m (User talk:Isadorducas moved to Revelance of Hegel's Jena Phenomenology: 1. Divided the essay into sections 2. Did the initial minor edit)
Revision as of 22:59, 14 September 2008
Hello and good wishes to one and all,
The subject of this talk is mainly a kind of response to Kai Forbes'write-up +/~ on G W F Hegel's `Phenomenolog/y/ie der Geistes'being the first, original title that would cover around 750 pages in all, the number of pages being equivalent to the number of copies released in 1807.Other than proof reading that was the most exacting exercise in early 19th c.techniks because proofing-cum-typesetting-cum-formatting costituted the last stage of publication, though handwritten pages of the author would have been made clear, edited, copy-edited, the process that reworked on the contents, written matter.However, the last moment, before and during the print process was /is highest on any scale that prioritizes book-product as such.Representation, layouts that are outside of the entire body of text involves a kind of `creativity'that contemporary copy-writers know too well though the sector of book-production ends up during the moment of release that is purely any publishers entire responsibility. During this moment'finesse' may set out a book sailing on fair winds. The manner and mode involved in the hurried, complusive publication of Hegel's Phenomenology indicates a thoroughgoing minimalist involvement of basic processes in the very site of production. That may have been a norm applicable when production scale was just about average.There was no precedence and guidelines for negotiating different stages for publishing a thick, densly written, unreadable to the superficial reader, prime products of Enlightenment, work with an unprecedentent nomenclature, aka, Phemomenologie. Yet Hegel's first book was released quick and fast. Altogether page count was 750 [ +/-3>]but another three pages showing facsimilies of the press company,machines, etc.pre-advertizing phase of display that occupied the whole of 19th c.were inserted in the last three pages.This involvement of general social labour gets bypassed as soon as the age of ads.and increasing rationalization of technology intervenes like some policy imperitive. Social labour with immense manual skills such as those who were involved with the production of the'first'book on Phenomenology were destined to face prospects of technological unemployment.I see a poetic irony imvolved `after' the complex web is disentangled though the general rules applied to reach the most proximately perfect shape/form, i.e., self-creating alienation resulting from production of the product, which was friendly yesterday but an enemy tomorrow leading to a tapid retreat, going back to business while the ensamble of producers unaware of their collective praxis containing the irreducible moment.After being assured or guarenteed that underlies the certain in the to-come, he departed from Jena, possibly with the pre-text of the final copy.Now, Sept 2008 will mark the auction of this first volume under the auspecies of HSA.The edition may well sell in $ million+ in the hands of a fat cat like Soros. This is also `event',a grand celebration
Hegel ws not the type to sustain any tense-complex once the fruit has ripe enough for consumption.He was temporarily put of a rcursive type of hypochondria, while his labours had already taught him a voluntary way of mastering his pathos by returning that feel toward the `dark centre',dormant in any human life.The present, after stepping away from Jena involuntariely triggered by sudden unemplyment, with institutions of learning locked up after Napoleon's victory,as the reality in Jena had to cope with drastic narrowing down of the visibles as social labour turned invisible and his financial-cum-conjugal life with the landlady -cum their son who had begun to run on both legs. He was, i should think even beyong the horizons of any crossroads, suddenly thrown in the world, wrenched away by some alien force, flung, deprived and on the road or, exposed to pure void.Just after Hegel finished the Preface/etc., while at the same time earlier MS's embodying the main text was well on the way to fruitition at the Publisher's.This shows up the situation in flux, undecisive present, edgy,discontinious and non linear not bereft of connections btw the effective future to come as effects of invasion, disruption of societies and the present ruled by a dominant army of occupation engaged in putting all the shutters down for subjugating, scattering and depriving livelihoods linked to govt, municipality, education, merhandizing, schools, public deptts and offices.Within this situation man must draw out of innermost resources the most distant and unknown assume the status of midwife so as to safeguard the emergence from inner turbulance of the active, non-debilitating forces and carefully see them going in accordance, in lawlike pathways of interiorities when threatened, when consciousness apprehends, intuits, precognates, dreams that all end up showing the threat posed to the minimal compact that binds up life i the simplest medium - soul.Hegel was no exception like a godlike eing levitating above the sea of humanity in distress.He was parcelled, binded in whatever human relation that happened, as a social co-relate, and his soul sunk into substance that is indifferent, not outside the chaos ofthe moment and, minus abrupt inclinations caused involuntarily, since he was well aware of his suffering; in effect outside of the charmed network through which the fates made their way.I am argueing that Hegel's subsequent charting his movements against huge odds, the inner nobility of the singular being, with only one friend who adored Hegel was seen as the becoming of embodied spirit because it requires great confidence. This is a longish moment - conjuncture- when interiority hadnothing private, anthroplogical, supposed guarded by objectivism. The concrete working out as self-consciousness just would not have been if Hegel did not have that pretext version of PhG with with him.What I cannot make as simple consciousness is illustrative narrative resting on a autonomous time-line, from 1806-07, where the dash is no longer the simplest but heavily discursive. Kai writes that Hegel had virtually written most of what is obtained in PhG in 1806 in a planned, systematic way, wich gts pitted against the same producer's writing just the `Preface'in 1807! The ony authority h introduces is a philologist W Jaesche, allowing him to open his mind against Jena PhG, as tough it were evidence!!
I will be returning to point the working of an ancient tendency, but passing muster as novel. The them is `elimination', at one time the equivalent of the Darwinian twisted for no fault of Darwin,by others,whose ancestery goes well inside deep antiquity. With the benefit of retrospection, I may cite one varient being the anthropophagic threat to Greek city state dwelling, absentee landlord citizenry. I am quizzed and somewhat shocked [stoss] by horrorshows that contains an intention to express to the world of readers,as though implicitly suggesting the coming arrival of somethin like the philosopher's stone,when what is told, following consequential logic/s,or like a proposition to carry out the mental act from some Archemidenean, perfect point of crossing outthat may appeal to some as tearing off, not suspend [not as`epoche' though]the Preface/Introduction < the issue die not pertain to translation> from the derivative knowing [ meaning fresh research, strictly philological] that Hegel wrote the Preface `only' after the contents making up the main textual body was more or less complete.Surely the smart reasoning by analogy,or to propose that, as a functional co-relate, it is unsurprising to conceive that other than Hegel, numerous authors also wrote Prefaces/Introduction/s after doing away with the main text.That is fine, very correct too. Human beings do form an idea /eidos of sorts about what the work would show up after completion in relation to the initial idea, which is why there is a preconscious of the conscious, even though differentiated.Unlike the beavers preconception od an embankment,a strictly immaculate degree of specialization, which is the result or the evolutionary outcome and limited to behaviour,human beings are different by virtue of a spiritual universe. Thus Hegel's PhG bears little resemblance to both for a reason that is considerably important to keep in mind as a presence. Transformation of preconscious to the fully developed form of consciousness creating a product [eidos] though work is a mark of general, social labour.When Hegel worked out the path to write Phenomenology, Kai is correct in tracing its geneology to 1801-'02, the organization of that, as demanded by cumulative non-quantified logic, in 1806 did not qualify as Pnenomenology to Hegel.This was like a Grundrisse.Transition of that into a mode of presentation that is out and out saturated with the working of dialectic was Phenomenology for Hegel. But please do not infer that Phenomenology is something of an advance from Philosophy. There is a difference and an opposition resulting in subordination of Phenomenology to Logic or the method proper to Philosophy.I think that resemblences are and should be deceptive, fully recognized as intrinsic to aesthetics. But in Philosophy, where the right word may be mimesis [ contentious terrain for sure], yet all such acts remain subordinate to the concept [begriff].That is the basis for reviews in newspapers to matter, in the world of opinion. In terms of dialectic Hegel broke a barrier of linearity and the work of 1807 was preceded by a leap that could only be found in the Preface where Hegel shows how and why he breaks from Descartes- the Cartesean Ego.A break that is hardly passive. It is a dialectical sublation that reverses the entire mode of the `Cogito Ego' into a past transcended, long dead or eternally passive.Spirit, according to Hegel, cannot infuse life into all the dead bones of Philosophy sunk in obvilion. Again, what does it imply for mental activity whan told that the Preface to PhG could be seperated from its position, then lifted and transferred for serving what succeeded - meaning what Hegel wrote upto 1817-'18 and after? 1806 cannot be seperated from 1807 as long as these represent time units. When was the last time someone told you about reading any book with a Preface/ Introduction to omit the latter and read the text ? Is that something absurd or is the suggestion selectively applicable to Hegel?Dear Kai,how is it possible for you to be blinded to the sharp line of division btw Philosophy and Phenemology? Am I missing out on something altogether? Hegel was writing Philosophical Drafts in 1806, not Phenenenology.To round up what is being said, there is the difference between Hegel's perception of the product of his labours [and the use of `we' by Hegel contains others in the course of work]and the perception of social labour that produced 750 copies. If that is self-evident then the next unity must be the dynamic unity of these two modes of work and perception all the way to the moment of synthetic, non-oppositional, non-differentiated unity.That would be the work of Spirit.
It is possible for eyes to deceive and I am , from a purist angle vulnurable to mis-spells, cofused tenses but that is not because I am not aware of rules. I have encountered difficulties and felt embarrassed with this thought but cant help explaining a simple euphamism [ when referring to the absence of Hegel's presence in stalinist russia and almost everywhere and with the presence of his absence in last 3 decades of 19th c. in Europe].Because general consciousness, common to humanity remains grateful to our ansestors choice of very precise varieties of cereals out of a huge, vast range of species aggregates. Take wheat and you would be eating something same that has adored eating spreads 8000 years ago.That is the way in which the past lives in the present and as it would also be alive in the future.In the world of Geist [Spirit], the past does not live in its totality and that which is still with us as comples entities may be best communicated via euphamisms. That was clear, but what was bothering you so much as to risk wagers in 0-sum games played in 2005?