Being and monad

 Being and Monad

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Lo que Benveniste muy rápidamente llama la noción de ser no es ya simplemente una categoría homogénea a las otras, es la condición transcategorial de las categorías, Benveniste lo reconoce, más allá de los términos aristotélicos, por encima de esta categorización se despliega la noción de ser que envuelve todo. Sin ser en sí mismo un predicado el ser es la condición de todos los predicados. Lo que descubre Benveniste por esta extensión es la relación absolutamente única entre lo transcendental y la lengua.

Jacques Derrida, Philosophy in front of linguistic

    In the logical movement we made when we are philosophizing being usually language is avoided. 

    If we avoid language precisely when we are philosophizing being it is because we suppose that there must be a language of being or at least something as the language in which being must be without assuring on language until it. 

   This avoiding of language might be of course declared if not as unconcient at least as something involuntary and as such suspicious. 

   In fact the question itself arise as follow: why we avoid language as issue precisely when what we are thinking about is the issue of being?. Is being itself something that resist language? is language itself something exogenous and extrinsique to being? 

  We must detain ourselves at this point as to examine if we avoid the issue of language since we are thinking about being according to an exteriority or an opposite relation between language and being or if we avoid it because finding a language to be in order for it to be we need to avoid such a media as language. 

   But if it is thus then we must ask: are we speaking on two languages as two ontologically differentiated concepts of language, the one we avoid to pay attention when thinking on being and another one supposed to be quest and search as the language of being or for it to be, or are we speaking on just one language at all?

   If the second answer is near to be the true then we must ask, and if there is only a language and we are looking for a language for being to be why to consider language as opposite or extrinsique to being? 

  Hence, derivated from it, we must ask too, if at the end both languages are the same one why then to avoid language when we are thinking about being? 

   Well, this relation of questions which seems to be apparently tautological are far to be redundant, something on the relation between language and being is there evolved, on the one hand, language need being to acquire meaning, without being we can’t seize and endowed language of sense, indeed only from being we experience a wishes to say and a motivation toward language as expression and in reverse, given the fact that being must be in language there should be a language in which being must be and as such we should find it. 

  This paradoxical logical relations much more complex than the discussed until here is however at the same time one about how do we realize to understand what thinking and philosophizing should be?.

   Whence indeed thinking and philosophizing as an activity must be and as such like being itself, it need a language to be by the way delivering how a way of thinking solves the relation between language and being is at the same time an epistemological problem regarding our ultimate sense on how thinking must be. 

   We might of course think with eye closed to avoid the visuality of writing which is itself language, but at the end, with eyes closed or open the main point to be outer here is that this relation is not in play in a same form if we consider thinking and or philosophizing as something hermeneutical, transcendental or empirical so that in answering to the logical relations of this set of questions we must recognize answering at the same time how should we consider thinking itself. 

   Looking for a language to be is thus nothing else than looking a language on how thinking should be, in both senses, the pure sense of the to be, including the becoming of it as being, and the duty of it.

   Transcendental thinking requires of a mise in abysm, not only from the ways to understand concepts under it, being, time, matter, memory, etc, but since the way of philosophizing itself must coincident with the movement considered transcendental itself by which the ontology and immanence of being should move the concepts to be spoken.

   The avoiding of language according to a first graphic form is related in transcendental thinking not only to that language in which being is supposed to speak as the being of philosophy but overall to the transcendental movement of concepts that must follow or be the sake of the more general and former transcendental movement of being, immanence and ontology.

  The welcome of the ontology of things according to which concepts itself are in movement are ontologically subordinated to such former ontology or immanence. A transcendental time, as in the Kant theory of transcendental categories, is supposed under it as what is moved by being, the way of thinking appear hence in transcendental philosophizing as the pure language of being, meaning a language which is of course avoided, it seems to be in factor a language spoken by being in its saying as in the said as in a mise in abysm

   Empirical way of thinking, however, is developed instead as subjected to the empirical issues justify it, objects of description, inference, deduction, visualization, catalogation, corroboration, while hermeneutical thinking is figured out instead under speakers, a community of speakers of a language, it works between subjects who conterenunciate under a language of a culture which is formed of interpretations and readings

   Now, how might we understand an hermeneutical thinking developed as a thinking on being? 

   This is a crucial question. If under hermeneutical thinking everything is located among the language culture of a community of speakers, how must something as being, considered already as speaking among a language community and culture, be theorized? 

  The question is about in what another forms must it be discussed? 

  Indeed, if in hermeneutics our being itself is considered under language it evolves another way to understand the relation between language and being 

   During a long time is was a common place to understand that a thinking about being must be something existential both in the sense of existentialism as a movement in philosophy as in the sense of romanticism, stoicism or nihilism as forms of thinking committed with ideologies of being

  But such a point of view is no longer prevelecent today by many reasons derrida discussed at Margins of philosophy, such an ideal was progresibly replaced both in continental European philosophy as well as in England and USA

  Thus to what figures of thought must then belong a hermeneutical philosophizing around things in which being is evolved? must be here the question. 

  The issue is relevant not only in regard to being as a theme or an issue but to anywhere or anything supposed to have a being behind, under, upon, below or in the skin of it

  To transcendental modes of thinking being might be nothing else than something reflected in the modes to understand concepts and categories, it was reflected under the ways to welcomes all the concepts in the main concept of being or in reverse presupposing the ontology of being as moving from immanence the consistence of any other concept. 

   Under empiricism, including in it all the forms of phenomenology and also semiotic, being resulted pulverized as deleuze argued on Hume, such as the given itself was pulverized by empiricism being resulted pulverized too, it was diluted in perception and conscience.

  So in contrast with that I would like to sustain and propose here that the possibility for hermeneutic as a way of thinking already conceived inside language but sensible to the issue of being, to be focused or attentive to when being is behind, below, upon or simply evolved in it, we must afford it from the phenomenology of the monad, it is even needed of it. 

  This proposal evolves of course several ways to tie up and clear a way epistemological parameters. 

   On the one hand, gadamer, who’s worthy I recognize, discussed hermeneutic from an ontological perspective in regard to being and aesthetic, this hermeneutic was developed under the legacies of Hegel and Heidegger but was not however attentive to the priority Hegel assigned to monad from the Leibniz legacy, on the other hand, Deleuze assigned a great importance to monad in his analysis of the soul at Leibniz and the baroque, but nothing as encompassing being and monad with hermeneutic was proposed

   Why the monad precisely when we are thinking about the relation between language and being hermeneutically?

   This turn is attentive to one distinction, while certainly the concept of monad is not as much and even far from its source to language and instead discussed by Hegel yet in a sense, the one and the multiple, that moved it in between social issues, the self and the otherness, for example, and substantial issues, chemistry, etc, without language considered under it, the rearch of the monad to a plenty phenomenology of subjectivity and hermeneutic is out of discussion.

   I would even sustain that the reach of phenomenology to be developed around the monad basis for subjectivity is infinity and as such the monad offers to an hermeneutic thinking on the relation between language and being the possibility to be developed in between the certainties of subjectivity ---subjectivity considered here phenomenologically, meaning, the impression of the internal and the external as experienced by each subjectivity from the internal universe of its monad, the sense of incorporating the outside—sensoriality as processed by the subject—and of extending subjectivity in its outsides, as well as the correlates of it within again also monadic worlds such as architecture, the city, the otherness, etc, etc

  Mush of the forms of language we receive pregiven at the monadic level of subjects, objects and environments in which being is evolved are in fact susceptible of hermeneutical thinking. 

   In a few words, through the monad considered both inside subjectivity as in the single one monad, our single body sense and sensoriality, and considered outside subjectivity, as when we recognize as monadic the nature of real things as experienced by us, language appear as phenomenologically constricted, meaning as something embodied and unfolded under bodies and corpus, we must remember that this duality or duplicity which defined the monad between body and soul is exactly the same that derrida discussed when he compared the two sides of the sign significant and signification with body and soul respectibly, something unique to the concept of monad epistemological basis

   The monad in fact, as no one other concept, is both things as the same time, something bodily constricted and something extended or enlarged as feelings beyond the body as the soul is, while paradoxically constricted in that body as the soul is too, the relation between the soul and subjectivity allow us here to hermeneutically afford the forms of folding and unfolding, the forms of being bodily contained ---as in the case of the sign dual and duplicity relation between significance --the body, matter-- and meaning—the soul, the immaterial, as derrida recognized to the nature of the sign this duplicity, while attaining to seize in between how language dimensions and being dimension acquire specific forms under it

  Through the monad, in fact, language appear as bodily constrained, as a form to embody corpus and as within hermeneutic thinking being is already hermeneutically considered under language, hermeneutically philosophizing language and being according to the monad is a way to stablish another way, a new one, to discussing bodies, corpus and embodiments

   Nothing as an answer about what being is ontologically is on the forefront of hermeneutic at least after gadamer turns, all the contrary, being is already considered as weaved under language. What is then the monad and why it as the right correlate to being in the case of an hermeneutic thinking which also want, besides, to discuss being according to the hermeneutics of language?

   Well, the monad is nothing else than being considered as folded and unfolded, as embodied or trapped in the corpus of the body or bodily as pick upped and extended, as close and as open not only to an outside from its inside, but closed or open between the sense of its own self and the feelings of a more or less sense of sameness or difference in regard to the multiple or heterogeneous, meaning the world and the otherness to the self of the monad interiority

  Monad is also a concept that allow us to reconsider the issue of the identical, the identical to itself, or the identitary principle, in a form which include also the becoming other or the non-identity of the multiplicity and complexity of how the internal and the external are experienced in subjectivity

  Monad coincident on the one hand with our single body and the feeling of being inside it and gazing everything from there and as such the forms of its folding and unfolding, enlarging or constraining, selfsameness and becoming something new, it is directly related with the issue of sense

  Deleuze payed attention to this complexity of the monad while he did it about the baroque without solving and letting disatended how the relation between language and being must be considered at the phenomenology of the monad level

   Nothing as a corporeal thinking is pertinent and belong more to the nature of language

   A language indeed must be certainly considered as something to express and communicate, but a language is also a corpus and a coupure embodied something we assure when recognizing on it a media which is precisely what the relation between being and language as a logical pair entail, and as such it is already considered as pre-given, we have of course pre-expressive dimensions as derrida discussed regarding hurssel, dimensions by the way also susceptible to be discussed in a monadic sense, we have a pragmatic dimension in language when already considered from the triadic principle of emission, message, receptor, but we also have to solve the points of mixture between language and being when this relation is not reduced to preexpresive and expression level as when everything revolved around the wishes to say, there is also in language an immaterial level related with being something that must be comply only hermeneutically and as such the monad offer phenomenologically the body and corpus, the media dimension hermeneutic need to encompass matter and subjectivity, language and being

   Thus, when being is turned over and around closing over itself, in a selfsameness or in its difference perceived from another objectivity, that one of another body between the bodies, or even in self-perception, monad comes to be like the skin of being, it’s nothing else but the space and surface over which the gaze perceive and self-perceive environment, habitat, the object, the spaces.

  Barthes devoted a fascinating analysis to the relation between the gaze and the born of the soul from the first day to born to the first weeks saying that the soul born exactly when the gaze is formed, this is a monadic analysis, so such a perception is also associated with the forms of meaning. 

  This surface through which the gaze arise is also however on how the being feel and presence as something that happen only inside the monad and according to it, we must then be attentive to recognize that philosophizing being hermeneutically speaking must be a philosophizing of forms, formal logic and nothing else considered in between monad and being, this forms itself is nothing but language and corpus, languages and coupures, language and bodies hermeneutically unified

   Only in the monad were being is folded inside the body as relatively hidden, embodied or pick up by the body sense of the monad, the being has a perception of the skin but also on how subjectivity relates with rooms, houses, cities, environments, spaces, the body, works, and on how we welcome, receive, give, let go, possesses, etc, encompassing issue of egoism versus reciprocity, selfsameness versus mutuality

  This way of positioning hermeneutic near to phenomenology works as a philosophy of forms and as such it is about ways of the body language to be ductile, relational, plastic, flexible, complexive, etc, etc. All this allow us to think that an hermeneutic thinking on the relation between language and being seen from the monad must work relating form and affect something that remember my previous insistence on the relation between forms such as internet, medias and other technologies evolving relationality and on the possibility to develop a philosophy of form, affection and relationality which as hermeneutic must be focused in subjectivity

 ©Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Conceived, written, composed and created By Abdel Hernandez San Juan as Individual Author

Abdel Hernandez san Juan Works as Individual Author

Bibliography

Derrida, Jacques Ousia and Gramme, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida, Jacques The Supplement of the Couple, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Deleuze Gilles, The Fold, Leibniz and the Baroque, the University of Minnesota Press

Deleuze Gilles, El Pliegue: Leibniz y el Barroco, Paidos Studio

Gadamer George, Estética y hermenéutica, Tecnos, colección metrópolis