.

And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again? Archilochus

Sunday, June 26, 2022

On Thoughts...

Slavoj Žižek, "Transcendent Object: Thinking" (Google translated from Turkish)
In the representation of the object "belonging to reality", an empty excess is marked while the multiplicity of sense is synthesized. This excess is the imposition of X, which is the unknown basis of perceived phenomenal sensations. Let's look at Findlay's accurate formula:
Appearances always refer to a Transcendent Object—X—and although we know nothing about it, that X is nevertheless the objective conjugation of the compounding synthesis actions of thinking selfconsciousness. If conceived in this way, the Transcendental Object can be considered a Numen or a Thinking (Gedankending). If you refer to Think, though, in this way, you are not resorting to categories, you are making an empty synthesis gesture that does not actually put anything objective in front of you. (Kant and the Transcendental Object)
That is, the Transcendent Object is the opposite of Ding-an-Sich: it is "empty" in the sense of being exempt from any "objective" content. To arrive at its concept, you must abstract the sensible object from all sensible contents, you must abstract it from all the sensations that act from object to subject in the name of the Thing (Ding). The remaining empty X is the pure objective conjugation/effect of the subject's autonomous-spontaneous synthesis activity. Paradoxically: The Transcendent Object is the part of "self" that is relative to the subject, the part that the subject puts on; it is just the "putting" of an indeterminate X.

This "empty synthesis gesture," which adds nothing positive to the thing, that adds no new sensible properties to it, but nevertheless constitutes that thing with the faculty of being an empty gesture, that makes it an object, is the most basic form of the act of symbolism, its zero-ground. On the first page of his book, Findlay states: "According to Kant, the Transcendent Object is no different from the objects that the senses perceive and that we can judge and know... it is only the comprehension of these same sensible objects in terms of some inherent property that is not visible, which in these respects is not judgeable or knowable."

It is precisely this inrepresentational excess that adds itself to this X, the set of sensible properties, precisely Gedankending: it bears witness that the unity of the object does not exist in itself, but is established as a result of the synthesis activity of the subject.

From "Playing with the Negative"

Turkish: Işık Barış Fidaner

Notes:
The circle looks from square to triangle: window, page, curtain, screen, mirror, frame.

See "Nature and Idea: The Triangle and the Circle", "There is a village in the distance" Ahmet Kutsi Tecer

Shake your love! whatever!

7 comments:

L said...

Can you break this down for me? It is I admit a bit over my head.

-FJ said...

It's about the nature of reality and the nature of thought and the conversion of one into the other (or its' closest approximation). Several philosophers have attempted to do this, and so we find their differing terminologies in every sentence/ paragraph... in "objective" realities and "subjective" realities, to "transcendental objects" that pass between the two... to Lacanian Excesses" or "surplus'"... and trying to "synthesize" them all in Hegelian fashion (thesis->antithesis->synthesis).

Every philosopher has his own paradigm... much as I have my own (albeit incomplete as yet).

I know that what I've said above doesn't explain this, but no one has satisfactorally explained this as of yet. I'm sure you've heard of Materialism and Idealism... its' a pursuit of a Holy Grail "grand unified theory" (ala "Quantum/Einsteinian Physics)" of Philosophy.

-FJ said...

Related concepts: Doxa, Orthodox, Paradox, Heterodox, Oxymoron

L said...

Now, this post makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. I am not much into philosophy because I look to the Bible to guide me, but the Bible says that whatever is of a good report - is good (paraphrased). I should look more into this.

-FJ said...

The Bible is a very good source. Had I been a BA/MA I might have gone that way, but I was a BS/MS.

-FJ said...

...and philosophy, "love of wisdom" attempts to serve as a mediator between the two.

-FJ said...

...and it is "generally" subordinate to Theology. And the foundational "Western" theology is Christianity.