The past, reveals, persists and can be felt in the present if one is attuned to it. These more private moments of memory, however, are not solipsistic or simply subjective; they are often interwoven with the remembrance of key historical moments and national disasters, including Fukushima, the Challenger disaster, and the financial crisis.
Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia
Just as Bergson distinguishes between a past that persists in the immediately passing present of consciousness from a kind of general past of everything, so too does the novel make this distinction by tying individual memory to historical memory. Lerner, moreover, calls attention to the tendency with which consciousness, even as it experiences a continuous flow of time and flux of heterogeneous sensory data, organizes the world via causality and narrative.
Of course, from a Bergsonian perspective, the very opposite is the case. Any thinking that seeks to create the future in its own image without recourse to duration does so at the expense of recognizing the present, which carries the past with it. Only after something has been realized can we retrospectively identify the possibilities for its realization. The conditions of past possibility, therefore, will come to pass in the future. A futurity based upon possibility in this sense, then, can only register change after the fact. In other words, virtual futures differ from possible futures.
The virtual is thus the space of pure potentiality—as duration it is the continuous, heterogenous flux of qualitative time in which the past, present, and future are essentially indistinguishable such as in memory. The whole of the virtual-as-potential is simply actualized in part—actualized temporarily by consciousness. In short, whereas the possible produces its likeness in the real and therefore cannot separate itself in kind or in quantitative time from the real hence the retroactive time-trap , the virtual as duration in qualitative time changes in kind when it is actualized and is thus expressed quantitatively.
For if we will only know retroactively what will have been possible after it has been realized, then we must not project possibility into a future that cannot be known or feels already decided; rather, we should attend to the present that, by default, is the past-potential as well and is consequently unstructured, open, and capable of virtually anything.
The time of freedom that gestures toward is one that is immanent, not imminent. As apt to consider apocalyptic scenarios as utopian ones, shares an intellectual lineage with what has been called messianic Marxism, a sort of secularized messianism of end times or crises in which the moment of emancipation, redemption, or revolution is to be grasped in the here-and-now, not waited upon. In contrast, the messianic now involves paying attention to the actual immediate present, not the possible techno-future or entrepreneurial society imagined by neoliberalism, to discover the emergent potential for change.
Neoliberal presentism offers a false picture of the future to legitimate the bankrupt present, while the messianic now demands the recognition of the present-as-immanent. The future is not empty and the present is not the addition of one event on top of another. Rather, the present is always full of other possibilities which are not part of the present state of things. The other present, all these other possibilities which have been nullified by the actual but in which the actual itself has to have its origin , exists virtually in the messianic future.
It is immanent, not imminent. To actualize this community, then, would be to recognize a world that is the same, yet slightly different than before, as our understanding of forms of communalism would be changed from thinking of them as an end a real community to thinking of them as a means a virtual be-coming community.
Once again, this means grasping the present and its potentiality. The very form, or formlessness, of is therefore crucial to expressing the themes of time, freedom, potential, and the messianic now. Indeed, in the novel the market even provides solutions to the panic and anxiety that such a world gives rise to in the form of Dylar, a drug developed by the pharmaceutical industry that profits from such fear and disorder. Instead of the kind of formlessness that masks the underlying coerciveness of faux neoliberal freedom—which actually reduces freedom to a number of preselected options or emergency procedures and reduces duration to quantified, capitalist clock time—the metafictional calls attention to how forms—whether those of identity, politics, economics, or society—are actually more fragile than they appear.
The takeaway here is that social and political structures could be imagined or formed otherwise—that they are always inherently provisional or fragile, economic crisis or no—and this could be done by a true democratic collective, a realization that gives the lie to the belief that neoliberal crises can only be solved by neoliberal solutions.
In the novel, there are numerous times—minor messianic moments—in which one-time facts turn out to be fictions, so that the past is restructured by the present or the future, thus reversing linear time and our general understanding of causality, with the result that the past is redeemed and freedom delivered. These retroactive corrections disrupt ideas governing our understanding of pre-historical time, as well as something as vast as the known universe.
Time and space themselves can be reinterpreted—and this sense of redemption or potentiality is immanent. It is in the here and now. She has apparently been unconsciously passing as Arab American all along. The change—which changes everything yet nothing about Noor—goes so far as to affect her perception.
The passing of one world or present is always the beginning of another or new present imbued with the past. The point here is twofold. First, that past facts can turn out to have been fictions all along, thus suggesting that all narratives—including that of neoliberal capitalism—are more fragile and more open to the future than they admit; and second, that there is an affective charge generated and freed when such narratives or fictions fail, suggesting a capability to act alternately to a once seemingly charted course, a capability or potentiality that has been there all along.
What was the word for that liberation? An art commodity that had been exorcised … of the fetishism of the market was to me a utopian readymade—an object for or from a future where there was some other regime of value than the tyranny of price. Nowhere does the specter of messianic Marxism make its presence more felt than in this passage. Nothing has changed in the art object, yet everything has.
The glimpse of the beyond is simply a glimpse of the virtual, potential now. While easily written off as simply sloppy or loose structure formlessness , instead these moments contribute to the theme of virtuality, to the idea of an immanent past potential that cannot ever be fully actualized, and of an unstructured time. Hence, as something happens to consciousness it also seems not to happen to the self-reflective consciousness. Such a change occurs when actualizing, signifying, or quantifying duration in some way—that is, by recording it in memory and later, for the narrator, in language as fiction.
For we cannot think of a happening duration as an object, frozen in time. At first blush, this seems like a dangerous idea—that the past is merely fiction that can never be known or that could be manipulated at will by those in power. For, as the narrator says,. Note that the narrator here does not so much imagine, subjectively, a future freedom outside of time but experiences, in a bodily sense, that future as a potentiality in the present. Whereas my body, taken at a single moment, is but a conductor interposed between the objects which influence it and those on which it acts, it is, on the other hand, when replaced in the flux of time, always situated at the very point where my past expires in a deed.
How a collective body can be formed, which would lack proprioception proper which physical bodies can have but still be able to sense the world as an open fiction, remains the question, and the answer will be through the circulation and distribution of affects through the very creation of the virtual image of such a body. What I felt when I tried to take in the skyline—and instead was taken in by it—was a fullness indistinguishable from being emptied, my personality dissolving into a personhood so abstract that every atom belonging to me as good belonged to Noor, the fiction of the world rearranging itself around her.
But this virtual past must be affectively felt in the present in order to properly push forward into future actualization, not imagined as a future possibility arriving in some other time, in which case we might not know how to identify it because it could be qualitatively different than it is now. Imagining it would be vulgar utopian guesswork, a total impossibility. For the conditions of freedom will only have been possible retroactively, after freedom has been actualized. In this sense, we must conceive of two different temporal orders of freedom: actual and potential.
Freedom-as-potential can only be experienced qualitatively and temporally, as Bergsonian duration. The same goes, I am arguing and according to the logic of , for the conception of freedom. A rights-based freedom in quantifying freedom, treats freedoms as differing in degree but not in kind. Freedom thus becomes a reified concept, not a time-bound, virtual process of actualization. But if this were the case, how would those without any rights, or those born into generations of slavery, have any idea what freedom is before they have gained freedoms?
Do people not, whatever kinds of oppression they suffer, daily experience, qualitatively, even the smallest moments of freedom-as-potential that make life bearable, that give the lie to their oppressors, and that reveal a kind of freedom that exists despite the cruelest of repression? Freedom-as-potential must ultimately make freedoms themselves worth striving for, freedoms that, even if or after they are one day attained, can never translate into the full promise of some platonic freedom.
That is why, for instance, there are no advocates for the rights of human beings born with wings to be allowed to fly wherever they like. Granting all of humanity this right or others like it tomorrow would not lead to the smallest increase of freedom. If we merely connect two intuitions together in a perceiving subject, the knowledge is always subjective because it is derived a posteriori, when what is desired is for the knowledge to be objective, that is, for the two intuitions to refer to the object and hold good of it for anyone at any time, not just the perceiving subject in its current condition.
What else is equivalent to objective knowledge besides the a priori, universal and necessary knowledge?
Before knowledge can be objective, it must be incorporated under an a priori category of understanding. For example, if a subject says, "The sun shines on the stone; the stone grows warm," all he perceives are phenomena. His judgment is contingent and holds no necessity.
Additional Navigation and Search
But if he says, "The sunshine causes the stone to warm," he subsumes the perception under the category of causality, which is not found in the perception, and necessarily synthesizes the concept sunshine with the concept heat, producing a necessarily universally true judgment. To explain the categories in more detail, they are the preconditions of the construction of objects in the mind. Indeed, to even think of the sun and stone presupposes the category of subsistence, that is, substance. For the categories synthesize the random data of the sensory manifold into intelligible objects.
This means that the categories are also the most abstract things one can say of any object whatsoever, and hence one can have an a priori cognition of the totality of all objects of experience if one can list all of them. To do so, Kant formulates another transcendental deduction. Judgments are, for Kant, the preconditions of any thought. Man thinks via judgments, so all possible judgments must be listed and the perceptions connected within them put aside, so as to make it possible to examine the moments when the understanding is engaged in constructing judgments.
Eldridge, Richard. Images of History: Kant, Benjamin, Freedom, and the Human Subject
For the categories are equivalent to these moments, in that they are concepts of intuitions in general, so far as they are determined by these moments universally and necessarily. Thus by listing all the moments, one can deduce from them all of the categories. One may now ask: How many possible judgments are there?
Kant believed that all the possible propositions within Aristotle's syllogistic logic are equivalent to all possible judgments, and that all the logical operators within the propositions are equivalent to the moments of the understanding within judgments. Thus he listed Aristotle's system in four groups of three: quantity universal, particular, singular , quality affirmative, negative, infinite , relation categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive and modality problematic, assertoric, apodeictic.
The parallelism with Kant's categories is obvious: quantity unity, plurality, totality , quality reality, negation, limitation , relation substance, cause, community and modality possibility, existence, necessity. The fundamental building blocks of experience, i. First there is the sensibility, which supplies the mind with intuitions, and then there is the understanding, which produces judgments of these intuitions and can subsume them under categories.
These categories lift the intuitions up out of the subject's current state of consciousness and place them within consciousness in general, producing universally necessary knowledge. For the categories are innate in any rational being, so any intuition thought within a category in one mind is necessarily subsumed and understood identically in any mind.
Related Images of history : Kant, Benjamin, freedom, and the human subject
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved