Another reply to the commenter of the first ‘Awareness’ posting.
Indeed, what is usually not recognized by most is that any term can upon analysis be made into a foundational and significant ideal. We tend to reduce our situation to many a priori meanings, many terms that appear, albeit automatically, to be referring to ubiquitous and foundational things; such terms: human, consciousness, thought, being. And there are probably many more. Certain philosophers have focused upon these and similar terms for the sake of uncovering some assumptions about reality that are incorrect. For example, Heidegger sought to expose what ‘being’ actually is. And lately the term ‘human’ has been problematized to such an extent as to emphasize its meaning by speaking of post-human, non-human, and such.
The post-modernists are the notorious proclaimers of the insolvency of discourse, but who likewise end up really depending upon these foundational term-object identities; they again sought to reveal what such terms really indicate in an essential manner, and what this possibility might mean. Hence we have Deluze and Guattari talking about ‘rhizomes’, which when one investigates the whole of their works as an indication of a single object, she might find that they were indeed suggesting a essential nature of being human, which is to say, similar to Zizek’s little ideas about ‘shu’ and Chinese Emperors (“Living In the End Times”, Zizek.), where somehow a sort of ‘discontinuity’ allows for an apparent ability to be ‘above’ (or below, as the case may be) the Law.
Nevertheless an notwithstanding these ‘deconstructions’ of terms, we are always left with the conventional contrivances. The issue has to do with when we go to explain what there terms really mean, or how they are ‘really’ functioning. They key here is that such investigations are indeed looking into what is real. And they do this because they have already found reality as the arena wherein they may find, have or otherwise establish credibility, which is to say, authorial identity. We might as well problematize ‘reality’ –Doh! They already did that; this is where ‘colonialism’ arises within discursive cultural formations. We cannot mercy wait on some evolutionary linguistic change to say that ‘consciousness’ does not indicate anything, or that ‘human’ is likewise a very problematic term. If language and culture can be indicators of different realities, then, I ask, how is it possible that we are communicating at all? It would seem that a type of colonialism is a necessary and ethically proper manner of allowing for communication across ‘realities’.
So when, as in the second “Awareness” post, I say that the furthering experience of wonder leaves us at a state where even consciousness, functioning as the link might suggest as to basic and fundamental knowledge of Truth, is left ‘in the wind’, to not even indicate that itself has some truth inherently in it, I mean only that all terms upon investigation lead to the possibility that any term may likewise leave us confronting the mysterium tremmendum. But that this experience has even less meaning in itself that the most ardent sceptic might wish to set aside.
So it is that I move into that area that Kierkegaard hates: “Where are they going?” He asks. I place such terms as ‘consciousness’ and ‘human’ as basic situation of meaning whereby to diverge from the already situated talk about reality, the ideological structure wherein we are lead to really always address and talk about the same thing, saying the same things through different terms.
My second book ,”Absolution: The Moment of Decisive Significance” should be out by the end of February.