Despite the prominence of person‐centred care (PCC) in nursing, there is no general agreement on the assumptions and the meaning of PCC. We sympathize with the work of others who rethink PCC towards relational, embedded, and temporal selfhood rather than individual personhood. Our perspective addresses criticism of humanist assumptions in PCC using critical posthumanism as a diffraction from dominant values We highlight the problematic realities that might be produced in healthcare, leading to some people being more likely to be disenfranchised (...) from healthcare than others. We point to the colonial, homo‐ and transphobic, racist, ableist, and ageist consequences of humanist traditions that have influenced the development of PCC. We describe the deep rooted conditions that structurally uphold inequality and undermine nursing practice that PCC reproduces. We advocate for the self‐determination of patients and emphasize that we support the fundamental mechanisms of PCC enabling patients' choice; however, without critical introspection, these are limited to a portion of humans. Last, we present limitations of our perspective based on our white*‐cisheteropatriarchy** positionality. We point to the fact that any reimagining of models such as PCC should be carefully done by listening, following, and ceding power to people with diversity dimensions*** and the lived experience or expertise that exists from diverse perspectives. We point towards Black, queer feminism, and critical disabilities studies to contextualize our point of critique with humanism and PCC to amplify equity for all people and communities. Theory and philosophy are useful to understand restrictive factors in healthcare delivery and to inform systematic strategies to improve the quality of care so as not to perpetuate the oppression of groups of people with diversity dimensions. *We purposely capitalize Black and use lower case for white to decentre whiteness and as an intentional act of antiracism (see White Homework a podcast series by Tori W. Douglas). **Cisheteropatriarchy describes people with intersecting identities of dominant social groups; cisgender is the gender identity that aligns with the gender you were assigned at birth, hetero means heterosexual, and patriarchy refers to structural systems of power based on maleness where women are often excluded and hold less power. ***With diversity dimensions, we refer to subjective lived experience and material realities of people that exist outside the ‘dominant minorities' of white‐cisheteropatriarchy, meaning groups of people in society who historically and currently hold more power and through this, structurally dominate the norms and possibilities of living for other people. (shrink)

Status anxiety, the constant concern about individuals’ position on the social ladder, negatively affects social cohesion, health, and wellbeing. Given previous findings showing that status anxiety is associated with economic inequality, we aimed in this research to test this association experimentally. A cross-sectional study was run in order to discard confounding effects of the relationship between perceived economic inequality and status anxiety, and to explore the mediating role of a competitive climate. Then we predicted that people assigned to a condition (...) of high inequality would perceive more status anxiety in their social context, and they would themselves report higher status anxiety. Thus, in an experimental study PEI was manipulated. In Study 1, PEI uniquely predicted status anxiety, and perceived competitiveness mediated the relationship. In Study 2 PEI increased perceived contextual status anxiety, a specific form of perceived competitiveness based on socioeconomic status. Moreover, preliminary evidence of an indirect effect was found from PEI to personal status anxiety, through perceived contextual status anxiety. These preliminary findings provide experimental evidence for the effects of economic inequality on status anxiety and the mechanism involved. Economic inequality makes people feel that they live in a society where they are constantly concerned and competing with each other for their SES. These results could have important implications as health and wellbeing could be promoted by reducing economic inequalities and the competitive and materialistic environments of our societies. (shrink)

In Descartes; A Collection of Critical Essays (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1967), I published a bibliography of works in English relating to Descartes. This is a Supplement to that bibliography and contains references to works in English that have appeared since 1966 through 1975 or that inadvertently were not included in the original bibliography. The Supplement is in three parts: (A) Translations and Reference Works, (B) Books, and (C) Articles. In (C), I have also included chapters (...) of books that can be read independently and that may be of interest to students of Descartes. There were of course borderline cases in which I had to decide whether an article contained enough material about Descartes to be included in the bibliography. On the whole, I believe I have followed a rather liberal policy in making these decisions. (shrink)

In the first premiss, how is the word 'different' used? If we are prepared to say that, in certain areas of discourse, the word 'different,' like the word 'same,' has two uses and that there are two senses of the word, there seem to be two ways of interpreting the first premiss. On the one hand, we can take the word 'different' to be used in the way in which it would be used if someone wished to point out that (...) the table that was in this room was replaced by another very similar table and, to point this out, said that the table that is here now is different from—or is a different table from—the one that was here a week ago. If in the first premiss we take the word 'different' to be used in this way, the premiss can be read: "Everything is numerically different from everything else." On the other hand, we can take the word 'different' to be used in the way in which it would be used if someone were to say, about two tables that were in front of him, that one is different from the other, and elaborate on his remark by saying that the one is a darker brown than the other. If we take the word 'different' to be used in this way, the first premiss can be read: "Everything is qualitatively different from everything else." Which of the two interpretations is correct? It seems that both are, for, although Mr. Blanshard purports to be discussing one argument, what he says in reply to Nagel's objections supports the second interpretation; whereas his statement of the argument at the outset supports the first interpretation. When he answers Nagel's objections, he considers the case of two "patches." A is a circular patch on the earth, and B a triangular patch on Mars. Maintaining against Nagel that A and B are internally related, the relation between A and B that he contends is internal is their difference in shape. And the argument that he seems to be defending here would have as its first premiss that everything differs qualitatively from every other thing. Yet, when he presents the argument on p. 229, he seems to have a different argument in mind. To show that two seemingly unrelated things are related, he says that a farmer in Iowa and a ballet dancer in Moscow are "different individuals," and the point that I take him to be making here is that, from the proposition that the farmer in Iowa and the dancer in Moscow are two individuals, it follows that the one is different from the other and hence that the two are related. This favors the first interpretation, viz., that in the first premiss the word 'different' is to be understood as in the remark that the table that is here now is different from—is a different table from—the table that was here a week ago. (shrink)

With this paper, we walk out some central ideas about posthumanisms and the ways in which nursing is already deeply entangled with them. At the same time, we point to ways in which nursing might benefit from further entanglement with other ideas emerging from posthumanisms. We first offer up a brief history of posthumanisms, following multiple roots to several points of formation. We then turn to key flavors of posthuman thought to differentiate between them and clarify our collective understanding and (...) use of the terms. This includes considerations of the threads of transhumanism, critical posthumanism, feminist new materialism, and the speculative, affirmative ethics that arise from critical posthumanism and feminist new materialism. These ideas are fruitful for nursing, and already in action in many cases, which is the matter we occupy ourselves with in the final third of the paper. We consider the ways nursing is already posthuman—sometimes even critically so—and the speculative worldbuilding of nursing as praxis. We conclude with visions for a critical posthumanist nursing that attends to humans and other/more/nonhumans, situated and material and embodied and connected, in relation. (shrink)

As contribution to a recent debate (James, 1998; Murphy etal., 1997, 1998) the proportion of twins following ovulation induction (OI) or assisted conception (AC) in 1994 in Oxfordshire and West Berkshire was estimated, and by extrapolation the natural twinning rate in England and Wales was judged to have maintained a plateau phase since the 1970s. Similar figures for 1995 and 1996 from the same study, and hence a more stable local estimate, are now provided. The proportions, as before, were estimated (...) from women's responses to a questionnaire within a case[hyphen]control study, with ascertainment from general practitioners' records or hospital case[hyphen]notes for non[hyphen]responders or for those excluded from the study originally. In 1994, 1995 and 1996 the proportion of twins following OI/AC was overall 27% (24%, 30% and 27% respectively). Restriction to the 87% locally resident made no difference. The national crude twinning rate for those years was overall 13·3 per 1000 maternities (12·8, 13·6 and 13·4 respectively). (shrink)

James questions the validity of the very tentative statement made in the final sentence of our paper. Our claim concerned the proportion of twins in Britain in the 1990s that might have arisen through subfertility treatment and was linked to the suggestion that the natural twinning rate might still be in decline. If this were true, we, like James, would regard that prospect with concern.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:CRUCIFIXION: ACCIDENT OR DESIGN? Sebastian Moore, O.S.B. Downside Abbey Lastyear I was visited by an old friend from my Liverpool days. Mike and I had worked together with the young of the parish, and one summer the two of us took a couple of boys camping in France, a trial of patience which made us known to each other at some depth. He was in fact a passionately convinced (...) Catholic, and very pastoral with it. We had many and long theological discussions. On his recent visit to Downside, I was showing him and some friends round our church, when, à propos ofquite what I don't remember, he made a remark about the Catholic cult of suffering, and said, "and it's all because ofthe crucifixion, isn't it? Why don't we recognize that the crucifixion was an accident?" I didn't react, because I was dumbfounded at what seemed to be the denial ofthe mystery ofthe cross by a friend who I had no reason to believe had stopped being a Catholic. And I'm sure he hasn't. He would certainly have told me ifhe had. It has taken me over a year to figure out what is going on here, and this would not have been possible without intensive study of the work of René Girard. The only alternative to saying that the crucifixion was an accident is to say that it was "ordained by God." It is only as ordained by God that this horrible event could be presented to people as a divine affirmation that suffering is to be sought and espoused. Also, it is only as ordained by God that the crucifixion can be thought of as "appeasing God" in some way. Both the moral and the dogmatic implication ofthe crucifixion—that suffering is a good thing, and that God required a victim—are grounded in the notion that God required the crucifixion ofhis Son. And it is because this idea is quite unacceptable, unworthy of God and ofthe human mind made in God's image, that my friend concludes that the crucifixion was not required by God, not written into the eternal scheme ofthings, but an accident. 156Sebastian Moore Once the problem is clarified in these terms, more and more instances come to mind, of rejection, by Christians and others, of the whole divine ordination ofthe cross. Gore Vidal refers to Christianity as "that lugubrious religion." Mary Hunt, a prominent American Catholic feminist, introduced a workshop with the statement, "we are not about naked guys nailed to crosses, blood all over the place!" Where divine ordering is accepted the special painfulness and darkness ofthe idea is noted. Anselm refers to the doctrine as the Narnia Chronicles, to commend the notion, by referring to a dark law written into the nature ofthings beyond our comprehension. The children's suggestion that Asian should simply not comply with the Snow Queen's requirement is rejected by Asian with a mysterious impatience—the children justhaven't grown up, like the romantics who, according to Matthew Arnold, "did not know enough." Again, during a day on "the roots of violence" that I led here yesterday there was much questioning about the role ofGod die Father in the crucifixion. The problem is crystallized in the famous cry from the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" To my confessedly lame suggestion that Jesus was "only quoting a psalm," someone remarked, "to quote that psalm at thatjuncture and not mean it, is somewhatmisleading!" Again it's the same problem. How can God be understood as ordaining the crucifixion, compatibly with the notion of God as all-loving which Christianity of course affirms? Hans Urs Von Balthasar, who is 90% pro-Girard, in the other 10% wants to hold on to something he calls "the wrath of God." Thus the seeming necessity of having God require and ordain the crucifixion is the main crisis of Christian belief. The six-year-old Willie, in Thomas Klise's amazing novel, The Last Western, puts the problem with childlike directness. He keeps interrupting catechism class with, "Why did God kill Jesus?" and is shushed by Sister. I recall that Illtyd Trethowan said to... (shrink)

It has become a truism that we humans are genetically about 99% identical to chimpanzees. The origins of this assertion are clear: among early studies of DNA sequences, nucleotide identity between humans and chimpanzees was found to average around 98.9%.1 However, this figure is correct only with respect to regions of the genome that are shared between humans and chimpanzees. Often ignored are the many parts of their genomes that are not shared. Genomic rearrangements, including insertions, deletions, translocations and duplications, (...) have long been recognized as potentially important sources of novel genomic material2,3 and are known to account for major genomic differences between humans and chimpanzees.4 Further, such changes have been implicated in a number of genetic disorders, such as DiGeorge, Angelman/Prader‐Willi and Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth syndromes5. BioEssays 28: 335–338, 2006. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Volume 7 in Forschungen zur Pädagogik und Anthropologie. The emphasis on the human body as a key to an understanding of man and the world has been one of the defining characteristics of contemporary existentialism. The role of the human body as it is discussed by the two major French "Existentialists," Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, is discussed by Willi Maier in relation to the ethical and social views of the philosophy of each, and implications for the social sciences are (...) drawn by contrasting their descriptions of human corporeality. Well-founded yet sympathetic observations are made about the respective importance of the roles of human corporeality such that the position of Merleau-Ponty is seen not only as the more encompassing but also the more fruitful and less-problematic for adoption by social scientists as a solution to certain difficulties which plague them. This is a carefully critical yet empathetic and highly suggestive account of what may be considered the most fruitful contribution of these phenomenologists to philosophy and the "human" disciplines in general.—J. E. B. (shrink)

Guillermo B. Willis Dept. de Psicología Social, Universidad de Granada, España ¿Perciben las personas acertadamente el nivel de desigualdad económica … Read More →.

Ángel Sánchez-Rodríguez, Guillermo B Willis y Rosa Rodríguez-Bailón Dept. de Psicología Social, Universidad de Granada, España ¿Cómo nos afecta la … Read More →.

The present state of ethical theory and practice is disquieting. Objectivism, in all its varieties, is unconvincing, and subjectivism, hedonic or emotive, is intellectually incredible and socially intolerable. No one is ethically content—except the dogmatist and the sceptic, who act willy nilly with the exponents of “might-cum-persuasion makes right.” Can we find a happier middle region between these inhospitable poles? Perhaps the very limitations of human valuation will provide the ground that ethics requires. Let us begin by considering the (...) conditions which must hold if ethical action is to be possible: 1. Only if the agent can provide a justifying reason for his choice of action can he claim to act ethically. For ethical action is a species of purposive action, and to act purposively entails the ability to give justifying reasons for one's choice of action. . Thus ethical action presupposes putatively grounded ethical judgment. 2. Justifying reasons must be acknowledgeable by all competent judges, i.e. by all persons who are acquainted with all relevant knowledge of the nature and consequences of the alternative courses of action, allow as far as possible for congenital, cultural and idiosyncratic bias, are capable of sane and serious reflection, and are able to make survey of their experience and to draw conclusions from it. For the judgment “the action A is ethically preferable to its alternatives B ” entails “A ought to be done” which in turn entails “every competent judge is capable of acknowledging the ground of the judgment ‘A is ethically preferable to B’ and consequently would be able to set himself to perform A as an ethical act, .” We can assure ourselves of this requirement of acknowledgeability by observing that whenever we resolve, and not merely settle, an ethical disagreement, we have achieved not only a factual, predictive, valuational and attitudinal agreement between the disputants, but a joint acknowledgment of the ground of the ethical judgment. Without this, the agreement could not be said to be ethical, whether the judgment be right or wrong or neither, but merely an agreement to disagree, ethically. Unless ethical disagreement is in principle resolvable, ethical judgment is impossible, for we should be unable to claim that our choice ought to be acted upon. (shrink)

In the target article, Crespi & Badcock (C&B) propose a novel hypothesis based on observations that a large set of phenotypic traits exhibit diametrically opposite phenotypes in autism-spectrum versus psychotic-spectrum conditions. They propose that development of these conditions is mediated in part by alterations in This hypothesis is based on the model of the Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes. The authors have produced a masterful discussion of the differences between psychosis and autism. Of course, another article could be written on the (...) similarities. (shrink)

On a rainy day in May 1988, a lowland gorilla named Willie B. stepped outdoors for the first time in twenty-seven years, into a new landscape immersion exhibit. Born in Africa, Willie B. had been captured by an animal collector and sold to a zoo. During the decades he spent in a cage, zoos stopped collecting animals from the wild and Americans changed the ways they wished to view animals in the zoo. Zoos developed new displays to simulate landscapes like (...) the Amazon River basin and African forests. Exhibits similar to animals' natural habitats began to replace old-fashioned animal houses. But such displays are only the most recent effort of zoos to present their audiences with an authentic experience of nature. Since the first zoological park opened in the United States in Philadelphia in 1874, zoos have promised their visitors a journey into the natural world. And for more than a century they have been popular places for education and recreation: every year more than 130 million Americans go to zoos to look at the animals and enjoy a day outdoors. The first book-length history of American zoos, Animal Attractions examines the meaning of nature in the city by looking at the ways zoos have assembled and displayed their animal collections. Situated literally and culturally in the American middle landscape, zoos are concrete expressions of longstanding tensions between wildness and civilization, science and popular culture, education and entertainment. In their efforts to promote nature appreciation, they reveal much about how our culture envisions the natural world and the human place in it and how these ideas have changed. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Common Sense and Theological 9 9 Exper_,ence on the Bas s o,f Franz Rosenzweig's Philosophy NATHAN ROTENSTREICH The position of Franz Rosenzweig's thinking within the framework of presentday philosophy is difficult to ascertain. Though he was deeply rooted in the philosophical tradition, his chief work, The Star o] Redemption (Der Stern der Erlgsung, 1921), was conceived outside the main discussions of the philosophical controversy in the twenties. He formulated (...) his ideas side by side with the trends of German philosophy, but not by way of keeping pace with these trends. Yet his polemic against traditional philosophy in general, and against idealism in particular brings Rosenzweig close to the character of the rebellion represented by Existenz-Philosophie. 1 I The question of grounding a philosophical system or a set of philosophical ideas with an objective toward faith clearly poses the difficulty, in terms of the ultimate authority, of maintaining the validity of such a system of ideas. Could that authority be reason, which as a source of ideas and confirmation is outside faith while having consequences or expressions within the scope of faith? Or is faith, asserting the existence of God and his relations to world and man, an independent source? In case faith is an independent source, does it have the guarantee of its validity in its own boundaries, or does it still point to a source of validity which is outside faith and yet is not reason? It seems that Franz Rosenzweig was willy-nilly in his concern with this question. As said before the first approach would have been to construct a system along rational lines. This, however, would have done violence to a basic anti-rationalistic trait in Rosenzweig's thinking that can be clearly discerned in his The Star o] Redemption, in his Kleinere Schri]ten and in his small book, Understanding the Sick and Healthy, published until now in English only. Rosenzweig's criticism of rationalism may be summed up as follows: a) Reason strives for a unified conception of the world; and in support of this monistic fiction its assimilative energy is ready to seize upon all arguments that militate against the doctrines and practices of faith. b) Reason tends to ignore the existence of the individual which it regards as 1On the relation between Franz Rosenzweig and Martin Heidegger, see Karl LSwith, "M. Heideggerand F. Rosenzweigor Temporality and Eternity," Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch,III (Sept., 1942),53-77. [353] 354 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY merely one of the variations of an all-inclusive unity. The question of the relation of the particular to the general or of the individual to the whole, which has engrossed philosophers since time immemorial, has no place in rationalistic systems. c) Since reason places the understanding above the things to be understood (and hence also above the data of religious experience, including the existence of God), we find that from a speculative and historical point of view rationalism has a strong bias against religion or theology. The other way open to Rosenzweig was to rely on the principle of Revelation, but he could not adopt this principle as the basis of his system for the following reasons" a) The first reason can be understood from Schelling's paradox: He who adheres to Revelation does not philosophize, and he who philosophizes finds Revelation inadequate for his purposes. Since Rosenzweig was basically a philosopher --despite his protestations to the contrary--he was precluded by that very fact from appealing to the evidence furnished by Revelation. On the contrary, he sought to find a non-rational basis for Revelation itself. b) The second reason that precluded Rosenzweig from taking the traditional course of relying on Revelation is implicit in that principle itself as Rosenzweig understood it. Revelation in his system has no enlightening or cognitive significance, or what is called in Christian theology Kerygma, instructive knowledge. In Revelation, he says, God reveals only revelation; He reveals himself to man and to man alone.2 In his view, then, Revelation does not transmit informative content and hence has no dogmatic significance. It is a dialogue that posits the existence of the participants, the existence of God, and (highly important for... (shrink)

continent. 2.1 (2012): 29–35. Translated by Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei from Jeroen Mettes. "Politieke Poëzie: Enige aantekeningen, Poëtica bij N30 (versie 2006)." In Weerstandbeleid: Nieuwe kritiek . Amsterdam: De wereldbibliotheek, 2011. Published with permission of Uitgeverij Wereldbibliotheek, Amsterdam. L’égalité veut d’autres lois . —Eugène Pottier The modern poem does not have form but consistency (that is sensed), no content but a problem (that is developed). Consistency + problem = composition. The problem of modern poetry is capitalism. Capitalism—which has no (...) image: the unrepresentable Idea of “everything.” The problem is that a poem cannot be justified. There is no excuse for it. Political poetry— pure poetry—has to be problematic, though not in a mannerist way. Yes, its problem is first its own problem—poetry’s existence in the same world as the newspaper—but therefore also always everybody’s problem (the problem of any world at all). The cult of the sublime points at a suspect desire for transcendence, nostalgia for paradise lost (the womb?). Melancholia of the post-. But a problem neither sorrows nor mourns, it is alive, and the fact that it is alive is the problem—the problem for death (rigidity, the status quo). Our symbols and ideologies do not hide any god: symbolic = state; imaginary = human; real = money. Problem: the possibility of communal speech (poetry) in the absence of a “we.” Or: what is a “we” that is not a collective subject (or in any case is not a volonté générale )? What is a universal history that is not a History? This work was started in the shade of the anti-globalization protests at the end of November 1999. I considered N30 to be the closure of the nineties, of my adolescence, and of the a seemingly total extinction of social desire. From the beginning I was skeptical about the alterglobalization movement as the avant-garde of a new politics, but something was happening . Maybe this event did not show that, as the slogan would have it, “another world” is possible, but for me it indicated that such possibility was at least still possible. That naked possibility is carrying forward. And if the fundamental tone of this work sounds more desperate than utopian, this is not caused by the catastrophic sequence that since 1999 has plunged us ever deeper into the right-wing nightmare—a nightmare that this work also gives an account for—but because my hope as yet remains empty. Composition . Composition is no design, but the production of an autonomous block of affects (i.e. a POEM), rhythmically subtracted from the language of a community. A poem does something. Is something. New Sentence . Choosing the non sequitur as compositional unit has the advantage that an abstract composition is subjected to the stress of concrete, social references. Where there is a sentence, there is always a world. (This does not hold necessarily for words on their own.) And where sentences collide, something akin to a textual civil war takes place. It is not about “undermining” whatever, or de-scribing the raging global civil war, but about writing social (or even: ontological) antagonism -- including all its catastrophic and utopian possibilities. Minor resistance. Why would poetry be the no protest zone par excellence? It is nothing but protest, not simply qua “content,” but in its most fundamental essence: rhythm. Rhythm is resistance against language, time, and space, and the basis of (what we will continue to call) autonomy. Rhythm starts with the anti-rhythmic caesura as Hölderlin remarked about Sophocles, a disruption of the quotidian drone. The destruction of everything that is dead inside of us. The noise of the avant-garde has never been the representation of the noise of (post)modernity (from the television or shopping mall), but the sober noise of the systematic exchange of an unbearable worldview. The poet does not describe, but looks for a way out: There is a Grain of Sand in Lambeth that Satan cannot find Nor can his Watch Fiends find it, tis translucent & has many Angles But he who finds it will find Oothoons palace, for within Opening into Beulah every angle is a lovely heaven William Blake was not mad. And there has always been only one poetry: the poetry of paradise. The principle is that there is something in art (the essentially creative element) that is disgusted by that which, unlike art, does not aim for the supreme. Wonder is not supreme, tranquility is not supreme, beauty is not supreme. Even amusement is not supreme! The supreme is supremely open, “das Einfache,/ Das Schwer zu machen ist” 1 : paradise. That is abstract. Literally. For me it is not about a concrete imagination, an idyll or utopia. There is no doubt a need for that, but it is not so much the supposed lack of imagination or ideals (human rights are ideals), but a fundamental lack of desire (human rights are no desires) that we suffer from, and from which we do not need to remove Nietzsche’s label of “nihilism.” “We.” George Oppen: “ Of Being Numerous asks the question whether or not we can deal with humanity as something which actually exists.” What is less actual than humanity? Nowadays it appears as a lifeless ideology of cynical power politics. Or as what makes one think. It is a shame to be human. The event is the caesura that defines rhythm. Writing toward the event is not the description of the event, but marking an abstract and intense space in which the event may unfold and keep itself. It is a task. “Remember that thou blesseth the day on which I seized thee, because such is thy obligation.” The event is a contraction (or a series of contractions) with its own rhythm and unique qualities. It is more than an explosion or demonstration. But at the same time less. The endless repetition of images and stories in the media points to a fear for the indeterminate and indeterminable void of the event. In the end there is nothing to see. We do not live in disaster’s shade or miracle’s light, but rather in the rhythm, which is contracted time, having little to do with omnipresent representations. For this book I did not intend a rhythm of evental representations (a narrative rhythm), but a rhythm which would be an event itself , because it draws the border between artwork and history. My desire for a direct engagement with the “extra-textual reality” has nothing to do with the representation of “rumor in the streets.” (What has less street cred than representation?) Naturally, a poem is no historical event and does not change anything. But a poem is a part of history that wants to be repeated forever, constructed in such a way that it is worthy of repetition. It is a part of desire (composition) made consistent (durable). The “historical event” flares up and burns down, and has to burn down to be effective. The leftovers are images and stories (representations), History—no event. The artwork—that is the ambition— remains event (though monumental and inefficient/inoperable). (No wonder that a historical singularity, a revolution, reminds us of a work of art; the resurrection yearns for a judgment, an affirmation; everything depends on it.) Hence the title does not summarize the book, let alone contract its “content” into a quasi-transcendental signifier. The title is juxtaposed to the book, like everything else inside the book, and in that relation it precisely forms a part of it. The ideal work is an open whole, lacking nothing but to which everything may be added. I have been interested in this “everything,” the world, or as I said above: capitalism. “Everything” is not the space for “wonder”—a code word, a shibboleth for petty bourgeois imagination (I recognize myself in the strangest things, a speaking dog, a canal, a pond standing straight—oh my god). No. The world is a social world, not YOUR world, poet. Power is number one. I will call “Dutch,” or “shitty,” whatever denies this power. That hurts, but this pain is an expression of the desire in the world to write another world, or as Blanchot says, “the other of all worlds” 2 : the world. Not as what “is there,” but rather as that which urges for an escape from what “is.” This is a testament of how radical reality has become, for me—or rather, a writing body—in a having-been-written. I am not interested in the problem of “meaning” as misunderstood by literary scholarsi: “order” in “chaos,” “symbolization.” Bullshit. What is there, hop, hope, now: the meaning of the taste in my mouth. Bullshit. I am not interested in the frustration of interpretation; I am writing for readers who do not want to interpret. I do not know how many “professional readers” will hear the music of a paragraph like: Sun. Sushi. Volvo. I hope more than I would think. There is a suggestion (or rather, an actual production) of speed and infinitive owing to the absence of plosives, i.e. articulations such as /k/, /t/, or /p/. Can you hear the slick suaveness? Driving car dark, vocal chiaroscuro of the word “sushi.” The unstressed /i/ stands in the middle of dark vowels and thus acquires its own special out of focus , like a momentary flash or brilliance—an obscure light. It is not about recognizing a story, but about avoiding any story whatsoever: the car disappears in the glow, cars and raw fish have nothing in common except their articulation in a language that brings them together, blurring them. A world appears in its disappearance. For a moment, light is a metaphor for language, though it cannot be reduced to tenor. It is not necessary to be a linguist or philosopher to hear this—a “difficult” poem all too often becomes an allegory of its own impenetrable being-language. The only demand: leave your hermeneutical fetish at home. This was no interpretation. Most shit has been stolen etcetera. That is no longer interesting. You cannot shoot the body with information and let your lawyers reclaim the bullets. So every sentence has been stolen. Also the ones “out” “of” “my” “head.” Why would I be allowed to steal from myself and not from others? Man takes what he needs to move forward. Whatever he encounters, finds in front of him, “occurs” to him. The writer as text editor, or singing pirate. Nothing new here. Important difference with for example Sybren Polet’s 4 montage technique: anti-thematicism. Most of the time ferocious citation from whatever I was reading, listening to, ended up in, and so on. I wrote chapter 12 on my laptop while watching CNN. On the air instead of en plein air . I often employed search engines to generate material. Chapter 20 offers the purest example of this. Often I stop recognizing a particular citation after some time. It is not uncommon for a stolen sentence to conform itself to the paragraph in which it finds itself. Sometimes I nearly arbitrarily replace words. Arbitrariness as a guarantee for absolute democracy. It is a poetics of the non sequitur : a conclusion that does not follow from the premises, the strange element in the discourse. A discourse of strangers. No logical, narrative, thematic unity. There is unity in speed/flight. It has to be read linearly, but not necessarily (not preferably) from beginning to end. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but this line precedes every point. The middle, the acceleration, comes first. A point occurs where two lines cross. It has been written from up close, at the level of the tension between sentences. Nothing to be seen from a distance: no form except the exchange of form, no geometrical or mythical meaning. You have to get in, “groping toward a continuous present, a using everything a beginning again and again” (Stein). 5 In Dutch, experimental poetry has been mainly dense: a small rectangular form filled with a maximum amount of poetic possibility. But at the moment the poem starts to relax, the anecdotical content seems to increase. This is what is called “epic”: long, narrative. I believe that an epic is more than that, in fact something completely different. An epic is “a poem including history,” 6 a long poem tied up with the life of community, that as a whole does not need to be narrative. The American poets of the twentieth century (Pound, Williams, Zukofsky, Oppen, Olson, Silliman) have put the epic back on the map by interpreting the poem itself as a map, and writing it as navigation. They have invented the experimental epic, a genre that has generated little original following in “our” poetry. N30 is the middle part—“always start in the middle”—of a trilogy, the contours of which remain as of yet unclear, although each episode investigates one of the three “ecstasies of time”—past, present, future—concerning society X. N30 concerns itself with the PRESENT: not with the description of actual facts but of the rhythm and the intense depth in which facts appear to us. Where are we? We are camping in the desert. Sometimes we are looking at the stars. As opposed to maximum density and minimal tension (a characteristic of most (post-)experimental lyricism), I have sought a minimal density and maximum tension in this book, considered as a long non-narrative prose poem. On the one hand, the minimal density is obtained by the inherent formlessness of prose, on the other hand by the conscious refusal of any active (formal, non-rhythmic) synthesis: the poem tells nothing, shows nothing, has no theme. I did not seek maximum tension either by loading the quotidian with epiphanic radioactivity (“wonder,” confirmation from above), or by means of the intensity of the linguistic structure. I want an abstract tension, but social in its abstraction, in other words, not neutralized by and subjected to Form. Instead of form (transcendent): composition (immanent). The concept is series. Ideal: every unit is necessary for the efficacy of the others and the whole, their relation is purely linear, i.e. non-hierarchic, non-syllogistic, non-discursive, non-narrative. Sentence related to sentence like paragraph to paragraph and chapter to chapter; the whole means nothing and represents nothing. Inside the sentence: syntax (Chomsky’s tree, a type of parallel circuit), outside: parataxis (coordination, an asyntactic line through language and world). I consider duration—the energy of duration (rhythm)—to be the fundament of a poem, the temporal inclination to delimit a “space.” Being as consistency, its consistency. A spatial part of time is not merely a metaphor for an inevitable trajectory, an inescapable time, something like “our time.” Not merely—because rhythm comes from language and is not projected onto it; the poem derives from the world like a scent and a color and a life from a flower. A series, a sequence: nothing potential, but truly infinite—the movement of an infinitude. The infinite series = everything minus totality. That means that there is no container—no Form, no Self, no Image, no Structure, not even a Fragment—just “the prose of the world.” No representation, but also no staging of the impossibility of representation (the postmodern sublime). These are no fragments, no image of a fragmented world or personality, no cautious incantations around the Void. It does not exist. It is a movement. Buying bread, a flock of birds, a bomb falling—they do not depict or represent anything, not literally, not metaphorically. There is an Idea, which is however nothing more than a rhythm, in the same way that capitalism is nothing more than a pure function. Parataxis: the white space between two sentences stresses, which is nevertheless always there, also between words, even between letters: the out of focus of idle talk, the gutter, the irreducible Mallarméan mist which renders even the seemingly most transparent text legible. The white space suggests a neutral medium for free signification, a substance of language. A non sequitur is an element from a foreign discourse, which stresses the white space as space, and problematizes freedom for supra-sentential signification. I start by withdrawing material, leaving the initiative to the sentences. In general a word presupposes less often a discourse than a sentence. What discourse is presupposed by “dog”? We could think of several, but why would we? It is more probable that, when faced with the naked word, we think of its naked (dictionary) meaning, of its denotative signified. By means of two simple interventions we may also write the word as sentence: Dog. In no way this suggests the discourse from which this sentence originates, but in any case we’re presupposing one. This is shown by questions like: “Whose dog? Who’s a dog? What kind of dog?” Etc. (Sentences are question marks.) A sentence implies/is a microcosm—a subject, a verb, an object, and so on. Even an incomplete or ungrammatical sentence does so. My main fascination while writing this book is the worldly and social aspect of language, an aspect that often becomes invisible, or rather, transparent in narrativity—the stretching of sentences into stories. Narrativity organizes a new discourse and a new world, and places a sometimes all too dispersing relation of transparence in between. The conventional novel is the brothel of being. I do not intend to prohibit brothels, and I have certainly not intended to write an anti-novel (THIS IS A POEM), but I do consider narrativity (in general, in poetry, in the news, in daily life) to be ontologically secondary with regard to an immediate being in the world through sentences, also if the latter have been withdrawn from a narrative or otherwise externally structured discourse (which in that case would therefore be chronologically primary ). Naturally, two or more sentences are always in danger of telling stories or arguing, just like the world is always in danger of becoming an objective representation, facing us, strangers. That is why need to wage war—against representation and against the interface, against interaction. AGAINST THE “READER.” To the extent that a sentence is worldly, writing is a condensed global war, and in so far as there is ultimately only one world and one open continuum of languages, it is a global civil war. Nice subject for an epic. The elaboration of a singular problem—prose as the outside of poetry, the form of the novel as purely prosodic composition scheme—“expresses” the universal problem: capitalism as Idea of the world vs. poetry as language of an (im)possible community. The paragraphs are blocks of rhythmically contracted social material. By choosing the sentence as the basic compositional component, an abstract whole may contain social sounds, without telling a story or showing an image. Composition is subrepresentative —a rhythmic, passive synthesis, or rather: a synthesis of syntheses. I never write large blocks of prose in one sitting, because there is no obvious organizational vector —plot, theme, conscience—outside the inherent qualities of the material itself. Usually I write down one sentence, sometimes two, but rarely more than three. Those sentences are usually placed in the text which I am editing at the time. In fact, there is no original composition, new chapters split off from chapters which became too long during the editing process. (Revision mainly consists of adding and inserting, displacing and dividing; only during the last phase, when the text has gained enough consistency, there may be subtraction to tighten the composition; each chapter requires a season of daily revision). This constant revision, accompanied by a continuous influx of collective background noise (to speak with Van Bastelaere), 7 makes every chapter a block condensed (“historical” and “personal”) time. The block itself is a-personal and a-historic; it is ontologically autonomous. If there is such a thing as a spirit of the times, I do not try to offer an image of it, but rather to cancel something of it by erecting a monument of its own excrement within its own boundaries. Tuning and dis-tuning , “in de taal der neerslachtigen een eigen geluid doen klinken,” 8 in other words, desiring in an Elysian way. In this sense I have intended to be able to write a political poetry. The ultimate political poem is the epic, “the tale of the tribe.” I consider N30 to be a prolegomenon to a future epic (of which it in the end will form a part a structural moment, as introduction-in-the-middle), an extended pile on top of an epic as narrative, a question of the tribe and question of its history. I was burdened by too much satire, too much bullshit. But: satire willy-nilly = the only justifiable satire. Against the abstract universalism of the market (“globalism”): concrete disgust, a positive way of saying “No.” Moreover, disgust is a specifically total attitude, which ultimately concerns the world as a whole. I hate this or that, but I am disgusted by EVERYTHING (when I am disgusted), and so it appears that satire is in fact related to the epic, in so far as it concerns society, the cosmos, history. Maybe it is no coincidence that the Dutch literary canon knows no great poet of disgust; what could be more fearful to us than society, the cosmos, and history? The T-tendency (T from Tollens 9 ) clearly points into the direction of the small, friendly, ironic, melancholic, acquiescent, wondrous, and so on. The anti-political, anti-cosmic, anti-historical. (Why am I so philosophical? To scare away the Dutchies.) And most of all: the “poetical” (the pseudo-mysticism from the backyard). Yes, the N in N30 also stands for the Netherlands (just like 30 indicates the number of chapters). I was not in Seattle, I do not live in Iraq. But is not the whole world bleeding to death on Dutch paving stones? Let’s hope that we mowed away something with this total satire, also “in myself.” The arrogant stupidity that definitely thinks to know the essence of freedom (the free development of esthetic needs inside the void), that cannot take anything serious, only believes in the disciplined bestiality of the individual (“norms and values”) and the mere functioning of a social factory which finds no justification whatsoever outside its functioning (“get to work”)… Who knows. A certain aimed destruction leaves grooves and craters, mapping out a next adventure. Pound’s periplum : sailing while mapping the coasts. Immanent orientation. The terrain changes with the map, history changes with the poem. Maps never merely organize the chaos, transcendent schemes imposed on a formless Ding-an-sich . They organize from within, surfing. But they are most of all routes back into the chaos or forward to paradise (final identity of chaos and paradise; Schlegel: “ Nur diejenige Verworrenheit ist ein Chaos aus der eine Welt entspringen kann ”10). A poem is not only a piece of history, it is also a flight from history. Maps give chaos to the form of reality , open escape routes, break through representations, make us shivery and dazed. Paradise is immanent to a fleeting desire. History is the history of labor—this is Adam’s curse—and the poet works too: For to articulate sweet sounds together Is to work harder than all these, and yet Be thought an idler by the noisy set Of bankers, school masters, and clergymen The martyrs call the world 11 But: the poet works in paradise. The paradox of the artwork, the work that is no work, the piece of history that cannot be reduced to History—this is explained by The Space of Literature , a virtual space, an autonomous rhythm, not outside, but in the midst of the noise, a piece of paradise in hell, a postcard from the vale of tears addressed to paradise, to X. Political poetry means: a poetry that dares to think about itself, about its language and about its world and about the problematic relation between both, which is this relation as problem. A poetry that thinks at all, articulates its problem. It has nothing to do with journalism or morality or debate, let alone the law or the state. It has nothing to do with “criticism” if this means the replacement of incorrect representations by other, more correct representations. It has something to do with ethics in the sense of learning to live. It has something to do with the community and the language of the community (whichever that may be) and the role of the poet regarding the community. It concerns justice without judgement or measure. In the end the just word is just a word , to paraphrase Godard: it is from a future that is unimaginable. It Is no rational engagement, but an aversion against everything that obstructs life, and love for everything what is worthy of having been loved. The world is engaged with me, not the other way round. First Exodus, then Sinai. A desire does not start with an agenda. To answer the question whether I am really so naive as to want to change the world: “We only want the world.” Justice is the world appealing to us to liberate it from all possible chains, from each organization and inequality, to be it, smooth, equal, under a clear sky—a desert and a people in a desert. That moment between Egypt and the Law. It is not a revolution, but the sky above the revolution. Poetry = the science of escape. There is no art that we already know. The weakness of modernistic epic poetry seems to me to be the unwillingness to completely abandon narrative as a structural principle, in favor of a composition “around” or from an event. The China Cantos and Adams Cantos are the low point, and the Pisan Cantos the high point of Pound’s poetry. Two types of research: archival representation of the past vs. ontology of the present (which virtually presupposes the entire history). Presupposing an event means that it is impossible for the poet to stage his own absence, but in no way makes the work personal. An event is the unknown, the new invading into the business as usual, so also the personal. The question heading this research is not: “Who am I?” but “What is happening?” The book is as little illegible as Mondrian’s work is invisible. Form is of interest only to the extent that it empowers liberation. Ron Silliman So no formalism, but what it means to live in this world and to have a future in it. I want something that holds together that’s not smooth. Bruce Andrews The past above, the future below and the present pouring down: the roar, the roar of the present, a speech— William Carlos Williams If my confreres wanted to write a work with all history in its maw, I wished, from the beginning to start all over again, attempting to know nothing but a will to create, and matter at hand. Ronald Johnson NOTES 1) “The easy thing/ that is difficult to make.” Bertold Brecht, Lob des Kommunismus . (All footnotes are the translator’s) 2) Maurice Blanchot, The Space of Literature , trans. Ann Smock. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press (1989), 75. 3) Mettes uses the word “Neerlandicus,” which refers to scholars of Dutch language and literature. 4) Dutch poet. 5) Gertrude Stein. “Composition as Explanation.” A Stein Reader . Ed. Ulla E. Dydo. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press (1993), 495-503. 6) Ezra Pound. 7) Flemish poet. 8) “Resounding an original sound in the language of the despondent.” A. Roland Holst, De afspraak . 9) Dutch poet. 10) “Only such a confusion is a chaos which can give rise to a world.” 11) W.B. Yeats, “Adam’s Curse.&rdquo. (shrink)

Die in diesem Band als 'Beilagen' wiedergegebenen Manuskripte gehören formal wie systematisch zu demselben Konvolut aus dem Nachlaß, dessen grundlegenden Teil über Basisphänomene (s. ECN 1) Cassirer ebenfalls in seiner Schrift über Ziele und Wege der Wirklichkeitserkenntnis (s. ECN 2) nutzt. Cassirers wechselseitige interne Verweisungen vom Manuskript zur Geschichte auf einzelne dieser Lagen und vice versa rechtfertigen den Abdruck dieser Manuskripte zu einzelnen Kategorien des in den Geschichts- und Mythos-Manuskripten behandelten Zusammenhangs. Inhalt: Der Begriff der Form als Problem der Philosophie (...) (Vortrag, Berlin 1924); Über Sprache und Denken (Vortrag, London 1927); Entwürfe und Vorarbeiten zur Philosophie der symbolischen Formen: a) Prägnanz, symbolische Ideation; b) Präsentation und Repräsentation; c) Allgemeines zur Gestaltpsychologie (1927-1929); Zum Symbolproblem (Vortrag, Zürich 1932 / Utrecht 1935); Vom Einfluß der Sprache auf die naturwissenschaftliche Begriffsbildung (Vortrag, London 1935); Beilage: Grundprobleme der Sprachphilosophie (Vorlesung, Hamburg SS 1922, Nachschrift von Dr. Willi Meyne). (shrink)

Argues for the primacy of the phylogenetic system as the general reference system in biology. This book, first published in 1966, generated significant controversy and opened possibilities for evolutionary biology.

Dem Beispiel Edmund Husserls folgend unternimmt M.-P. einen grosz angelegten Versuch, die Grundlagen der Sozialphilosophie philosophisch zu erhellen. Er verbindet dabei transzendentalphänomenologische, existenzialphilosophische und lebensphilosophische Denkmotive zu einer sehr persönlichen und ursprünglichen Synthese. Im Hinblick auf den schwierigen Charakter und die undurchsichtige Struktur seiner Ausführung wird zunächst eine Interpretation gegeben. M.-P. geht dialektisch vor. Seine These beruht auf seiner ausführlich entwicelten und sorgfältig dokumentierten Philosophie der menschlichen Leiblichkeit (vergi. Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung übers, und eingeführt von RUDOLF BOEHM, Berlin 1966, S. (...) 1-396 ; vergi, auch WILLI MAIER : Das Problem der Leiblichkeit bei Jean-Paul Sartre und Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Tübingen 1964, S. 21-101). Diese steht im schroffen Gegensatz zur Cartesianischen Tradition. M.-P. zufolge ist die geistige Existenz eine fortwährende Inkarnation. Hieraus ergibt sich, dasz das Bewusztsein notwendigerweise einen Leib besitzt. Der Leib ist ferner weder Ding noch Bewusztsein ; er hat eine eigene, „dritte” Seinsweise. Eben daher verleiht der Leib mir Zugang zur Welt ; ja noch mehr : Leib und Welt sind genau aufeinander abgestimmt. -Schlieszlich ist der Leib Träger typischer Intentionen motorischer, wahrnehmender, expressiver, elementar-praktischer und sexueller Art. Kurzum die leibliche Existenz ist vital-unpersönlich, sie sichert lediglich das mundane Leben im allgemeinen ; sie ist die Vorbedingung und Grundlage aller Objektivierung, aller Reflexion, aller bewuszten Entscheidung. Doch ist es M.-P. zufolge möglich, unumgänglich von einem subjektiven Leib, einem Leib-Subjekt zu sprechen. Der vorpersönliche Leib und die persönliche geistige Existenz des Menschen sind dabei nicht sauber voneinander geschieden ; ihr Verhältnis darf auch nicht als ein statisches gedacht werden. Es ist vielmehr durch fluktuierende Übergänge in beide Richtungen gekennzeichnet. Höchst persönliche Akte sedimentieren, verwandeln sich in habituelle Erwerbe und Automatismen. Andererseits spielen derartige Habitualitäten in dem kulturellen, geistigen und persönlichen Leben des Menschen eine bedeutsame Rolle. Auf Grund dieser Voraussetzungen vermag M.-P. die Wahrnehmung des alter ego völlig anders zu beschreiben als Husserl. -Wenn mein Blick auf ein anderes Leib-Subjekt fällt, das handelt, dann empfangen alle Dinge, die das andere Subjekt umgeben, eine neue Bedeutung. Sie sind nunmehr das, was das Verhalten des Anderen aus ihnen macht. Eben deshalb sehen wir das andere Leib-Subjekt nie und nimmer als ein ausgedehntes Stück Materie an. Wir betrachten es auch nicht als einen Bestandteil der Welt. Das andere Leib-Subjekt ist vielmehr etwas, was mit der Welt umgeht, sie im Griff hat und auf sie einwirkt. So ist es erklärlich, dasz mein Leib, wenn er den Leib des Anderen wahrnimmt, darin eine vertraute Weise erkennt, sich mit den mundanen Dingen einzulassen. Er sieht in dem andern Leib ein Organ seiner eigenen möglichen Intentionen. Dieses Erkennen soll nun nach M.-P. zu einer Verschmelzung führen. So wie die Glieder meines Leibes ein System bilden, so bilden nunmehr mein Leib und der Leib des Anderen ein einziges Ganzes, das von einer einzigen namenlosen, vorpersönlichen Existenz bewohnt wird. Auf diese Weise ist die Koexistenz psychophysischer Subjekte erklärlich, nicht aber die von Mitmenschen. Doch scheint die Erhellung der letzteren keine Schwierigkeiten mehr zu bieten. Der Mitmensch ist ein Subjekt, das mit Kulturobjekten umzugehen weisz. Unter den Erzeugnissen der Kultur nun spielt die Sprache eine entscheidende Rolle. Im Dialog entwerfen ich und der Andere eine gemeinsame geistige Landschaft. Wir kommunizieren miteinander, weil wir eine gemeinschaftliche Welt besitzen. Die Antithese erinnert in mancherlei Hinsicht an die Existenzphilosophie Jean-Paul Sartre's. Mit der Einführung der subjektiven Leiblichkeit ist das Problem nicht gelöst, betont M.-P. Die Schwierigkeit ist darin gelegen, dasz das alter ego genau dieselben Ansprüche erhebt wie das ego. Ist das wahrnehende Ich ein im vollen Sinne persönliches Ich, dann kann es kein anderes persönliches Ich wahrnehmen. Ist es dagegen ein anonymes Subjekt, dann ist der Andere gleichfalls ein namenloser Organismus. Gehen wir von der letztgenannten Voraussetzung aus, dann nivellieren wir alles, was die Einmaligkeit und Einzigkeit persönlicher Existenz ausmacht. Die Unzulänglichkeit der These seigt sich, wenn wir versuchen, sie auf die Problematik des „cogito” anzuwenden. Das „cogito” legt Zeugnis von meiner individuellen Existenz ab. Zu meiner Existenz gehört ein „transzendentales Feld”, d. h. ein Bereich, warin sich alle Seiende in Objekte-für-mich verwandeln. Bevor wir ein affirmatives oder negatives Urteil über etwas fällen können, musz ich diesem Etwas einen „Platz” in meinem transzendentalen Feld zuerkannt haben. Dies gilt auch mit Bezug auf die Kommunikation und die kommunizierenden Wesen. Sie müssen gleichfalls cogita meines cogito's sein. Es gibt, versichert M.-P., einen erlebten Solipsismus der nicht transzendiert werden kann. Es ist auch nicht möglich, diesen Solipsismus durch die Einführung eines göttlichen ego aufzuheben, dessen geheime Wirksamkeit ich in mir selbst entdecke. Es ist wahr, dasz wir, ich und der andere, im Bezug auf ein überindividuelles göttliches Bewusztsein empirische Objekte wären. Wir wären dann beide den Blicken des unendlichen Zuschauers ausgesetzt ; keiner hätte dem andern gegenüber eine Vorrang. Doch hätte ich dann die Wirksamkeit des göttlichen Bewusztseins in mir infolge eines reflexiven Aktes entdeckt. Dies würde aber bedeuten, dasz ich, der ich nur Schatten bin, durch meine Erkenntnis die Fülle des Lichtes erhellt habe, die ich Gott nenne. Etwas Derartiges würde dem Wesen Gottes widersprechen. Die Antithese kann daher auch durch die Annahme eines unendlichen Bewusztseins nicht widerlegt werden. Die Negation der Negation. Inmitten der Welt begegne ich Anderen. Dies ist ein Phänomen, das sich nicht wegdisputieren läszt. Wenn solipsistische Philosophen von der volkommenen Einsamkeit des ego sprechen, dann musz betont werden, dasz selbst der Begriff der Einsamkeit einen Hinweis auf mögliche Andere enthält. Auch die Alternative : „Ich oder der Andere” ist unhaltbar. Das Denken und Formulieren der Alternative bringt ja bereits mit sich, dasz sowohl Ich wie der Andere implizite gesetzt werden. -Sartre's berühmte „ Dialektik des Blickes" besitzt nicht die Beweiskraft, die ihr vielfach zu erkannt wird. Es ist wahr, dasz der objektivierende Blick des Anderen, solange dieser tatenlos bleibt und sich nicht mitteilt, die Kommunikation zeitweilig suspendiert. Es genügt aber, dasz der Andere ein Wort spricht, um ihn der Kommunikation zugänglich zu machen. Die Antithese wäre unwiderlegbar, wenn ihre Voraussetzungen zuträfen, wenn es nur zwei Seinsweisen gäbe : das Subjekt-und das Objekt-sein, das bewuszte und das dingartige Sein, das Für-sich-und das An-sich-sein. Diese Voraussetzungen weist M.-P.ab. Er hat -einigermaszen im Anschlusz an Husserl -den Beweis dafür geliefert, dasz das wahrgenommene Ding immer als einem groszen Zusammenhang angehörig aufgefaszt wird, letztlich dem Zusammenhang einer Welt. Unser Sein zur Welt geht daher immer der Wahrnehmung von „ diesem" und „jenem” voran. Die Welt ist offenbar weder Subjekt noch Objekt, weder Bewusztsein noch Ding. Was im Bezug auf die natürlichen Welt festgestellt worden is, gilt auch von der sozialen Welt. Unser ursprüngliches Verstehen des Sozialen macht es uns erst möglich, objektivierende Urteile über Individuen und Gruppen zu fällen. -M.-P. illustriert dies an den Beispielen des Klassenbewusztseins und des Nationalbewusztseins. Weder Klasse noch Nation dürfen als ein Fatum betrachtet werden, das von auszen her über mich verhängt worden ist. Ebensowenig sind sie „Werte”, die ich als souveraine Freiheit in meiner Immanenz „gesetzt” habe. „Klasse” und „Nation” sind vielmehr bestimmte Formen der Koexistenz, die für menschliche Individuen einen Aufforderungscharakter besitzen. In ruhigen Zeiten gehen Reize von ihnen aus, die nur gelegentliche Reaktionen auslösen. Man ahnt, dasz es sie gibt, aber man weisz es nicht. In einer revolutionären Situation oder in der Stunde einer nationalen Katastrophe können sie aber Anlasz zu einer klassenbewuszten bezw. nationalbewuszten Stellungnahme geben. Was dann in der Form einer Wahl, einer Entscheidung, eines Bekentnissen in Erscheinung tritt, ist lediglich die ausdrückliche Bestätigung eines vorhergehenden stillschweigenden Engagements. In diesem Sinne bezeichnet M.-P. das Soziale als etwas, das nicht primär Objekt unseres Bewusztseins sondern eine Dimension unseres Existierens ist. Die Frage nach der Transzendenz. Sind M.-P. zufolge soziale Gebilde wie z. B. „Klasse” oder „Nation” bewutetseinstranszendente Realitäten oder bewusztseinsimmanente Inhalte ? -Es ist für M.-P. charakteristisch, dasz er diese Alternative ablehnt. Er wirft zwar das Problem der Transzendenz auf, aber er stellt es auf eine neuartige Weise. Transzendent nennt er diejenigen Phänomene, die mich übersteigen, die aber dennoch nur insoferne für mich sind, als ich sie erfasse und erlebe. Er illustriert jene Problematik an der Hand der Phänomene „Vergangenheit” und „Welt”. Die Vergangenheit ist für den Realisten eine Spur, die sich auf meiner Hirnrinde oder in meiner Pyche befindet. Für den Idealisten ist sie ein cogitatum, das ein transcendentaler Geist in meiner Innerlichkeit konstituiert. In beiden Fällen wäre die Vergangenheit Gegenwart. M.-P. zufolge hat es die Vergangenheit immer schon für mich gegeben, auch wenn ich sie nicht mittels thetischer Akte vergegenwärtigt habe. In analoger Weise ist die Welt allerdings das, was mich umringt, aber sie befaszt mich, auch ohne dasz ich mir davon reflexiv bewuszt werde. Sofern mein Bewusztsein ausdrücklich Zeugnis von ihr ablegt, musz ich die Welt immanent nennen. Sofern sk aber mein Leben bestimmt hat, bevor ich von ihr gewuszt habe, ist sie bewusztseinstranszendent. Dieselbe „negatio supposti” wendet M.-P. nun auch auf das alter ego an. Der Andere ist transzendent, denn sein Sein-für-mich kommt nicht durch irgendwelche intenþionale Leistungen - Analogieschlusz, Introjektion oder Einfühlung -zustande. Ich konstituiere den Anderen nicht, denn ich bin kein göttliches Bewusztsein. Er ist bei mir, bevor ich ausdrücklich kennende, strebende oder wertende Akte vollziehe. -Dennoch ist es wahr, dasz das alter ego der Andere in Bezug auf mich ist. Das könnte er nicht sein, wenn mein Bewusztsein sein Sein nicht bezeugte. Das Zeugnis meines Bewusztseins ist dabei die ausdrückliche Bekräftigung von etwas, das im Stillen bereits in mir lebte. Es ist jedoch erforderlich, damit der Andere mir wirklich gegenübersteht. Infolge dieser wesentlich notwendigen bewuszten Affirmation ist der Andere meinem Bewusztsein auch immanent. - Wenn M.-P. daher behauptet, dasz das alter ego sowohl transzendent als immanent ist, dann darf man das nicht als eine spielerische Ausflucht betrachten. Es bedeutet, dasz sich mein gesamtes Leben in einer Sphäre von Sozialität abspielt, und dasz diese Sphäre das bewuszte Beurteilen und Sich-Verhalten gegenüber sozialen Partnern erst möglich macht. Das transzendentale Motiv im Denken M. P.'s. Das Problem der Transzendenz stellt sich demnach bei M.-P. auf eine sehr besondere Weise : es ist die Frage nach der Seinsart eines Transzendenten, das nicht ohne weiteres Überstieg des Selbst und eines Immanenten, das nicht schlechthin Wohnen in dem Selbst ist. Überdies formuliert er das Problem nicht in statischen, sondern in dynamischen Ausdrücken und Begriffen. Wie kann ich „ Urpräsenz" sein, die jede Anwesenheit eines Anderen bei mir bedingt, und gleichzeitig „Entgegenwärtigung”, die mich entrückt, fragt er sich. -Die Lösung dieser für ihn entscheidende Frage sucht er in der Richtung einer Transzendentalphilosophie. Das Paradox der immanenten Transzendenz kann nur dann philosophisch begreiflicher werden, wenn etwas gefunden wird, das die beiden Pole : „ Mich” und „den Anderen” umspannt ; das den Gegensatz zwischen Innerlichkeit und Äuszerlichkeit aufhebt ; das Interiorität zur Äuszerlichkeit erweitert und die Exteriorität verinnerlicht. M.-P. führt zunächst einen einigermaszen veränderten Begriff der Subjektivität ein. Das Bewusztsein, das cogito, die Subjektivität ist ihm zufolge nicht ohne weiteres als Identität mit sich selbst, als Selbstanwesenheit, als Wohnen in sich selbst zu charakterisieren. Ja, die absolute Selbstanwesenheit wird in Wahrheit niemals vollkommen realisiert, da die Subjektivität gleichzeitig auch Gerichtet-sein auf den Andern, Offenstehen für die Welt und Sprung nach der Zukunft ist. Sofern nun die Subjektivität nicht starre, unveränderliche Identität sondern ek-statisches Sein beim Anderen ist, ist ihre Seinsweise keine andere als die der Temporalität. So wie die Zeit in jeder ihrer temporalen Ekstasen das zur Entfaltung bringt, was in der vorgehenden als Keim angelegt war, so ist auch die Subjektivität der Drang, das zum Ausdruck zu bringen, was bereits implizit in ihre gelebt hat. -Nach M.-P. ist es falsch zu behaupten, das Subjekt befinde sich „ in" der Zeit. Er betrachtet vielmehr Subjekt und Zeit als ein und dieselbe alles gründende Wirklichkeit. Damit hat er auch das Problem der immanenten Transzendenz seiner Lösung näher gebracht. Die Zeit ist ja einerseits Anwesen, Gegenwart, Urpräsenz ; andererseits ist sie Flusz, Entgegenwärtigung, Ekstase. Sie ist das „wahre Transzendentale”, der „Ursprung der Transzendenzen”. Damit ist auch klar, welche Rolle das transzendentale Motiv im Denken M. P.' s spielt. M.-P. befaszt sich nicht mit der Möglichkeit formaler apriorischer Prinzipien. Er entwirft auch keine Lehre von den konstituierenden Leistungen eines transzendentalen Bewusztseins. M.-P. glaubt, das „wahre Transzendentale”, das der Ursprung der Realitäten ist, in der Temporalität entdeckt zu haben. Im Lichte dieser Entdeckung meint M.-P. nun auch, das Rätsel des alter ego lösen zu können. Es ist wahr, dasz ein Bewusztsein das andere ausschlieszt. Mit der Temporalität ist es aber anders gestellt. Die Zeit ist ja das Transzendens schlechthin. Sie überfliegt alle Grenzen und überbrückt alle Abgründe. So wie meine Gegenwart einer Zukunft entgegenwächst, die ich nicht kenne und vielleicht nie kennen lernen werde, so öffnet sich eine Gegenwart auch der Gegenwart des Anderen, die mir unbekannt ist. Ich verstehe auf vorprädikative Weise, dasz im Anderen derselbe Drang derZeitungen am Werk ist wie in mir, und dieses Verständnis gestattet mir, in dem Anderen den möglichen geistigen Partner zu erkennen. Die Analyse und Interpretation der Sozialphilosophie M.-P. gibt dem Verfasser Anlasz zu einigen kritische Betrachtungen. Sie betreffen vier Denkmotive M.-P.' s : die vermeintliche Verschmelzung der psychophysischen Subjekte, seinen Begriff der Welt, seinen existenzphilosophischen und seinen transzendentalphilosophischen Ansatz. Gezeigt wird, dasz aus den beiden letztgenannten Ansätzen keine geeignete Grundlage für eine personale Sozialphilosophie zu gewinnen ist. (shrink)

From an informal group of a dozen faculty and graduate students at Temple University, the Jean Piaget Society grew in seven years to 500 members who have interests in the application of genetic epistemology to their own disciplines and professions. At the outset Piaget endorsed the concept of a society which bore his name and presented a major address on equilibration at the society's first symposium in May, 1971. Had he not done so the society would no doubt have remained (...) a small parochial group, like so many others throughout the country, interested in Piaget and his theory. With the encouragement of Genevans and the leadership of its first four presidents, Lois Macomber, Barbara Press eisen, Marilyn Appel, and John Mickelson, the society undertook a number of programs to collect and disseminate the results of scholarly work in genetic epistemology. Particular emphasis was placed upon applications of Piaget's theory to developmental psychology, philos ophy, and education. One of these programs was the publication of an annual series on the development of knowing, of which this volume is the first. In 1973, the society asked Hans Furth with the assistance of Willis Overton and Jeanette Gallagher to initiate and plan a series of yearbooks with the result that in addition to this volume, a second volume on education was commissioned, and a third one on the decalage issue was planned. (shrink)

_Spinoza’s Modernity _is a major, original work of intellectual history that reassesses the philosophical project of Baruch Spinoza, uncovers his influence on later thinkers, and demonstrates how that crucial influence on Moses Mendelssohn, G. E. Lessing, and Heinrich Heine shaped the development of modern critical thought. Excommunicated by his Jewish community, Spinoza was a controversial figure in his lifetime and for centuries afterward. Willi Goetschel shows how Spinoza’s philosophy was a direct challenge to the theological and metaphysical assumptions of modern (...) European thought. He locates the driving force of this challenge in Spinoza’s Jewishness, which is deeply inscribed in his philosophy and defines the radical nature of his modernity. (shrink)

Talent and Education was first published in 1960. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions.The problem of identification, development, and utilization of talented young people is a matter of prime concern to all who are interested in the welfare of the individual and the future of the nation. This book, constituting a progress report on research related to the problem, will be of (...) particular value to educators, psychologists, social workers, community leaders, and others who are engaged in the effort to make the most of our human resources.The volume contains chapters by a number of contributors drawn from various fields in elementary, secondary, and higher education. The contributors include John E. Anderson, Robert H. Beck, Florence N. Brumbaugh, Walter W. Cook, Willis E. Dugan, Dale B. Harris, Arthur J. Lewis, Catherine Cox Miles, Mary Pilch, Maynard C. Reynolds, Anne Roe, Merrill F. Roff, Paul C. Rosenbloom, Audrey Shechtman, and E. Paul Torrance. Orville L. Freeman, governor of Minnesota, writes an indtroduction.Among the topics discussed are the nature and scientific measurement of talent, the effects of life experiences on the development of talent, the enrichment of school curricula, special grouping and acceleration in the schools, psychological aspects of some of the problems, and Russian methods of dealing with individual differences. The volume is based on papers from an Institute on Exceptional Children held at the University of Minnesota. (shrink)