[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The history of those analyses in whichsubjectivity eludes one retains its own transcendence. It seems to me that the difference between us lies there (much more than in the over-discussed question ofstructuralism).As you know, I have no great liking for interpretation, but allow me, as a kind of game, to say what Iunderstand you to have said earlier.'Of course', you say, 'we must now admit, despite all the attacks of the arriere-garde,that one formalizes deductive discourses; of course we have to admit that one describes, not so much the history of a soul,not so much a project of existence, as the architecture of a philosophical system; of course, whatever we think about it,we have to tolerate those analyses((223))that link literary oeuvres, not to the lived experience of an individual, but to the structures of the language (longue).Ofcourse, we have had to abandon all those discourses that once led us to the sovereignty of consciousness.But what wehave lost over the last half-century, we are hoping to recover in the second degree, by means of the analysis of thoseanalyses, or at least by the fundamental questioning that we apply to them.We will ask them where they came from,towards what historical destination they are moving without being aware of it, what naivety blinds them to the conditionsthat make them possible, and what metaphysical enclosure encloses their rudimentary positivism.And so in the end it willnot matter that the unconscious is not, as we believed and affirmed, the implicit edge of consciousness; it will not matterthat a mythology is no longer a world-view, and that a novel is something other than the outer slope of a lived experience;for the reason that establishes all these new 'truths' is under strict supervision: neither itself, nor its past, nor that whichmakes it possible, nor that which makes it ours escapes the attribution of transcendence.For it is to it now and we aredetermined never to abandon this that we will now pose the question of the origin, the first constitution, the teleo-logical horizon, temporal continuity.It is that thought, which is now becoming ours, that we will maintain in historico-transcendental dominance.That is why, if we must tolerate all these structuralisms, whether we like it or not, we will notallow any taint to that history of thought that is our own history; we will not allow the unravelling of those transcendentalthreads that have hound it since the nineteenth century to the problem of origin and subjectivity.To whomsoeverapproaches that fortress in which we have taken refuge, and which we are determined to defend and to hold, we repeat,with a gesture that wards off all profanation: 'Noli tangere'.But I have obstinately gone on.Not that I am either certain of victory or sure of my weapons.But because it seemed tome that, for the moment, the essential task was to free the history of thought from its subjection to transcendence.For me,the problem was certainly not how to structuralize it, by applying to the development of knowledge or to the genesis ofthe sciences categories that had proved themselves in the domain of language (longue).My aim was to analyse thishistory, in the discontinuity that no teleology would reduce in advance; to map((224))it in a dispersion that no pre-established horizon would embrace; to allow it to be deployed in an anonymity on which notranscendental constitution would impose the form of the subject; to open it up to a temporality that would not promisethe return of any dawn.My aim was to cleanse it of all transcendental narcissism; it had to be freed from that circle of thelost origin, and rediscovered where it was imprisoned; it had to be shown that the history of thought could not have thisrole of revealing the transcendental moment that rational mechanics has not possessed since Kant, mathematical idealitiessince Husserl, and the meanings of the perceived world since Merleau-Ponty despite the efforts that had been made tofind it here.And I think that really, despite the element of doubt introduced by our apparent dispute over structuralism, weunderstood each other perfectly [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.The history of those analyses in whichsubjectivity eludes one retains its own transcendence. It seems to me that the difference between us lies there (much more than in the over-discussed question ofstructuralism).As you know, I have no great liking for interpretation, but allow me, as a kind of game, to say what Iunderstand you to have said earlier.'Of course', you say, 'we must now admit, despite all the attacks of the arriere-garde,that one formalizes deductive discourses; of course we have to admit that one describes, not so much the history of a soul,not so much a project of existence, as the architecture of a philosophical system; of course, whatever we think about it,we have to tolerate those analyses((223))that link literary oeuvres, not to the lived experience of an individual, but to the structures of the language (longue).Ofcourse, we have had to abandon all those discourses that once led us to the sovereignty of consciousness.But what wehave lost over the last half-century, we are hoping to recover in the second degree, by means of the analysis of thoseanalyses, or at least by the fundamental questioning that we apply to them.We will ask them where they came from,towards what historical destination they are moving without being aware of it, what naivety blinds them to the conditionsthat make them possible, and what metaphysical enclosure encloses their rudimentary positivism.And so in the end it willnot matter that the unconscious is not, as we believed and affirmed, the implicit edge of consciousness; it will not matterthat a mythology is no longer a world-view, and that a novel is something other than the outer slope of a lived experience;for the reason that establishes all these new 'truths' is under strict supervision: neither itself, nor its past, nor that whichmakes it possible, nor that which makes it ours escapes the attribution of transcendence.For it is to it now and we aredetermined never to abandon this that we will now pose the question of the origin, the first constitution, the teleo-logical horizon, temporal continuity.It is that thought, which is now becoming ours, that we will maintain in historico-transcendental dominance.That is why, if we must tolerate all these structuralisms, whether we like it or not, we will notallow any taint to that history of thought that is our own history; we will not allow the unravelling of those transcendentalthreads that have hound it since the nineteenth century to the problem of origin and subjectivity.To whomsoeverapproaches that fortress in which we have taken refuge, and which we are determined to defend and to hold, we repeat,with a gesture that wards off all profanation: 'Noli tangere'.But I have obstinately gone on.Not that I am either certain of victory or sure of my weapons.But because it seemed tome that, for the moment, the essential task was to free the history of thought from its subjection to transcendence.For me,the problem was certainly not how to structuralize it, by applying to the development of knowledge or to the genesis ofthe sciences categories that had proved themselves in the domain of language (longue).My aim was to analyse thishistory, in the discontinuity that no teleology would reduce in advance; to map((224))it in a dispersion that no pre-established horizon would embrace; to allow it to be deployed in an anonymity on which notranscendental constitution would impose the form of the subject; to open it up to a temporality that would not promisethe return of any dawn.My aim was to cleanse it of all transcendental narcissism; it had to be freed from that circle of thelost origin, and rediscovered where it was imprisoned; it had to be shown that the history of thought could not have thisrole of revealing the transcendental moment that rational mechanics has not possessed since Kant, mathematical idealitiessince Husserl, and the meanings of the perceived world since Merleau-Ponty despite the efforts that had been made tofind it here.And I think that really, despite the element of doubt introduced by our apparent dispute over structuralism, weunderstood each other perfectly [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]