Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Note on Gillian Rose from February 2007

Since I've been tweeting much about Gillian Rose today, I found this research note from 2007 that I liked very much and that is related to my reading of Gillian Rose then, clearly at the time I knew much more about philosophy than now, it hadn't been in general so tainted by murderous history. It is incisive and somewhat beautiful. Please do not post this in Twitter, it is of no one's interest there.

"Central to the theorizing of Gillian Rose is the actuality of protest. In her work, protest is not only a speaking against, a contra-diction, it is also a recognition that to speak against is already to be part of that which is opposed. This logic is Hegelian but what Gillian found in this logic was passion, faith and failure"-Nigel Tubbs on Gillian Rose

To contradict onelself is not a matter of logical argumentation, it is not the edging roaring of being more interesting than wrong or of being more wrong than interesting, it is "to mind the gap" of being in itself, it is to speak to oneself by speaking contra-himself - the only form of communication available that embraces the reality of freedom not in its real essence but in its actuality.

A contra-diction is not a rhaetoric play, it is merely play and therefore the only source for humanity available from within the ruins of dark times when the whole set of banisters has been lifted in order to reveal the purest content of existence - an empty canvas both in terms of the form and of the content; the source of this delicious madness that leads from logic to folly and from folly to thinking.

But the philosophers were certainly right in arguing that this "negativity" that is the very essence of thinking is not available anywhere in nature and therefore not "permissible" to man under the aegis of the natural sciences and technology - the dominant world view of the modern world. Only in technology there's progress, and if society and morals would find their workings bound with the concept of the technological this should never constitute a human problem, but the case is strangely otherwise.

Because of its progressive nature, technology or the "technologicum" can hardly grasp the principle of contingency because there's a goal that has turned technological imagination into a form of consciousness and perhaps no one better to describe this than Foucault. The success of this misunderstanding is its very failure, the only reason why it actually remains at the core of what is meaningful in humanity, namely the telos that is never reached but the process by which the contingency is endlessly being transformed into this telos by the Will, lest it be too strong to become an "spherical" aspect of worldly life such as philosophy, economy or education.

No comments: