

"ents 0ud*"ents tht h(e been "de without understndin*

the ori*in o! the &r"eters on which they were bsed$ 0ud*#

"ents o! the I#Sub0ect unwre o! the source o! its own under#




stndin* the Sel!$ understood throu*h reBe%i(e understnd#

in* tht hs !ull insi*ht into insi*ht, It is the 0ud*"ent o! ll &st

0ud*"ents$ not only the re(lution o! ll (lues but the re(lu#

tion o! (lue itsel! nd its re&lce"ent by 0ud*"ent o! the

worth o! thin*s in e(ery &ttern o! e%&erience, The .=st ud*#

"ent/ "ust itsel! ree(lute e(ery 0ud*"ent$ whether o! ethics or

&hysics$ rt or &olitics$ lo(e or the erotic hori9on itsel!,

Rhner bndons the word God &recisely s o(erdeter"ined$

&re!errin* in-nite hori9on or the inco"&rehensibly ob(ious,

This is the erotic hori9on itsel!$ the hori9on u&on which we

&ro0ect our identity, His insistence tht it is si"ultneously &er#

sonl is si"&ly tht it is wht it lwys hs been$ our indi(idul

Sel! nd the si"ultneously shred Sel! o! co""unity$ which to#

*ether constitute our &erson, The erotic hori9on is thus the

&ro&er limit o! the Sel! by which it is sel!#de-ned,

=oner*n t'es hundreds o! &*es to show the nture o! in#

si*ht$ the lst &rt o! which ws rushed not si"&ly by e%ternl

circu"stnces, Nothin* in the &recedin* &*es 0usti-es the e%#

&licit solution$ it "erely so!tened the i"&ct o! the boo' s

whole t ti"e when "ost &eo&le were not redy !or it, The i"#




&licit solution is &recisely the bndon"ent o! this "ytholo*y$

"ytholo*y "de irrele(nt by the understndin* o! understnd#

in* tht o(erco"es the bis o! co""on sense in the lon* (iew by

&ri(ile*in* the e%&nsion o! the erotic hori9on,

The @hurch is there!ore the ulti"te cor&ortion6 it e%ists si"#

&ly in order to continue to e%ist, As cor&orte it is si"ultne#

ously$ s Zi9e' describes it$ "essen*er tht in !ul-llin* its

&ro&er &ur&ose hs no need o! redin* the "ess*e$ o! under#

stndin* its content,

7he 6hurch can only deliver it the way a postmandelivers his mail1 the 6hurch is not as0ed what itthin0s it is thereby starting! or what it ma0es of themessage. 7he less it ma0es of it and the less itleaves on it its own Cngerprints! the more it simplyhands it on as it has received it<so much the bet-ter." 7here is only one unconditional certainty in allthis<the certainty of Yesus 6hrist as our savior!which is a “rigid designator" remaining the same inall possible worlds.

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egel and the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p. FFF&. orton. )indle 'dition.

As Rhner notes$ esus ws si"&ly "n$ but "n tht

de"onstrtes the certain &ossibility o! being the Min*do" o!

God, Or in 3eister Ec'hrt/s ter"s$ i! esus were here tody he




"i*ht sy .I bec"e "n !or you$ i! you do not beco"e *od

!or "e you betry "e,/ The second co"in* is indeed the end o!

the world$ nd the be*innin* o! worlds$ the only ri*id desi*n#

tor tht is co""on to ll worlds is the certin &ossibility o! be#

in* wht ws &re(iously understood s *od$ in -nite$ te"&o#

rl !shion,

<recisely nothin* e;ternal h&&ens in the second co"in*$

when ny indi(idul "n -nlly .hers o! the deth o! God/ but

the E(ent, The second co"in* is the rebirth o! the ded God s

the indi(idul nd shred Sel!, It is &redicted by the under#

stndin* o! the ded God s the .holy *host/$ the ded :nd there#

!ore bsent; God o! "orlity nd reli*ion, It is the re(eltion tht

belie! itsel! hs been "isunderstood nd "isused nd is itsel! the

&roble" when held onto in the !ce o! understndin*, The co"#

"unity o! belie(ers hs to h(e &iercin* re(eltion o! the hu#

"n ori*in o! re(eltion itsel! s the E(ent o! insi*ht into insi*ht$

n understndin* o! understndin* in its reBe%i(e !ullness$ which

includes the understndin* tht understndin* is lwys only

&rtil$ tht co"&lete ct o! understndin* is &ure desire




tht lwys lies beyond the erotic hori9on$ tht e%&lntion is not

understndin* but the Bi*ht !ro" understndin*,

In the E(ent the third ter"$ the bi* Other in Zi9e'/s !or"ul#

tion$ is -nlly nulli-ed le(in* only the two o! lo(e$ nd the co"#

"unity o! belie(ers without belie! beco"es co""unity o! lo(e$

e%istin* !or no reson other thn &eo&le/s lo(e !or one nother,

The &ssin* o! the lst *od in Heide**er is si"ultneously the

bestowl o! understndin*$ which hs lwys been the &ro(ince

o! *ods$ nd the &ssin* wy o! *ods, As Zi9e' &uts it$ the

&ro&er "ess*e o! @hristinity is li'e bd news *ood news

0o'e6

7he bad news is that we are abandoned by od1 thegood news is that we are abandoned by od andleft with our freedom.

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egel and the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p.+++&. orton. )indle 'dition.

2ith their 'nowled*e o! He*el$ Niet9sche nd Heide**er nei#

ther 4rth nor Rhner could h(e been unwre not only o! the

nture o! the lst 0ud*"ent$ but tht in certin cses it hd l#

redy h&&ened the three &hiloso&hers "entioned bein* three

such cses, =oner*n h&&ened u&on it throu*h n E(ent in Hei#




de**er/s sense$ nd h(in* insi*ht into insi*ht ws ble to e%#

&ress it "ore !ully,




Brom the 7hanatic to the 'rotic

The sitution !or the sciences hs chn*ed rdiclly in

&ost#"et&hysicl world, <hysics is no lon*er relity behind or

beyond worldly &&ernces, Discussion o! &ost#"odern qun#

tu" cos"olo*y cnnot be construed s descri&tion o! so"e re#

lity .beyond/ &heno"enolo*icl e%&erience but use!ul &&ro%i#

"tion o! those &&ernces, Genetic in(esti*tion cn no lon*er

be seen s &redicti(e "ethodolo*y !or en(isionin* the dult or#

*nis"$ but s rw "teril !or the or*nis" to dyn"iclly con#

-*ure nd recon-*ure itsel!, Neurolo*y is the study o! how the

&syche utili9es the "echnis"s t its dis&osl, As result &he#

no"enolo*y co"es to the !ore s the rbiter o! relity beyond re#

li*ious or scienti-c "et&hysics$ nd &heno"enolo*y utili9es

her"eneutic "ethod o! understndin* &heno"en$ rther thn

tryin* to e%&lin the" !ro" ori*in, The her"eneuticl "ethod

too$ thou*h$ su+ers !ro" !te!ul relince on belie!,

As one thin's her"eneuticlly$ "o(in* !ro" &rt to whole to

&rt nd understndin* ech "ore !ully !ro" the other$ belie!s or

belie!#syste"s re the "ens by which one tr(erses the *&,




The *& itsel! co"es bout throu*h re&resentin* bein*s s sttic

or*ni9tions o! &rts, Relti(e 'nowin* is the 'nowin*$ itsel! de#

&endent on ideolo*y$ tht .reltes/ &rt nd whole throu*h belie!,

The &ro&er !unction o! belie! is s te"&orry t'in*#!or#true

tht enbles the un'nown to beco"e, 7ntil we h(e "de "t#

ter our own in ter"s o! 'nowin*$ we belie(e either the other Sel!

shrin* the in!or"tion or &re#0ud*e"ent o! the "enin* o! the

&heno"enon$ llowin* us to be*in to understnd it in

her"eneutic "nner, E(entully we !ully understnd it$ nd it

beco"es 'nowled*e$ &rt o! our world$ &rt o! the Sel!, So lon*

s belie! is utili9ed in this te"&orry !shion it is use!ul nd

necessry &rt o! lernin*, 2hen belie! o(errides 'nowin*#un#

derstndin* it hs *one beyond its utility, Ideolo*y be*ins when

belie!s re rtionli9ed into belie!#syste"s, 2hether the ideolo*y

is reli*ious$ &oliticl or culturl$ it re&lces bsolute 'nowin* by

"editin* between the indi(idul nd re&resented -ction,

Absolute 'nowin* bndons re&resenttion nd thin's the dy#

n"ic syste" in its &resenttion, 2ithin dyn"ic syste" the

reltions the"sel(es beco"e ontolo*iclly &ri"ry$ dyn"iclly

cretin* the lwys#chn*in* yet Sel!#s"e thin*, The




ll#t#onceness o! e&i&hny or re(eltion reBe%i(ely occurs within

the understndin* itsel!, 7nderstndin*#understndin* dy#

n"i9es the e"er*ent &heno"en o! n e&i&hny into n e"er#

*ent syste" o! the &syche itsel!, To those who cn .see/$ s Niet#

9sche &oints out$ belie! is no lon*er rele(nt, This 'nowin* is$ s

He*el sw$ qulitti(ely bsolute, sel!#conscious "et&hysicl

'nowled*e 'nows itsel! s the I#Sub0ect$ which it distin*uishes

!ro" the ob0ecti(e world, The ob0ecti(e world includes ll the

contents o! consciousness$ includin* consciousness itsel!, ReBe%#

i(e$ ethicl sel!#consciousness cn e(en obser(e the o&ertions o!

this I#Sub0ect, 7nderstndin* understndin* retins wreness

o! the I#Sub0ect$ consciousness nd thin*s#within#the#world in

their unity$ dis&ensin* with the reltions tht sel!#consciousness

set u&$ nd is thereby qulitti(ely bsolute,

At the s"e ti"e$ bsolute 'nowin*$ re"o(in* itsel! !ro" the

'nowin* tht hs *r(itted to bstrct e%&lntion nd retirin*

bc' into understndin*$ bndons ny &ossibility o! bein* totl,

2ithdrwin* !ro" the totli9in* lo*ic o! techne nd e%&lntion

nd returnin* to the lo*os o! si*ni-cnce nd conte%t is not

'nowin* t ll in the technicl sense, Renewin* the bsolute loss




o! co"&rehension o! bein*s5 bility to &&er s the bein*s they

re trns*resses ny *roundin* we "y h(e tte"&ted to &ro#

(ide throu*h our technicl bilities$ nd within this trns*ressin*

o! hori9on$ hori9on itsel! beco"es erotic, The *roundin* (ilble

is only the byssl *roundin* o! the bsolutely indeter"inble

tht drws towrds,

This crossin* !ro" technicl 'nowin* to erotic understndin*

is the e%&erience o! enownin* itsel!$ which recoils$ t lest in !n#

tsy$ into erotic ensl(e"ent o! nother, Ownershi& o! nother

Sel! ws seen s the &ri"lly erotic by <lto in the <hedrus nd

Sy"&osiu" t the be*innin* o! "et&hysics but lost in the sw&#

&in* o! the erotic hori9on !or the thntic$ &rticulrly in @hris#

tinity$ which !ro" the be*innin* betryed the erotic e%&erience

o! li!e s lo(e in its !ocus on deth, Owned by the we nd eros o!

the &&erin* o! bein*s !ro" the ne*ti(ity o! the !uture$ the not

yet$ the Sel! is not &ri"rily drwn towrds deth e%ce&t in the

&er(erse re&lce"ent o! Eros by Thntos$ the re&lce"ent o!

lo(e by totli9in* htred nd resent"ent in Sul<ul, Insted it

is drwn to the eroticis" o! wht trns*resses hori9on nd in

trns*ression enbles the to&olo*y o! erotic !ntsy, The erotic is




wht drws towrds nd "'es us !uturl$ s such it is ne*ti(e

s &ure indeter"inteness, The thntic bein*#towrds#deth is

indeter"inte s to its when but not s to its wht$ nd so re#

"ins n tte"&t t o(erdeter"intion,

The root o! wht He*el clls .ne*ti(ity/ is :our wreness o!;

!uture6 !uture is wht is not :yet;$ the &ower o! ne*ti(ity is ulti#

"tely identicl to the &ower o! ti"e itsel!$ this !orce tht cor#

rodes e(ery -r" identity, The &ro&er te"&orlity o! hu"n be#

in* is thus not tht o! the liner ti"e$ but tht o! en**ed e%is#

tence6 "n &ro0ects his !uture nd then ctuli9es it by wy o!

detour throu*h &st resources,

The I#Sub0ect rises s clcultin* deter"intion o! the !u#

ture in lieu o! the uncnny indeter"inble ne*ti(ity o! the

erotic, In thntic desire wht is worthy is &er(erted to wht is

(lued nd &riced nd there!ore e%chn*eble in n unli"ited$

totli9in* wy, As desire it is desire !or the deter"inte in its to#

tlity$ unli"ited in sco&e, It desires &ossession o! the 5whole5 tht

is lwys -ctionl$ since so"e &rt lwys re"ins outstndin*$

inso!r s the Sel! e%ists,

The "ost e%tre"e &er(ersion o! the erotic to the thntic is




the &ricin*$ (luin* l"ost to the "illisecond o! wht is &recisely

worthless$ becuse we cn h(e no rel in(ol(e"ent with it, This

ulti"te &er(ersion is the desire !or "oney itsel! s @&itl, Its

corres&ondin* thntic !ntsy is the !rictionless econo"y$ where

nothin* o! ny worth is &roduced but only "ore worthless (lue

s "ore @&itl,

Grce is the e%&erience o! the hori9on$ it is the :non;e%#

&erience o! the erotic s such$ not ny &rticulr thin*

(iewed as erotic,

2ht is !tl t the "o"ent !or Zi9e'5s thin'in* is the identi-#

ction o! =cn5s 5ob0et 5 with Freud5s 5deth dri(e5$ n identi-#

ction "de esier by =cn5s tendency to so"eti"es di+erenti#

te the"$ but not lwys, They re only the s"e$ thou*h$ when

the hori9on is seen s thntic, The 5ob0et 5$ !ro" the stnd&oint

o! reBe%i(e understndin*$ is tht which is not understood$ be#

cuse it is not e%&erienced e%ce&t s disturbnce o! the hori#

9on$ s &otentil trns*ression$ the nture o! which is not t ll

yet identi-ed, In eros s drwin*#one#towrds it is this bility o!

the hori9on to be disturbed nd thus drw our ttention to the

not#&re(iously#e%&erienced tht "'es the hori9on erotic to be#




*in with$ nd "'es the substitution o! the thntic hori9on the

ori*in o! "orbidity, 2ithin s&eci-c socil conditions :&rticulrly

the "et&hysicl conditions o! @&itlis" nd @hristinity; the

erotic is withheld s such nd our ttention &er(erted towrds

the thntic, It is &recisely when hori9onl disturbnce is not

e%&erienced s erotic$ s &urely drwin*#towrds$ but s !er

tht si"ultneously !scintes$ tht desire is &er(erted nd eroti#

cis" beco"es &er(erse obsessi(eness$ the &er(erse obsessi(e#

ness di*nosed by Freud s the 5deth dri(e5,

>Accordin* to Freud$ the "ulti&licity o! &hlli in dre" l#

wys &oints towrds cstrtion6 "ulti&licity co"es to -ll in the

*&$ the lc'$ o! the "issin* One, @n we then sy tht inso!r

s the unconscious does not 'now ne*tion :no;$ s Freud

cli"s the "issin* or e%cluded ne*tion returns with

(en*ence in the "ulti&le !or"s o! the &rocess o! re&ression6 re#

&ression itsel!$ dis(owl$ denil$ etc,8 J The nswer is yes on

condition tht we dd tht the (ery !ct o! the &roli!ertion o!

qusi#ne*tions bers witness to the !ct tht so"e 'ind o! rdi#

cl ne*tion is lredy t wor' in the unconscious$ e(en i! it is

e%cluded, The -eld o! the unconscious s the bi* Other is




structured round loss or obstcle$ round n i"&ossibility$ nd

the 'ey &roble" is discernin* the e%ct nture o! this !oundin*

i"&ossibility,>

The erotici9tion o! the dre" nd relted sttes$ wht we

"i*ht "ore &ro&erly cll the non#Sel!#wre#conscious sttes$ is

result o! the &er(ersion o! the Sel!#wre consciousness !ro"

the erotic to the thntic hori9on$ &er(ersion t its &e' in

Freud5s ti"e nd &lce, The hei*ht o! the &er(ersion o! the

erotic is in its &&liction to the biolo*icl$ &ttern o! e%&eri#

ence tht does not !ully include the erotic s such$ s cstrtion

:to the de*ree tht desire to e%&nd the ontolo*icl hori9on e%#

ists within the biolo*icl$ its &ri"ry e%&ression is in etin*;,

The ."issin* One/ is both the lc' o! the &ro0ected God o! "et#

&hysics nd the none%istence o! the I#Sub0ect other thn s &er#

s&ecti(e o! re&resented e%&erience$ i,e, lthou*h the I#Sub0ect is

!or#itsel!$ it does not e%ist in#itsel!, The cti(ities o!

non#Sel!#wre#conscious sttes "eet lower le(el neurl de#

"nd#!unctions tht the Sel!#wre#consciousness hs re0ected$

ne*ted with the bsolute ne*tion &ossible only !or sel!#con#

sciousness, Those "y be sense#&erce&tion de"nds$ such s




thin*s one sees or hers but didn5t &y ttention to t the ti"e in

Sel!#wre wy$ de"nds tht rise in res&onse to &rticulr

bodily sttes$ or erotic nd s&eci-clly se%ul de"nds, In so#

ciety eroticlly re&ressi(e nd &er(erted towrds "orbid !sci#

ntion with deth Freud5s nlyses unsur&risin*ly !ound re#

&ressed se%ulity nd bein*#drwn#towrds the erotic &er(erted

into the deth dri(e, The 5!oundin* i"&ossibility5 is no "ore "ys#

terious thn tht the Sel!#wre consciousness$ s the ne*tion

o! ne*tion$ is !ree to &urely ne*te$ to sy >no> with bsolute -#

nlity to ny &rticulr neurl de"nd !unctions, It is the i"&os#

sibility !or neurl de"nd !unctions to !orce the Sel!#wre#con#

sciousness to reco*ni9e de"nds or co"&rehend its ne*ti(e c#

&bility, Our non#Sel!#wre conscious sttes$ without the !ree#

do" risin* !ro" this &ure ne*ti(ity$ cnnot Bt out ne*te

those de"nd !unctions :which$ rther thn si"&ly &ersistin*$

continue by insistin*;$ insted direct de"nds re redirected$

subli"ted$ their ori*inl intention thwrted in such "nner

tht$ in helthy indi(idul$ the de"nds re 5"et5 without !#

!ectin* the !reedo" o! the indi(idul in dily li!e,

Its not sur&risin* tht tody$ while e%&licitly se%ul content




wy, Our (ery bility$ within li"its$ to inter&ret dre"s "y h(e

si"&ly "de our dre"#!unctions "ore cnny$ nd the resultin*

dre"s less susce&tible to esy inter&rettion,




7he Self as Itself

1. The Sel!$ s the deter"inin* syste" o! hu"n bein*$ is itsel!

not !ully deter"inble,

2. The Sel! is e%&erienced s nrrted$ in so"e "nner this l#

wys#lredy bein*#nrrted is the ori*in o! the sense tht we

re lwys the s"e Sel!$ nd h(e lwys been$ into the

.eternl &st/, It is s nrrted tht we h(e n identity $ nd

&ercei(e our Sel! s Sel!#identicl,

3. Sel! nd world re in sense the s"e$ nrrted in di+erent

wys, Our "ost direct e%&erience o! both is throu*h "ood,

4. The Sel! is c&ble o! e(il throu*h its need to deter"ine

other thin*s$ which cn led to in&&ro&rite deter"intion,

5. The Sel! is not the I#Sub0ect, The ltter is &rocess creted

by the Sel! !or s&eci-c &ur&oses nd dis&&ers *in when

the Sel! beco"es in(ol(ed in its concerns *in,

The second &oint$ tht we e%&erience the Sel! s nrrted$

leds to the ob(ious question6 wht nrrtes the Sel! s such8

The nswer is inti"ted in the third &oint, It is world$ s the to#




tlity o! wht we re$ tht nrrtes itsel! nd in tht nrrti(e be#

co"es Sel!, 2e e%&erience the world i""editely becuse$ !un#

d"entlly$ it is wht we re, In &ro0ectin* oursel(es uthenti#

clly we &ro0ect s !r s is &ossible$ but since the Sel! cnnot

*et behind the "o"ent when the world o! its e%&erience bec"e

Sel! by nrrtin* itsel!$ the sense o! bein* de-nite$ s&eci-c

.who/ cn only be &osited s h(in* lwys# been#&st, This &ro#

0ectin* s !r s &ossible is lso where the &otentil !or e(il cn

beco"e hbitul, Rther thn deter"inin* wht we re drwn

towrds we will!ully deter"ine to the end, Heide**er/s erly no#

tion o! bein*#towrds#deth is &recisely where his thou*ht ws

still onto#theolo*icl t the ti"e, Gelssenheit is di+erent ori#

enttion !or ontolo*y itsel!$ one tht cti(ely lets bein*s be deter#

"ined s n cti(ity tht is rrely co"&lete while so"ethin* still

is, It lets itsel! be drwn towrds$ rther thn will!ully bein*#to#

wrds#deth, 2ht drws towrds in *enerl we n"e s Eros$

nd it is s Eros/ twin tht thntic ontolo*y inter&olted itsel!

o(er erotic ontolo*y, 2e cnnot$ &ro&erly s&e'in*$ be#to#

wrds#deth becuse lthou*h it is certin$ it is indeter"inte s

to its when, Howe(er in bein*#drwn#towrds$ the !cticl li"it




o! our hori9on cn re"in inde-nite$ becuse wht !cticlly

drws towrds is erotic$ nd the erotic is not li"ited to s&eci-c

thin* or e(ent,




'rotic eing

@re in the &ositi(e sense is &rt o! our bein*$ but worry is

betryl o! our erotic nture in !(or o! thntic sel!#bsor&#

tion, 2e re not bein*#towrds#deth but bein*#towrds#eros,

O! course deth$ s certin but indeter"inte$ "y t ny ti"e

&re(ent us !ro" ctuli9in* wht drws us on$ but we don5t

thereby "iti*te ris' by lc' o! co""it"ent to the erotic$

rther it is tht co""it"ent tht "'es uthenticity &ossible,

2e h(e to ris' bsolute loss o! shred bein* in order to e%&eri#

ence lo(e s the !ull "enin* o! our bein*$ lo(e tht sets side

worry nd sel!#concern in !(or o! wht drws us !uturlly in

ter"s o! ctuli9in* &ositi(e &ossibilities$ not obsessin* o(er the

relity tht we cn ne(er !ully ctuli9e those &ossibilities,

<re#conce&tully we h(e lwys hd sense tht lo(e is the

"enin* o! our bein*$ but in n o&que wy, The trns&rent re#

li9tion o! our ontolo*y hs to co"e out o! tht e(erydy

&re#conce&tul understndin*, 2e intrinsiclly understnd th#

ntic bein* s lc' o! co""it"ent$ lc' o! uthenticity, 2e l#

wys understnd "iti*tin* ris' s n intrinsic lessening o! &os#




sibilities$ betrayal o! who we re, 2e lredy understnd worry

s sel!#destructi(e$ the deth dri(e born out o! lc' o! cour*e,

Rther thn si"&ly bndonin* 5why5 s unnswerble nd

there!ore wste$ nd !llin* into nihilis"$ the reco*nition o! its

unnswerbility requires us to "intin the wonder t the "ys#

tery o! its unnswerbility, @losin* oursel(es o+ to wonder t

"ystery is the -nl betryl o! the Sel! by the &rnoid e*o, Ni#

hilis" is not relistic$ it is cowrdice in the !ce o! our own un#

cnny bein*$ ne*ti(e nd sel!#ne*tin* certinty$ certinty

only &ossible by losin* the !ullness nd richness o! our hu"nity

nd our bility to be o&en to the "ystery tht cn only be won#

dered t,

Rtionlis" sees the world s "enin*less only due to its own

lc' o! cour*e, It is not the world tht is "enin*less$ but the

rtionl interpretation tht reduces the Sel! to the unrel sub#

0ect$ thin*s to -ctionl bstrct ob0ects$ world to uni(erse o!

such ob0ects, It rises out o! desire !or security tht we cn

ne(er truly h(e, Its result is !lse security in e%&lntions tht

re irrele(nt nd "enin*less$ nd "erely e%&lin#wy in

Bi*ht !ro" understndin* the world nd bein*s within it, It is




the s"e ni(e su&erstition !ound in the si"&listic reli*iosity it is

t such &ins to denounce,




Jostview: #egel2s 6onclusion to the *ogic! einter-preted

Thin'in*$ in reBe%i(e 'nowin*#understndin*$ hs withdrwn

into tht s"e si"&le unity which ws its be*innin*) the &ure i"#

"edicy o! bein*#one/s#Sel!$ in which t -rst e(ery rel deter"i#

ntion &&ers to be e%tin*uished or re"o(ed by bstrction$ is

the Sel! tht hs reched itsel! throu*h "edition in the other

which$ s other$ lso shres tht Sel!$ nd so is its Sel!, The

"ethod is the Sel! reltin* itsel! only to itsel! s si"ultneously

indi(idul nd shred) it is there!ore the si"&le Sel!#reltion tht

is bein*#one/s#Sel!$ which lwys lredy "ens bein*#with#oth#

ers, 4ut now it is lso !ul-lled bein*#one/s#Sel!$ the Sel! tht co"#

&rehends itsel! s Relity$ bein*#one/s#Sel! s the concrete nd so

bsolute relity,

Initilly$ the 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* hs *rs&ed

its Sel!) relity hs thus beco"e wre o! itsel!, In the s&here o!

bein*#one/s#Sel!$ the be*innin* o! its wreness o! its content$ its

Sel! &&ers s 'nowin* o! tht content in sub0ecti(e reBec#

tion se&rted !ro" tht content, In this wy the content &&ers

s ob0ecti(e to the sub0ect/s sub0ecti(e 'nowin* nd understnd#




in*,

This 'nowin*#understndin* is still enclosed within thou*ht

nd is the 'nowin*# understndin* only o! the sub0ect, 4ecuse

the &ure 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* is so !r con-ned

within sub0ecti(ity$ it hs the ur*e to o(erco"e this by disco(er#

in* truth$ nd truth s the lst result beco"es lso the be*innin*

o! nother s&here o! 'nowin*#understndin*, It only re"ins

here to indicte this trnsition,

In the reBe%i(e 'nowin*#understndin* o! thin'in* the hith#

erto ob0ecti(e content beco"es the Sel!/s own 'nowin*#under#

stndin* o! tht content s the Sel!/s 'nowin*#understndin* it#

sel!$ while the sub0ecti(ity o! the sub0ect nd the ob0ecti(ity o!

the ob0ect re seen s si"&ly &osited nd -ctionl, Sub0ecti(ity is

tht &rt o! the Sel! tht is indi(iduted$ while ob0ecti(ity is tht

&rt which is lwys lredy shred, The 'nowin*#understndin*

o! thin'in* is relity &ositin* itsel! s the bsolute unity o! itsel!

nd its content in the thin'in* o! 'nowin*#understndin* o!

thin'in*$ nd thus contrctin* itsel! bc' into the i""edicy o!

bein*#one/s#Sel!, The Sel! is the totlity in this !or",




7he Social Self: 7he Social Self as 6apitalist

';perience of $astery and Servitude in the Beudal

System

/7he e;perience of mastery and servitude presentsa socially ob8ectiCed relationship of non-reciprocalrecognition. 7he master2s armation of his Self- iden-tity and independence proves to be dependent onrecognition by the =ther but not of the =ther assuch. 7he slave2s sub8ection! by contrast! provides

the preconditions for the development of autonomythrough the e;perience of the fear of death %therecognition of Cnitude&! and service! discipline! andcultivation within social ob8ectivity as responses tothis e;perience of Cnitude and being-for-Self. /

/ . . . #egel presents the struggle for recognition asa decisive e;perience in the constitution of self-con-

scious sub8ectivity and individuality. Kt the sametime! we should note that this episode is supersededin the more comple; conCgurations of reason andSpirit.2

%Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

The 3ster#sl(e dilectic results in indi(idution$ but

only s sub0ects o! ob0ecti(e society, For this reson it is not

the end o! the dilectic but "ust in turn be su&erseded,




/7he master>slave relation lac0s the moment ofreciprocity: although the slave sets aside his own be-ing-for-Self! and thereby does to himself what themaster does to him! the master does not do to himself

what he does to the slave! nor does the slave do tothe master what he also does to himself. 7he masterlearns that his independence or being-for-Self has not

yet been raised to truth! for the master2s Self-identity as independent is constituted through the / reiCed2and dependent consciousness of the slave %Jh++G>2+H&. 7he truth of independent or masteringconsciousness lies in the dependent or slavish con-sciousness. 7he independent master is in fact depen-dent upon the slave! both for the material needs of

life and for his recognition as master. y contrast! thedependent slave! through the e;perience of serviceand discipline! will set the preconditions for overcom-ing domination and sub8ection.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

4y not reco*ni9in* the ontolo*icl !reedo" tht is &rereq#

uisite !or ny beh(iour whtsoe(er the 3ster !ils to see

the sl(e s &riori equl, Only once this is seen cn !orced

3stersl(e reltionshi&s beco"e chosen reltionshi&s,

The 3ster here *ins nothin*$ becuse he is only reco*#

ni9ed by one he considers inc&ble o! &ro(idin* equl

reco*nition,

/self-consciousness can overcome this /freedomstill enmeshed in servitude2 only through socially rec-ognied labour! the process through which it comes




to recognie itself historically within social ob8ectiv-ity.2 %Sinnerbrin0! F,,F&

This "ist'e is the "ist'e o! dilecticl "terilis" s

well, Socil ob0ecti(ity cn only reco*ni9e the indi(idul s

sub0ect, Yet there is truth tht we re 5conde"ned to

3stery5 tht the notion o! reci&rocl reco*nition !ils to d#

dress nd re"ins uncon(incin*,




eyond 7he $aster>Slave (ialectic: 'rotic =wner-ship

In erotic ownershi& o! nother sel!$ Eros drws the &oten#

til owner nd the &otentilly owned by en*enderin* desire$

nd in this drw drws both into the drw itsel! s n inti#

"te bein*[there#with, I! we &osit the two &ersons in(ol(ed$

thou*h$ s &resentthnd$ !ully deter"inble entities$ nd

the desire s so"e sort o! "utul reltion$ we !il to

understnd the wy in which the beuty we &ercei(e in the

other drws as erotic,

I! the other were !ully deter"inble entity$ thin*$ such

s sttue !or instnce$ our desire to &ossess it leds to

contrry desire$ tht is$ to 'ee& &ossession the belo(ed

should be "de less desirble to others$ hence less beuti#

!ul$ less en*enderin* o! desire in others$ but this would lso

en*ender less desire in oursel(es, Fro" the &otentilly

owned &ers&ecti(e$ then$ &recisely they should llow the"#

sel(es to be owned by one tht doesn/t desire the" !ully$ be#

cuse one tht desires the" less will h(e less interest in

reducin* wht beuty is there, This technicl understndin*




o! the sitution "isre&resents Eros$ in tht desire nd &os#

session s "o"ents o! Eros beco"e contrdictory$ nd in

one wy or nother the contrdiction leds to the loss o!

both, It is lso totli9in* in tht it re#&resents both the

other nd the between s !ully deter"ined$ totli9ed thin*s

in totli9ed reltion to one nother, Rther thn erotic$

this technicl understndin* is thntic$ in tht the sel!$ the

other$ nd the reltion re e%&erienced cliniclly$ lid out

be!ore$ &recisely s cor&se is lid out be!ore clinicl$

theoreticl *9e, As total$ this ty&e o! &ossession cn only

be relative$ &redicted on reltion between totli9ed en#

tities,

4ein*s s thin*s cn be seen s &resent#t#hnd$ nd in

our .rtionl/ wy o! thin'in*$ we e%&erience thin*s in tht

"nner, 2e cn e(en$ in theoreticl stnce$ stri& thin*

o! the reltions tht *i(e it "enin*$ such tht it beco"es

n ob0ect, Thin*s cn lso be e%&erienced s redy[to#hnd$

in the wy we &ercei(e tools when we use the" with only

i"&licit reco*nition o! their &resenttion$ &ri"rily reco*#

ni9in* the" s !ul-llin* !unction$ !or e%"&le we don/t re#




lly notice the chir we sit in s chir in its !ull &resent#

tion$ but s !unctionl !or[sittin*[in, These two "odes

don/t e%hust the &ossible "odes o! bein*$ thou*h$ since

they only del with bein*s s deter"inte thin*s, Neither

our sel!$ nor the sel! o! the other$ nor the beuty o! the other

s Eros tht drws us towrds$ nor -nlly the desire tht we

e%&erience in this drw re !und"entlly e%&erienced s

thin*s in either the &resent[t[hnd or redy[to[hnd "odes$

still less s .ob0ects/ stri&&ed o! their "enin*!ul reltions,

In tht sel(es h(e thin*ly s&ects we re no di+erent !ro"

the hi*her ni"ls$ other s&ects o! our bein* deter"ine us

s &ri"rily sel(es$ nd in so doin* rede-ne the ni"listic

trits we do h(e,

Eros nd desire s wht drws nd the drw itsel! re not

e%&erienced s reltion between &resent[t[hnd thin*s,

In erotic bein*#drwn#towrds we re drwn towrds &ro#

0ection o! the sel! nd the other u&on &ossible shred hori#

9on, In this drw we re si"ultneously stretched te"&o#




rlly !ro" our history :the &st s wht is retined in the

&resent; towrds &ro0ected !uture, The &resent ."o"ent/

in which we e%&erience the other is not sin*le now[&oint

but is the entirety o! this &ro0ected stretch, Desire is not

reltion between two lredy &resent[t[hnd thin*s but is

"edited by the sel![nrrti(e o! the &ro0ection$ nd Eros is

not n .ob0ect/ o! this desire but its *ol$ its telos, The erotic

is wht en*enders the sel!#nrrti(e o! !ntsy :hence why

!ntsy is lwys seen s !und"entlly erotic; by drwin*

us towrds &ossibilities tht re not yet !ully ctuli9ed s

&ossession nd bein*#&ossessed$ nd cn lwys be !urther

ctuli9ed, Kbsolute &ossession is lwys partial$ becuse

s bsolute it &ossesses wht is only &rtilly deter"inble$

As sel(es$ the &otentil owner nd owned re not &ri"r#

ily &resent#[t#[hnd entities$ but the o&enin* o! &lce in

which such entities cn &&er nd &ss wy s the inter#

&ly o! relity, In bein*#[with the other there is no .reltion/

between isolted sel!#[thin*s becuse sel(es the"sel(es are

the between in which ny such reltions cn occur, Since

both the drw o! desire nd the bein* cu*ht u& in the drw




occur s &ro0ections$ both desireEros nd sel!other re e%#

&erienced s only &rtilly deter"inble &ossibilities$ nd

desire is desire to ctuli9e those &ossibilities s !ully s

&ossible, To &ossess in the "ode o! *uidin* the ctuli9tion

o! the &ossibilities o! the other$ while bein*[&ossessed$ is in

the "ode o! bein*#*uided in tht ctuli9tion, The erotic s

owned is si"ultneously &resent[t[hnd beuty nd

redy[to[hnd use!ulness$ but "ore &ri"rily the continuin*

increse o! sel!$ Eros nd desire in co[ctuli9in* be#

in*#there#with$ where co[ctuli9in* deter"ines the

&ossessor s owner nd the &ossessed s owned s n on*o#

in* &&ro&ritin* e(ent$ n enown"ent$ in which ech re#

cei(es their &&ro&rite &otentil !ro" the &&ro&ritin*

e(ent itsel!,

In this sitution there is no contrdiction between desire

nd Eros s its telos, Desire desires &recisely the !ullest c#

tuli9tion o! the erotic nd o! the sel! s &ossessin* the

erotic, In the &&ro&ritin* e(ent the &ro&er &lces o! ech

re deter"ined in n on*oin* wy$ the &lces o! the

enowned nd enownin* s the !ullness o! enown"ent itsel!,




4ein* cu*ht u& in the drw nd &ro0ection o! desire by the

&ossessed itsel! co#&ro0ects the !ullness o! enownin* s !r

s our -nite &ro0ections cn$ nd the e(ent$ s on*oin*$

constntly re#&ro0ects enown"ent onto !urther hori9ons,

4y bsolute bein*[there#with in the &&ro&ritin* e(ent we

(oid &redeter"inin* or o(er#deter"inin* the other$ !ro"

either side$ by holdin* o&en &ossibilities s &ossible$ nd re#

"inin* o&en to chn*in* &ro0ections o! those &ossibilities,




Will vs. elassenheit! or Will to elassenheit?

The current discussions re*rdin* the Trns <ci-c <rt#

nershi&$ the lr*est !ree trde *ree"ent in history$ indicte

the -nl st*e o! bsolute c&itlis"/s rri(l, Absolute

c&itlis" hs no !urther need o! e%&ensi(e liberlis" nd

de"ocrcy$ s the econo"ic success o! @hin nd other

non#De"ocrtic$ non#=iberlist <ci-c Ri" ntions de"on#

strtes, =iberlis" is thus &owerless in the !ce o! bsolute

c&itlis", Yet des&ite its &roble"s liberlis" is so !r the

only resonble lternti(e to totlitrin c&itlis" :to

which @o""unis" wsn/t n lternti(e$ "erely n erly

&recursor;, 2e need to loo' t "ore rdicl lternti(es$ l#

ternti(es tht h(e ne(er ctully been &ut into &ly$ no

"tter wht &ro&*nd &retended to h(e &ut the" into

&ly,

%Spea0ing of International Socialism& in its “inter-

nationalism!" it endeavors to erase the last traces of“provincial" homeland! to render people literallyrootless %a feature it shares with capitalist neoliberal-ism&. 7his! however ! is not where the core of theproblem lies1 it rather concerns the sphere of capital-ist economic life: cray! tasteless even! as it maysound! the problem with #itler was that he was “not




violent enough!" his violence was not “essential"enough. #itler did not really act! all his actions were

fundamentally reactions! for he acted so that nothingwould really change! staging a gigantic spectacle of

pseudo-evolution so that the capitalist order wouldsurvive.

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egel and the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p.,F&. orton. )indle 'dition.%aism& although a re-action to bourgeois banality! remains its inherentnegation! remains trapped within the horion of bour-geois society: the true problem of aism is not thatit “went too far" in its sub8ectivist-nihilist hubris of

e;ercising total power! but that it did not go farenough! that its violence was an impotent acting-outwhich! ultimately! remained in the service of the veryorder it despised. #itler2s grand gestures of con-tempt for bourgeois Self-complacency and so on wereultimately in the service of enabling this complacency to survive: far from eectively disturbing themuch-despised “decadent" bourgeois order! far fromawa0ening the ermans from their immersion in its

complacency! aism was a dream which enabledthem to carry on. 7he fact remains that! as we havetried to indicate apropos the status of the polemosand collective will! #eidegger does not follow his ownlogic to the end when he endorses the fascist com-promise. 7o employ again a familiar metaphor: fas-cism wants to throw out the dirty bath water %the lib-eral-democratic individualism that comes with capi-talism& and 0eep the baby %capitalist relations of pro-duction&! and the way it tries to do this is! again! to

throw out the dirty water %the radical polemos whichcuts across the entire social body& and 0eep the baby%the corporatist unity of the people&. ut what shouldbe done is the e;act opposite: to throw out both ba-bies %capitalist relations as well as their corporatistpaciCcation& and 0eep the dirty water of radical




struggle. 7he parado; is thus that! in order to save #eidegger from aism! we need more will andstruggle and less elassenheit.

9ie0! Slavo8 %F,+F-,G-H,&. *ess 7han othing: #egel and the Shadow of (ialectical $aterialism %p.,F&. orton. )indle 'dition.

Zi9e' :nd by e%tension Heide**er; is correct in tht 2ill

is needed$ e(en "ore 2ill$ but not the 2ill to <ower o! Niet#

9sche$ which inherently de(ol(es to 2ill to 2ill$ nd wht is

willed is deter"intion nd o(er#deter"intion o! bein*s$

&redo"inntly their o(er#deter"intion s resources, 2ht

is required is the &&rently &rdo%icl 2ill to Gelssen#

heit$ or 2ill to =ettin*#4e$ lettin* thin*s be the thin*s they

re$ lettin* thin*s continue to !urther Sel!#deter"ine$

whether they re hu"n bein*s or trees or roc's, 2ill to

<ower de(ol(es into (icious circle$ 2ill to Gelssenheit

(irtuous one, 2ill hs to be 2ill to "intin the di1cult

o&enness to "ystery$ to the un'nown nd the un'nowble

&resent in e(erythin*, It is the deter"intion not to

o(er#deter"ine,

Stru**le "ust be re&lced by the strife o! the inter&ly o!

bein*s nd world, Stru**le is both totli9in* nd e(entully




irrele(nt$ since those tht stru**le ine(itbly$ i! success!ul$

si"&ly re&lce those stru**led *inst, Stri!e "intins

both in their di+erence$ in their inherent but &rtil dis#

&utes, Totli9in* wr cn only co"e out o! stru**le$ stri!e

results in the s'ir"ishes tht "intin the dyn"ic inter#

&ly o! li!e,

The !ree trde *ree"ents o! the recent &st$ whether

those o! the EE@ or the worse !or" o! NAFTA$ inherently

chn*e the blnce o! &ower in !(or o! &ri(te cor&ortions

nd *inst lbor nd ny llies it hs le!t in *o(ern"ent,

The T<< *oes !urther thn either in this shi!t in &ower bl#

nce$ destbili9in* society in "nner not seen since the

be*innin*s o! the !ilure o! the Ro"n E"&ire,

@&itlis" "i"ics 2ill to <ower in the circulrity o! the

use o! @&itl to crete "ore @&itl s !lse welth$ with#

out re*rd !or the true welth creted ind(ertently (i &ro#

duction, In !ct the c&itlist !ntsy o! the !rictionless

econo"y &recisely re"o(es ny &roduction o! true welth$

&re!errin* the -ctionl increse in @&itl without the

"essy detils o! ctuli9in* rel welth, 2ill to <ower$ de#




(ol(ed into 2ill to 2ill$ e(entully is the deth o! ny rel

willin*, The !rictionless econo"y de(ol(es into the deth o!

econo"y itsel!, irtul relity de(ol(es into the deth o! re#

lity nd ny rel reltion to it,

Si"ultneously c&itlis" reduces ll bein*s$ includin*

us$ to interchn*eble resources, The liberl idel o! "er#

itocrcy$ howe(er lc'in* it hs been in ctuli9tion$ t the

(ery lest curbed the worst e%cesses o! the &ri(ile*ed, De#

*rees o! "erit$ t lest in theory$ &re(ented the bsolute

equi(lence o! the lbor unit, Ironiclly$ it is the (ery tech#

nolo*y tht "de this &ossible tht is currently its only (i#

ble o&&osition$ becuse the de(elo&"ent o! such technol#

o*y is the lst "0or econo"ic -eld where reco*nition o!

di+erences in "erit$ rther thn di+erences in rbitrry

&ri(ile*e$ re crucil to n enter&rise/s success, As Holder#

lin &ut it where the dn*er is$ there the s(in* &ower

*rows, The question is whether the s(in* &ower o! the

"eritocrcy o! technolo*ists is su1cient,

The entr&"ent o! the intelli*entsi in wste!ul &re!bri#

cted nt*onis"s between science nd reli*ion$ nd the di#




(ersion o! their ener*y into thin*s li'e the "i%ture o! &oor

science nd reli*iously bsed &o& &hiloso&hy 'nown s

Trnshu"nis"$ thretens to di(ert the ener*ies !ound in

technolo*ists into !lse ideolo*icl bttles$ while the rel

wr o! c&itlis" *inst the &eo&le continues unbted,




7he Social Self as 6apitalist: K Short (econstruc-tion of 6apitalist Ideology

, 4i* *o(ern"ent is wste!ul,

Any lr*e$ hierrchicl or*ni9tion will be &rone to r#

es o! wste!ulness$ this is s true o! ny lr*e cor&ortion

s it is o! *o(ern"ent$ in "ny cses "ore so$ since "ost

shreholders re relly s&ecultors nd h(e no concern !or

the wor'in*s o! the cor&ortion$ cor&ortions re less c#

countble to nyone, The &roble" thou*h lies in the struc#

ture$ not si"&ly the si9e$ o! the or*ni9tion in question,

Si"&ly &ut$ the hi*her u& the hierrchicl chin uthority is

in(ested$ the !urther !ro" the source o! in!or"tion on wht

is h&&enin* nd wht ou*ht to h&&en the uthority is,

Ed*e or*ni9tions$ where uthority is in(ested in those

closest to the ctul o&ertions nd "n*e"ent is *ener#

lly ts'ed with coordintin* di+erent !cets re "ore e1#

cient nd less wste!ul, 3ost *o(ern"ent s&endin* is in

!ct necessry in "odern society$ nd "ore e1ciency$ while

desirble$ would lessen the bud*et only "r*inlly, As re#




sult blncin* the bud*et cn only h&&en by risin* o(erll

t%tion,

, Hi*her t%es on the welthy hurt the econo"y,

This one is &rticulrly ob(ious !llcy, The econo"y is

-rstly nd lstly de&endent u&on de"nd, 2ithout de"nd

!or *oods nd ser(ices there is no incenti(e to in(est"ent,

For e(ery dollr t%ed o+ the &oor nd "iddle clss "uch

"ore si9ble &ortion is re"o(ed !ro" econo"ic de"nd !or

the si"&le reson tht they need to s&end lr*er &ercent#

*e o! their inco"e,

Si"ultneously the lowerin* o! de"nd reduces the o&#

&ortunities (ilble to the welthy !or ctul in(est"ent$

nd the result is incresed s&ecultion in the stoc' "r'et

nd rel estte$ cretin* bubbles tht under"ine the stbil#

ity o! the econo"y s whole, Ironiclly the e(entul &unc#

turin* o! those bubbles hurts the welthy !r "ore thn the

&oor nd "iddle clsses,

Finlly$ incresin* t%es$ &ercent*e wise$ on those with

lower inco"es results in lower ctul t%tion thn the

s"e &ercent*e increse on the welthy$ "'in* it less




use!ul in ctully blncin* the bud*et # i,e, those with

lower inco"es don/t "'e enou*h s *rou& t this &oint to

h(e the de-cit reduced substntilly out o! their inco"es,

K, Inco"e is bsed on "erit,

2ere this "eritocrcy$ the -rst thin* tht would h(e to

be i"&le"ented would be n bsolute stndrd tht &&lies

to e(eryone in ter"s o! eduction nd inheritnce, Other#

wise inco"e &ri"rily re"ins de&endent on birth into

&rticulr clss or inco"e brc'et or the luc' o! the drw in

h(in* s'ill set tht h&&ens to be in hi*h de"nd,

This could be chn*ed by bnnin* ll &ri(te eduction

nd tutorin*$ nd t%in* inheritnce t ], The ltter

would h(e the si"ultneous e+ect o! "ssi(ely incresin*

yerly t%tion nd lowerin* the incenti(e to hordin*

"oney,

J, The "in incenti(e to wor' is "oney,

3oney is lr*ely "ens$ "oney s n end in itsel! is

&tholo*y !ound in "inority o! &eo&le, 3oney is currently

"ens to res&ectbility$ "ens o! !osterin* n d(nt*e

!or one/s o+s&rin*$ nd necessity to en0oy resonble




li!estyle$ nd it is these thin*s$ not the "ens to the"$ tht

is the "in incenti(e to wor'$ nd the reson "ost &eo&le

do wor' nd wor' !irly hrd, Re"o(in* the bility o!

"oney to !oster n d(nt*e !or one/s o+s&rin* by bnnin*

&ri(te eduction nd tutorin* nd re"o(in* the bility to

inherit "oney would "en tht the only "ens to !oster n

d(nt*e would be to s&end "ore ti"e nd &ersonl e+ort

with one/s children, Slshin* the inco"e *& between the

welthy$ the "iddle inco"e erners nd the &oor lso in#

creses these incenti(es to wor' cross the bord$ i"&ro(es

econo"ic de"nd$ increses the stbility o! the econo"y

nd the -nncil syste"$ nd &ro(ides "uch "ore (ible

cli" to "eritocrcy,




Brom \Atopian\ to \ScientiCc\ #umanism

I! we co"&re the tendencies o! the &ro#hu"nist :the#

ist#scienti-c#seculr; discourses o! the 5uto&in5 (riety :s

e%e"&li-ed by @rl S*n in this cse; nd the 5scienti-c5

:s e%e"&li-ed by Richrd Dw'ins; we cn trce the s"e

!oreclosure o! the sy"bolic other tr(ersed in the "o(e"ent

!ro" 5uto&in5 :=eninist; socilist discourse to tht o! 5scien#

ti-c5 :Stlinist; socilist discourse,

Hu"nist discourse be*ins with the equi(lent

*enus#s&ecies decision$ where 5hu"nist5 beco"es the &ri#

"ry s&ecies o! the *enus 5hu"n5, Atheistic#seculr# scien#

ti-c "n beco"es the i" o! "n hi"sel! when the con!u#

sion o! the &&rent is re"o(ed, This 5see"in*5 o! the &#

&rent is o! course re"o(ed by the &hnts" o! the inte#

*rted ob0ecti(e 'nowled*e o! relity &ossessed by the sci#

enti-c hu"nist hi"sel!$ in the s"e "nner s it is &os#




sessed by the co""unist in re*rds to the "sses or the

Ro"n in re*rds to the brbric,

The hu"nist 5other5 is$ then$ the non# scienti-c "n

tr&&ed in the illusion o! sub0ecti(ity "terili9ed into the

&hnts" o! reli*ion, The 5!reedo"5 o! the hu"nist rises

!ro" his &ositin* o! relity s the &ure ob0ecti(e re"o(ed

!ro" ll the "ere &&ernces o! the Thin*$ nd his obtin#

in* thereby !ree reltion to ob0ecti(e relity,, The &lce in

which the hu"nist stnds beco"es itsel! the &hnts"icl

&osition 5outside5 ny &rticulr &ers&ecti(e$ the uni(er#

sl#ob0ecti(e "er*ed i""editely with the indi(idul#&rtic#

ulr,

Throu*h the &hse o! 5uto&in5 hu"nist discourse the

stru**le is there!ore to con(ince the "sses throu*h educ#

tion to dro& their con!used clin*in* to "ere &&ernce nd

5see5 relity in the uni(ersl# ob0ecti(e "nner$ i,e, see rel#

ity s the hu"nist hi"sel! &ercei(es it to be, S*n5s cl"

e%&lictions o! his (iews on relity re n e%cellent e%"&le

o! this educti(e 5helin* the ill5 &&roch o! uto&in hu#

"nis", The !rustrtion t his own inbility to cco"&lish




this leds the hu"nist$ howe(er$ to the !oreclosure tht

turns uto&in hu"nis" to scienti-c hu"nis", The !ore#

closure itsel! is encted (i the ori*inl *enus#s&ecies deci#

sion$ where the s&ecies o! the hu"nist 5other5 :the reli*ion#

ist$ the non#seculr$ non#ob0ecti(e; is de"onstrbly "n

whose 5true5 :hu"nist; nture is di(erted nd co"&ro#

"ised, The identi-ction o! the s&ecies :hu"nist; with the

5true ob0ecti(e5 deter"intion o! the *enus :"n; le(es the

hu"nist 5other5 in the &osition o! Sel!# contrdictory

s&ecies o! the *enus tht does not "eet the conditions o!

the *enus itsel!$ nd is thus "ere scr&, Re"o(e the scr&

!ro" the *enus nd you re"o(e nothin*, This 5cuttin*$ s&lit#

tin*5 &rt o! the *enus into s&ecies nd wste is the scien#

ti-c reduction itsel! encted &r e%cellence on the ori*inl

&ro&osition, 3n is di(ided into ho"o hu"nus nd ho"o

e%cretius$ the e%cretio bein* brbrus$ reli*ious$ non#ob0ec#

ti(e$ or whte(er other deter"intions re see"in*ly re#

"o(ed !ro" ho"o hu"nus, The result is the "ilitncy o!

5scienti-c5 hu"nis" itsel!, 2hile the 5other5 under uto&in

hu"nis" is re*rded s 5ill5 :con!used$ uneducted$ or in



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / "'

so"e other wy &ossessin* lc' tht cn be -lled (i so"e

sort o! hu"nist helin* &rocess; the scienti-c hu"nist

5other5 is conscious tritor to the *enus, Rther thn lc'#

in* ob0ecti(ity he insted &ossesses n e%cess o! 0ouissnce

in his en0oy"ent o! sub0ecti(e &hnts"s$ the (ery &hn#

ts"s tht hunt the hu"nist when in &rctice his ccess

to the inte*rted ob0ecti(e 'nowled*e o! relity ine(itbly

!ils, This 5tritorous5 other cn be "de to see 5reson5 only

by !orce, Dw'ins there!ore "'es brely n tte"&t to use

&ersusion nd con(incin* r*u"ent$ it is in d(nce

wste o! ti"e nd only br*inin* "o(e in ter"s o! *in#

in* enou*h d(nt*e o(er the d(ersry in order to c#

quire the necessry !orce to erdicte the other, It is i"&os#

sible to r*ue *inst Dw'ins or his il' :s de"onstrted

by his i"&erious dis"issl o!=ewontin5s ob0ections !or e%"#

≤ becuse Dw'ins is &riori in the uni(ersl#ob0ecti(e

&lce where relity cn be seen nd "esured 5scienti-#

clly5$ nd ny o&&onent is not in tht &lce$ since i! he were

he would h(e no ob0ections to ny o! Dw'ins5 &ositions,

Dw'ins "ilitncy rises !ro" his con(iction tht science5s




!ilure to *i(e the indi(idul#&rticulr hu"nist the neces#

sry ob0ecti(e#uni(ersl &osition is due to the tritorous

&hnts"s o! the non#scienti-c$ rther thn due to the

&hnts"icl chrcter o! the ob0ecti(e#uni(ersl &osition

itsel!,

Tht this &osition itsel! rests on the bsis o! re(eled reli#

*ion beco"es ob(ious, The &osition is "et&hysiclly occu#

&ied by the re(eled di(inity$ then usur&ed by the 5scientis#

tic#hu"nist5 without chn*in* the "orl tenor o! ri*hteous#

ness nd nt*onis" towrds dis*ree"ent, H(in* the

s"e ori*in$ hu"nis" hs the s"e li"ittions s those o!

re(eled reli*ion nd the s"e tendencies, 4oth h(e so"e#

thin* 5correct5 in the"$ but they do not h(e the truth, Try#

in* to co"bine the"$ s "ny 5co"&rt"entli9ed5 reli*ious

scientists do only **r(tes the sitution into Sel! con#

trdictory Sel! ri*hteousness, The non#reli*ious understnd#

in* o! re(eltion itsel! ends the &ossibilities o! hu"nist sci#

ence t the s"e ti"e s those o! re(eled reli*ion, <ost

"et&hysicl 5science5 "y deser(e the n"e &hiloso&hy o!

nture once "ore once the "echnistic$ cretionist$



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ""

&seudo#ob0ecti(e nture o! 5"odern5 science is -nlly dis#

&ensed with,




The Socil Sel! s :Sub; @ulturl

Self-Identity and Self-IdentiCcation: Identifying Ks

The notion o! identifying as in -%ed "nner indictes

not only "isunderstndin* o! the &ro&er use o! tht c#

tion$ but !und"entl "isunderstndin* o! the notions o!

Sel!$ identity nd Sel!#Identity,

The only thin* I identify as in -%ed wy is "y Sel!$ i,e, I

identi!y uniquely nd solely s "e, This isn/t so"e r"&nt

indi(idulis"$ since "y Sel! is lr*ely shred with other hu#

"n bein*s$ "ore so the closer we re in ter"s o! the soci#

ety into which we were initited$ nd in which initition we

bec"e hu"n, Sel!#identity$ t its bse$ is &recisely the

identity o! one/s Sel! with onesel!, How we co"&rehend this

identity nd how we lwys 'now when we re bein* true to

our Sel(es is co"&le% "tter$ but it hs nothin* to do with

identi!yin* s one *ener or nother$ or with one *rou& or

nother,

2hen I see so"eone doin* (erbl bc'Bi&s tryin* to c#

co""odte$ !or e%"&le$ their se%ulity to lbel they cn




be co"!ortble identi!yin* s$ nd &redictbly !ilin*$ there

is de"onstrble con!usion between who one is nd how

one h&&ens to live, Si"&ly &ut$ i! I !uc' the s"e se%$ I/"

*y) i! I !uc' the o&&osite se%$ I/" stri*ht) i! I !uc' both$

I/" bise%ul, At ny *i(en &oint in "y li!e$ bsed on how I

&ro0ect "ysel! to beh(e in the !oreseeble !uture$ &ic'in*

one or the other shouldn/t be lto*ether tht di1cult, The

&&rent di1culty rises when we try to use the wy we

&ro0ect li(in* in the resonbly ner !uture s deter"inin*

who we re, At tht &oint the si"&le de-nitions :nd the

hu*e (riety o! "ore co"&le% ones; re ne(er su1cient to

c&ture e(ery s&ect o! so"ethin* s co"&le% s se%ulity$

nd the only &ossible outco"e$ beyond the bo(e "entioned

con!usion$ is Sel!#li"ittion to one or nother *rou&/s de-#

nition o! itsel! s *rou&, =i(in* s stri*ht$ *y$ bise%ul$

is not li"ittion since tht &ro0ection cn chn*e s we

chn*e nd de(elo&, Identi!yin* s ny o! those$ or queer$

or lether$ or cuticle#centric$ or whte(er is inherently li"it#

in* the "ni!old wys in which we chn*e nd *row s

sel(es,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / ")

O! course we s&end ti"e in (rious *rou&s$ not 0ust o(er

li!eti"e$ but o(er sin*le dy$ nd to so"e de*ree we

.t'e &rt/ in those identities, Howe(er si"&ly becuse we

re e"&loyed by &ri(te businesses we do not necessrily

.identi!y s/ r"&nt c&itlists) nor do we necessrily

.identi!y s/ %eno&hobic ntionlists si"&ly becuse we

co"e ho"e to !"ily o! &rticulr ethnicity nd en0oy

so"e o! the co""on &r%es o! tht ethnicity, The Stte r#

biters between *rou&s s *rou&s &recisely becuse indi(idu#

ls "or&h between (rious *rou&s on constnt bsis$ nd

s result their identities$ wnts$ desires re !r too co"#

&le% nd Buid !or ny 'ind o! co"&rehensible contrct be#

tween stte nd indi(idul, ust s h(in* n ethnicity tht

is &rt o! "y identity does not "'e "e identi!y s tht eth#

nicity$ neither should h(in* &rticulr se%ul &rocli(ities$

or bein* &rt o! &rticulr *rou&s tht re de-ned by so"e

co""on &rocli(ity$ !orce "e to identi!y s tht &rocli(ity,

2hile it is &rt o! "y identity it "y be "0or or "inor

&rt$ it "y be constnt or Beetin*$ or it "y si"&ly co"e

nd *o,




The e%ce&tions$ o! course$ re *rou&s where "e"bershi&

is li!elon* bindin* co""it"ent, 4ein* esuit is not

so"ethin* you cn t'e u& nd &ut down$ !or e%"&le, Nei#

ther is bein* Hell/s An*el, E(en in these e%tre"es$

thou*h$ "e"bers re"in the co"&le% bein*s they re$ the

di+erence bein* tht they h(e "de sole"n co""it"ent

to &uttin* &rticulr *rou&/s interests bo(e those o! ny

other *rou& they "y t'e &rt in t di+erent ti"es in their

li(es or di+erent ti"es o! the dy or wee',

2ith the i"&losion o! the conce&t o! .&ersonlity/ nd its

re&lce"ent with the &oorly enou*h de-ned .Sel!#identity/$

s indi(iduls we re in *reter di1culty co"in* to *ri&s

with who we re thn e(er be!ore, Howe(er Sel!#identity

nd identi-ction re se&rte "tters$ nd conBtin* the"

cnnot led to stis!ctory Sel!#understndin*, Si"ultne#

ously "oderni9tion$ nd c&itli9tion in &rticulr$ hs

!unctioned s n cid on (st nu"ber o! shred &r%es

tht lent sense o! belon*in* to "e"bers o! di+erent

*rou&s$ whether the destruction o! the shred &r%es o! &r#

ticulr rituls in (rious reli*ious *rou&s nd their re&lce#




"ent with *rou&s tht only shre bstrct ideolo*icl be#

lie!#syste"s$ or "ore recently the bndon"ent by c&itl

o! the shred &r%es o! the sciences$ nd the ensuin* re#

"o(l o! !undin* !or the scienti-c co""unity nd its re#

&lce"ent with 'nowled*e wor'ers tht do not "intin

the e%&ensi(e nd$ !ro" the &ers&ecti(e o! *lobl c&itl$

useless shred &r%es tht *(e sense o! belon*in* to

"e"bers o! the scienti-c co""unity, These chn*es led

to n understndble desire to both h(e co"&rehensible

deter"intion o! onesel!$ nd desire to h(e sense o! be#

lon*in* to so"e sort o! co""unity with who" we shre

so"ethin* intrinsic,

@retin* new co""unities$ thou*h$ requires new shred

&r%es$ nd this is di1cult chie(e"ent$ &rticulrly in

ti"e where &eo&le re s'e&ticl e(en o! s'e&ticis" itsel!,

Tryin* to crete co""unities (i shortcut o! Sel!#i"#

&osed set o! li"ittions (i the notion o! .identi!yin* s/ will

not wor' thou*h$ nd in !ct will cuse nscent co""uni#

ties to Sel!#destruct$ le(in* indi(iduls in the s"e &lce

they were to be*in with, There/s no &oint in de-nin* nd




rede-nin* wht "'es &rticulr *rou& the *rou& it is to

such de*ree tht it beco"es unreco*ni9ble s *rou&,

All tht/s been chie(ed$ !unctionlly$ is the destruction o!

the *rou& nd its re&lce"ent by n rbitrry set o! indi(id#

uls with no co""on &r%is tht would lend the sense o! be#

lon*in* nd identity desired in the -rst &lce, Rede-nin*

so"ethin* in order to "'e it "ore inclusi(e$ in this cse

*enerlly inclusi(e o! whte(er is &rt o! your Sel!$ but ws

e%cluded in the ori*inl de-nition$ lso "'es the de-nition

less &recise, As n ob(ious e%"&le$ so"e o! the recent re#

de-nitions o! .lether/ tht I/(e red !ro" "e"bers o! the

lether subculture re so inclusi(e they "'e it &rcticlly

synony"ous with .decent hu"n/, 3ost o! us belon* to tht

de-nition in ny cse$ there/s no need to du&licte it$ nor

will doin* so *i(e nyone ny *reter sense o! belon*in* to

so"ethin* &rticulr, @o""unities bsed on new shred

&r%es$ &ro(idin* they re not &rticulrly di1cult or oner#

ous$ h(e the d(nt*e o! bein* o&en to nyone willin* to

&rtici&te in the shred cti(ity$ without thereby beco"in*

"ore nd "ore inclusi(e to the &oint o! bein* "enin*less,




7he Self as Jlace: *ocality and Identity

4ein* s ti"e#&lce unco(ers by si"ultneously concel#

in* wht ws unconceled :beco"es .wy/ # conceled;,

4ein*s crete &lce in the o&en by their rrn*e"ent,

D#sein is the o&en s world$ e"er*ence tht *oes bc' into

itsel!$ thus to .twist !ree/ o! concel"ent, This le(es the

"ystery o! the in between bein*s s &lced crete$ the D o!

D#sein itsel!, .S&ce/ is n ine+ectul conce&t$ s well s

none%istent, How do thin*s .twist !ree/$ nd into wht8

Into D#sein s world8 The in between s the "ystery o! re#

ltion nd the &ossibility o! distncin* de#distncin*,

To&oi6 syste"s o! &lce$ !ro" the rrn*e"ent o! bein*s,

Arrn*e"ent is &&ro&rite or not de&endin* on the e(ent

o! &&ro&rition h(in* eru&ted nd decision "de, The

eru&tion o! the e(ent is constnt) decision is the &&ro&ri#

tion o! D#sein to the e(ent,



Glynn / Horizons of Identity / "9'

Decision on the eru&tion o! shred e(ent requires 3it#

dsein, 2ithout 3itdsein$ no shred &&ro&rition nd

thus no &ossible &&ro&riteness o! &lce, The nerness o!

the &rll% is "ode o! de#distncin* tht si"ultneously

distnces the shre in the lr*er set o! &rll%es :society;,

(a-sein does not Crst Cll up an ob8ectivelypresent path or stretch Oof lifeO through thephases of its momentary realities! but

stretches itself along in such a way that itsown being is constituted beforehand as this

glynn - 2014 - horizons of identity

Documents