|
January 30, 2007
Hegel's critical 'method' is presuppositionless, immanent, and developmental. It is presuppositionless in that brings nothing external into the subject matter. It is immanent in that the internal contradictions of one way of knowing (or form of consciousness) will lead to the next. It is developmental in that the process or movement is one of actualization. The Phenomenology of Spirit is characterised as 'the pathway of doubt, or more precisely as the way of despair' since the Phenomenology moves from one failed position to the next. This was Hegel's challenge to the first philosophy of the Cartesian and Kantian projects, and more specifically to the permanent structures that Kant located in the fundamental capacities of knowledge. Hegel's argument for the highway of despair was spelt out in the Introduction to The Phenomenology. A commentary can be found here at Rough Theory.
If we are immersed in our culture then, then the old skyhook (transcendent ) option is out, and an immanent critique of our historical categories and ways of thinking does make sense. An example. It indicates becoming self-reflexive about the categories that we use, and evaluating them to see if they do the job adequately. A historical, self-reflexive and immanent critical theory, drawing on Marx, Weber and Adorno, among others, is under consideration by N. Pepperell and L. Magee over at Rough Theory. The conversation arises out of a reading/discussion group and it is an interesting one.
As N. Pepperell states:
What begins to motivate thinking about an immanent theory, in a contemporary social theoretic context, is usually a recognition that the object of analysis - social institutions, normative ideals, collective practices, etc. - has actually changed over time. The point of a non-immanent concept is, generally, that it can be universal or timeless or transcend contexts...So, since the object of analysis is perceived as an historical object, and the goal of the analysis is to cast light on further potentials for historical change, there’s a need for the categories of analysis themselves to be historical categories - otherwise, it’s a bit difficult to see how the theory can grasp the things it claims to want to understand…
Immanent critique is difficult to practice and not many practice it. But the important first step is to accept the historical nature of our concepts and mode of life and the way that the meanings of the former change in relation to trying to understand the changes in the latter.
N. Pepperell describes the process of immanent critique in the Phenomenology well. A:
consistent immanent theory wouldn’t declare itself as such, but would just unfold an argument through the categories available within a particular context, gradually unfolding its analysis so that it becomes clear that a concept such as immanence is actually required to make sense of all the categories. Hegel - quite rightly - doesn’t trust his readers to “get” that kind of argument, so he adopts a kind of bifurcated presentational strategy, where some elements are quite consistently immanently voiced, while other elements are full of, effectively, stage whispers and stage directions - hints to the reader about what he intends to do, so the reader won’t lose patience or become confused at the strategic intent of the sections that are more immanently voiced.
You don't have to do this Hegel's way. You can revise the Phenomenology's development aspect eg., what L Magee calls the 'sort of underlying metaphor or model of organic growth which Hegel uses.' As Magee points out this 'metaphor is at the heart of the Phenomenology, which explains apparent oppositions as evolving moments in the organism.' This organic metaphysics has its roots in Aristotle and it appears to be problematic in an attempt to grapple with how to interpret Hegel in a contemporary context. It is problematic because the presupposition of wholeness or totality and the organic conception of actualization (ie., development from seed to a whole).
One option is to turn to a dialectics at a standstill," if you reckon that the forward momentum of nineteenth-century progressive (liberal) and/or revolutionary (Marxist) narratives of eventual (of course, diversely) happy endings have stalled in the steady-state nightmare of the twentieth century, where, as Adorno and Horkheimer starkly put it, "mankind, instead of entering into a truly human condition, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism" For a world at such an impasse, "dialectics at a standstill"--a non-narrative dialectic--it is argued, is the kind of dialectic that is relevant to our historical condition.
What this gives us is a way to highlight the unavoidable tensions between polar opposites,whose oppostion constitutes their unity and generates change, without affirming any underlying identity or final synthesis of polar opposities.
|
|
ALL of the philosophical and theological chit-chat of us moderns is contained entirely within the exoteric meat-body perception/conception of how things appear to be. It is meat-body philosophy only.
There are 2 immutable features of being a meat-body only: meat-bodies inevitably suffer and die; they are always in a hell-deep state of Fear & Trembling.
This site explains the limitations of the exoteric meat-body point of view.
1. www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html
You might these paragraphs interesting.
"If you truly observe the event of sorrow, you will notice that its ORIGIN is associated with the head, and not with either the heart or the abdominal region. You can feel sorrow arising as a kind of contraction in the depth of the head. It sends out signals that register elsewhere, in the heart, and in the abdominal region (physically, emotionally, and so on), but it is fundamentally a contraction of the head---contracting from what is otherwise a radiant, expansive, sensuous, opening-into-the-Light dispostion of the head, and into a knotted, contracted,thinking, doubting, puzzling, searching, threatened, nothing-you-can-do-about-it, helpless head-sensation, with all kinds of thoughts racing around in it, negating life---unable to feel, to acceot love, and so forth, because of the fear of potential loss, and all kinds of complicated thinking and emoting.
Sorrow and doubt are the same kind of thing, the same crunch in the head. And sorrow--or loss turning into sorrow---puts you into doubt simultaneously. That is the really bothersome part about it---the fact that as soon as there is loss and consequent sorrow, you begin to doubt existence itself. You doubt everything. Everything is dark. You are cut off from everything---everything good, Everything Divine, life altogether, pleasure. You are divorced from everything, put into absolute doubt by the concussion of loss and your reaction to it.
When people are doubting, they imagine that they are actually doubting something, doubting some concrete (or rather objective) "such" and "such". But they are not. Doubt is an ACT of the physical HEAD---just that. Doubt is not an act of mind---it is a physical act of the physical head, anf (therefore of the subtle organs deep within the head.... Doubt is not something that equips you to find things out better. Doubt is a trouble, a false doctrine, a self-imposed obstacle, an illusory demon, an emotional apparition, a foggy limit on anything and everything you examine.Doubt is an armouring, a form of suffering, a limitation in the head---and, therefore, a limitation on thinking also. And doubt is the fundamental disposition of mind that characterizes mankind in this "dark" epoch. It is a universal dramatization, in the form of a physical and, altogether, total psycho-physical act. This indulgence in doubt destroys the basis for heart-and-body-sanity, because doubt cuts the head off from What Is Above and Beyond---and That "What" is Everything Beyond the gross dimension of existence."
Other parts of this essay are at:
2. www.dabase.net/tfrbkgil.htm
This essay is also relevant:
3. www.beezone.com/AdiDa/touch.htm