{"id":12655,"date":"2014-04-02T11:16:05","date_gmt":"2014-04-02T15:16:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=12655"},"modified":"2014-04-14T12:15:07","modified_gmt":"2014-04-14T16:15:07","slug":"zupancic-kant-non-realized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2014\/04\/02\/zupancic-kant-non-realized\/","title":{"rendered":"zupan\u010di\u010d Kant non-realized"},"content":{"rendered":"

Villanova Philosophy Conference: Alenka Zupan\u010di\u010d and Mladen Dolar April 2013<\/a> Notes to the talk given by Zupan\u010di\u010d: Tarrying with the Imperative<\/em><\/p>\n

The Rift in Being<\/p>\n

[The sense of apocalypse today is this sense that if we don’t do or stop doing something, a catastrophe will take place, founds the neceessity of doing something on being or non-being of something else]<\/p>\n

Do something that is Absolutely necessary on its own grounds. Act so that the maxim of your will can always hold at the same time as the principle giving universal law. It does not tell me what to do, universalizability in the maxim of my conduct. PINCHES us: alerts us to something, incites us DO YOUR DUTY!<\/p>\n

Exercise a strategic pressure on Kant, this thing that he is pursuing and then provide a conceptualization of it. A READING OF THE categorical imperative that builds on his fundamental matrix in a different direction.1:04 quote by Deleuze: The law is no longer dependent on the Good, but the Good on the Law. Kantian notion of the categorical imperiative: absolutely necessary on its own grounds: Act so that the maxim of your will can always hold as the principle giving universal law<\/p>\n

1:05 The GOOD is made to depend on the LAW is the consequence not the INAUGURATING point of the Kantian gesture.\u00a0 So what is the INAUGURATING gesture: Morality is already OUT there, he undertook to FORMALIZE it. But this is no innocent matter. To produce a formula of not of what is moral but how morality works when it works. Once the focus has switched to morality as LAW, paradoxes come to light. Kant brings these paradoxes to light.<\/p>\n

1:09 Phallocentrism, works better if phallus is not concepturally named but is reserved for mystery and not spelled out. Only with advance of psychoanalysis did talk about phallocentrism get tools of its articulation, prior to that there was NO concept which to seize and think what is going on.<\/p>\n

Something similar is going on in Kantian gesture re-focusing morality on the pure form of LAW.<\/p>\n

Nietsche’s critique of morality only in and through Kant. Marquis de Sade only with Kant. Law in Kafka’s universe is only conceivable after Kant. Only with Kant and his FORMALIZATION of morality that one was able to think these paradoxes.<\/p>\n

1:12 Depoliticization of the social. primarily ETHICAL problems, Tolerance, tolerating the other, no longer call for politics and political answers. But the social antagonisms are coming back again.<\/p>\n

Why on earth should one bring Kantian ethics into this debate again? It can contribute something significant to the development of the concept of praxis. A concept of praxis which is always already political at some fundamental level.<\/p>\n

Where does the actuality of Kant lie?<\/p>\n

1:14 Nietchean ethics genealogy, historical embededness, concrete historical perspective, concrete relations of power. Kantian gesture is not opposite, but different. Kantian procedure, we should not forget there is no empirical instance in which law operates in absolute autonomous manner. Think the UNIVERSAL law in its autonomy. The law is situated at the inconsistency of empirical reality the structures being as being.<\/p>\n

** LAW is not on the OTHER SIDE of the pathological. They are situated on the same side, this moral LAW takes place precisely at the point in the RIFT or CRACK in BEING.<\/p>\n

1:17 Moral law or categorical imperative, is the BLINDSPOT of the pathological chain of reasons, the BLINDSPOT of the REALITY OF BEING, not somethat that opposes it and tries to forget about it.<\/p>\n

1:18 When Kant places supreme law in the domain of reason and its autonomy and law loses its grounding and justifcation in a higher principle, it doesn’t become CONTINGENT or RELATIVE, on the Contrary, realitve is what it has been before, related to dependent upon a higher Good It is only when placed in Reason that it becomes absolutely necessary.
\nMoral Law not grounded in or deducible from anything else.<\/p>\n

Is one with its absolute and uncondittional NECESSITY. AUTONOMY and FREECDOM are not opposite of Necessity.<\/p>\n

1:19 Freedom is the freedom to do what is absolutely necessary, in a situation in which empirical necessities might go against it. They fail to see how with German Idealism the notion of ABSOLUTE changes in radical manner. Traditional: The absolute, the ultimate reason for everything that IS. Everything else was seen as absolute in sense of independent of subject. The ultimate reason or ground for everything that IS.<\/p>\n

1:22 Subject or reason is inherent part of this absolute as BEING that has NO outtide. The subject or Reason names inerrnal rift of being that has no outside in sense of higher foundation. The subject or Reason is the way in which the non-existence of outside (God etc) is inscribed in the inside, as singular torsion of its structure, the very structure of what is there. It is immanent but at same time it includes this torsion which makes it not simply reducible to itself.<\/p>\n

1:24 Lacan will call this structure the NOT-ALL A different king of TOTALITY. This NOT-ALL is not opposite of totality not a chaotic multiplicty, a pardoxical totality that includes its own exception. A shift towards a different kind of structure and the way it funcitons.<\/p>\n

This non-existence of exception coincides with RIFT inherently at work in ALL THERE IS, Rift of being, the point of being not fully covered by being. REASON is not a new absolute, not a new tenant in office of Absolute but a radically new concept of the AbSOLUTE. Absolute necessity is in German Idealism is the concpet of absence of HIGHER REASON.<\/p>\n

1:26 ONLY THAT which has no higher reason is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. It leads to the difference between Necessity and ABSOLUTE necessity. AS THE VERY POINT OF FREEDOM.
\nCrack of being is the only point of absolute necessity.<\/p>\n

1:27 Imperative in KANT as a formulation as what is ALREADY OUT THERE. How does morality work when it is at work, not an OUGHT to do in order to become moral or act morally. MORALITY is always what ought to be and not just what is there, but so far as morality is part of the world, its inherent ought to, is also part of what is OUT there.<\/p>\n

** Divide between what is and what ought to be is inherent to what IS.<\/p>\n

It is not a purely subjective potentiality that in some heroic endeavour one sets out to realize. Freedom is the freedom to do what is ABSOLUTELY Necessary. Freedom and imperative are synonymous. Imperative is what creates possibility for doing something else than this.<\/p>\n

1:29 The truth of the possible is the IMPERATIVE. YOU MUST THEREFORE YOU CAN. Whether he thinks he can overcome his love for life if his sovereign threatened him with death unless he lies about a honourable man whom ruler want to destroy. The moral law gives FORM for something in the reality which is only there as IMPERATIVE, and does not exist as logical part of this reality<\/p>\n

THERE is NO binding reason NOT to tell king what he wants to hear.<\/p>\n

There is not just that there are possibility and Cat Imp is supposed to directs us towards the right one<\/p>\n

Rather the set of possibilities changes because CAT Imp introduces no possibility that were not there prior to the CAT IMP pinching us. It doesn’t matter whether subject will or will not die, it is enough that he knows that he could. For so long as we don’t do it but are aware, the proof of Cat Imp stands. But as soon as it happens, as go through with it, then all kinds of doubts come into play, did I really do it or did pathological motives come in to play as to purity of my movitves.<\/p>\n

1:33 I choose to die and what of the pathological motives. The gap opens and sustained by the imperative now closes and all sorts of shit happens As long as the ethical act remains pure but clearly present possibility Kant is satisfied with the Freedom it provides, BUT the Moment act is realized empirically freedom is LOST for Kant.<\/p>\n

1:34 REPLACE the term possibility with “NON-REALIZED” and re-direct criticism of Kant as beautiful soul, enclosed in obsessive circle of interrogating our motives.<\/p>\n

1:35 Problem in KANT: At the very core of practical reason as LAW giving, lies a dimension of the NON-Realized. It is crucial dimension (the NonR), and indicates a possible solution. Kants fails to distinguish between two natures of NON-REALIZED (NonR)<\/p>\n

1. NonR: something that did not happen or take place. The ‘other’ possibility compared to one that took place. NonR as another possibility of many.<\/p>\n

2. NonR as the condition of what has taken place in the case of MORAL conduct.<\/p>\n

1:36 DO YOUR DUTY: in a concrete situation functions as a structure supporting something which is neither being nor non-being, something that cannot hoave and does not have an ontological status.<\/p>\n

This something phantom-like dimension of reality only makes itself known with the imperative and as the imperative. We should abandon vocab of REALIZATION, with the imperative freedom is as real as it gets. What happens when we act as we think we should, FREEDOM gets inscribed into the empirical reality as its own NON-R. Its not simply that the Freedom gets realized here, it gets inscribed in to reality as its own thing that made it possible.<\/p>\n

Kantian problem: proposing a structure that would capture it as NON-R. inscribed in empirical reality as the unrealized of what took place. This is distinguishing feature for one course of action as opposed to another.<\/p>\n

1:38 In the case I did what I was ordered to do, make false testimony, the NON-R is not my refusing to make false testimony, rather it refers to the fact that there is an altherative and the alternative is what is ABSOLUTELY necessary.<\/p>\n

Phantom reality involved in nonR is reality of ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. Realized of the absolute necessity itself and not just althernative possiblities. The way Kant tries to catch this imposing pressing yet fleeting thing into some structure:<\/p>\n

NOT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE with DUTY BUT ALSO ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS DUTY<\/p>\n

do it as ONLY Beause of the duty there is NO OTHER REASON behind doing it. This must not go down as simply yet another possibility, not as something that was fully possible before so that imperative would merely direct me towards it.<\/p>\n

1:40 this situation is NOT here are the possiblities you give false testimony or you refuse to give it and the IMPERATIVE commands you to do the latter.<\/p>\n

The CHOICE or alternative does not exist outside this IMPERATIVE taking place, and this fact is what tends to be forgotton ONCE I do what i believe is my DUTY.<\/p>\n

NON-R. a way of formulating the possibility of what I did when I did the right thing is supported by this NON-R. it is a way of formulating possibility of how the possibility of what I did, only is realized with this imperative of Reason. ONLY because of the duty is another term for ABSOLUTE necessity it is nowhere to be seen.<\/p>\n

Everytime something practically important takes place it is only that the NON-r makes a place for its taking place<\/p>\n

1:42 RETROACTIVE
\nIt is because of our ethical practice that we know of Freedom that in turn works as its condition.<\/p>\n

1:43 DO YOU DUTY. the law that operates without making itself known.
\nwe must say the moral law is most phantom like in reality, it is out of focus with rest of reality, when we bring it into focus the immediate reality seems marginal.<\/p>\n

Anticipating Apocalypse and pressing emergency, we should stop and think of what is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. ABSOLUTE one could recognize different debates including debate about speculative realism<\/p>\n

KANT: you have symptomatic appropriation in contemporary philosophy which have NOTHING TO DO WITH ABSOLUTE and thank Kant for ridding us of this notion and talking about FINITUDE and ethics of other and human rights which is the LIBERAL Kant. Kant without the CATEGORICAL. If one is to keep some kind of fidelity to KANT, it is precisely in an attempt to NOT join in this Liberal sweeping under the carpet of Kant’s most controversial stuff.<\/p>\n

BADIOU: one way of naming this RIFT is truth hmmm, the whole conceptual edifice is constructed in Badiou is to say that subjectivity is a RESPONSE to this TRUTH.<\/p>\n

Subjectivity at the point of this rift, Badiou: subjectivity comes into being as a response to this RIFT HEGEL: SUBJECTIVITY IS THIS INTERNAL RIFT. subjectivity emerging on 2 different levels, this would be a kind of subjectivity before subjectivity in 4 conditions of fidelity. In LOGIQUES DES MONDES: badiou kind of uses a lot of tries to forulate this in the whole notion of transcendentals.<\/p>\n

Dolar: There is Badiou that corresponds to our talk EVENT is the RIFT of BEING. It is something is NOT inhabiting being, something that can’t be objectively there as a given.
\nOnly way it can be proven is subjective fidelity to it, and subject is something that has no objective ontological status. This is one way of lookiing at things.<\/p>\n

I think when HEGEL says SUBSTANCE is SUBJECT is it simpler and more PERVASIVE. Hegel pinned his fortune on this phrase. There cannot be a truth in a sentence, it is only in the movement, in the process in the connection in the deployment in which truth lies, it can’t lie in a single statement. Everything depends on understanding that SUBSTANCE IS SUBJECT. He pinned his fortune of this sentence. I would say that there is a profound criticism of substantiality. Is the subject the name of the substance being never being able to be what it is. cause the substance was the masterword of philosophy. what is substance behind fleetingness of phenomenon.<\/p>\n

Substance was something to counteract uncertainty of phenomenal world. puting subject into substance, opposed in modernity, to inscribe subject into substance as innder disparity of substance with itself. It utterly displaces notion of substance and notion of subject. Badiou makes move of fidelity, it is non-split, it stands behind, it is subject that one has to identify with, a subject position one consciously inhabits as fidelity to this.<\/p>\n

In Hegel the subject can’t be this Its just a disparity that conditions thinking substance.<\/p>\n

***************
\nIn the noise of pressing emergency of apocalypse, we as philosophers, we must stop and think about what is absolutely necessary.<\/p>\n

End of the World: formulated as: Time of the End: now there is a time, something a catastrophe there are lots of pressing political problems at this very moment ecological etc. we don’t need a reference to horizon that will sweep us away, fantasmatic enjoyment of take it away of this perspective of apocalypse that is waiting at end, and recognize where apocalypse is taking place right now, and work against it, and fight against it to change the configuration<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Villanova Philosophy Conference: Alenka Zupan\u010di\u010d and Mladen Dolar April 2013 Notes to the talk given by Zupan\u010di\u010d: Tarrying with the Imperative The Rift in Being [The sense of apocalypse today is this sense that if we don’t do or stop doing something, a catastrophe will take place, founds the neceessity of doing something on being … Continue reading “zupan\u010di\u010d Kant non-realized”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics","category-the-real"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12655"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12655\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12721,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12655\/revisions\/12721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}