Thoth, or Internal Contexts in Science

.

.

Thoth,

.

or Internal Contexts in Science

.

.

What are really the evental character of simultaneously—as always is—writing and tracing singularly absent undecidables? We are all, incessantly, writing and tracing such undecidables. Such applies for science no less. The evental is confluous with the law of general iterability. And the law of general iterability commands conditions of impossibility no less than conditions of possibility. Science, too, is immersed in both these sets of conditions of possibility of knowledge and truth. An event never emerges from a program; an event cannot be expected. There are certain internal contexts in science, however, that makes up both for its fantastic progress and for its phantastic auto-immunitary destruction.

Writing, Undecidability, General Iterability, and Conditions of Impossibility—these are only 4 of the internal contexts in science, irreducible, arche, prior but not chronologically, to all of science’s idealities, objectivities, theories, explanations, logic, methods, instruments, calibrations, procedures, etc. Such is what shall here be addressed, impromptu, periculum in promptu!

“To tympanize—” science.

.

I posthume as I breath. (Derrida, “Circumfession”.)

.

One day it will be necessary to draw the portrait

of the signature, the stamp, not the style, there is

no style, the mark, like a genetic code in language.

(Cixous, Insister of Jacques Derrida.)

.

.

Being is a small, rare thing, probably the smallest, rarest—“next to nothing”; if not the Nothing itself, then the infinitesimal stylus, Lucretius’ clinamen, writing and creating traces on simulated sheets projectable upon or before or in front of, as a problema, the very Nothing, not unlike, perhaps, what modern physics is doing, still, right now. One there, in the miniscule registers of Being, trace traces of existence, left on “sheets.” Seeking positive Being these scientists find matter composed of planes of increasing porosity, “voidity,” to the point of the matter being predicated by the concept of the infinitesimal; it is generally assumed that only the localization of “atoms,” or indivisibles, or “untoucables,” possibly yields an explanation of the universe, which in turn is generally assumed to be of vital importance: installing oneself in Being to program it, steer the atoms, write them, at least as co-author, making the transubstantiation of God complete. Who said that the Hegel was dead? His lettery sketches are still ours, ours only its variations, petit exercises by superenthused calligraphers of the beauty.

One never writes ugly the analuein of building-blocks, the loosening up, the resolutions of an archaeology of which is the way toward the monarchy without future. We are all radicalists. When the plot is laid, bricked, braced, with capital letters, no matter how many axes across which they are dialectically spread, time gets engulfed in analytical geometry—and chemistry finds its lost and forlorn alchemy. Such spatiality is to virtualize temporality totally—discernable in conceptions of temporality as in its tripartite ontological modulations where presence synthesizes past and future, right and left, discernments of which science itself long ago found exhausted, superfluous and redundant to its mission. Science is all about total space, wherefrom speed gets its function, the last remains of time. What is speed if not, not an attribute of time, but a certain spatiality that is eager to expand its domains and regimes? The anthropogenic project of power must get rid of time to actualize; here potentiality is clearly no longer sufficient, as its concept only tastes of past, whence its eating future necessitates the operation of the virtual. No vestiges of possible, or im-possible, remains, wells, of a-power, anti-power, another power, must be still to-come. The virtual installs to block such. Anachronicity is already, as is well known, common theme become. Except for its grammatical lure, as if it was time itself against time itself, ‘anachronicity’ is an anthropogenic program. If not anthropoi are time itself—clearly not of empirically testimony since power is heterogeneous to the coming of the times to come, time fluking all sand castles of grains of causality and the shortest line. One need not be ascertained that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems provide a crucial, critical well from which to deconstruct the Euclidean geometry, logic, method.

The internal contexts of science are such that they are structural, and from which no escape and of which no mastery is possible—never to be reduced to anthropological, psychological, sociological, technical, historical, etc., regions, never to be written off as secondary and derivative. Among other constituents, some of which are anthropological, psychological, etc., certain internal contexts are constitutive of anything positing/posited as ‘science.’ Whether physics, mathematics, cybernetics, genetics, or, say history or political economy, psychology or astronomy, all sciences, insofar as they are such to be called, and insofar as they are to operate at all, there are first structural internal contexts. Internal contexts introduced by Derrida’s superyou—to use Hélène Cixous’ fine expression[1]—will be grafted onto science, then. And: “At this very moment here the superimpossible takes place. It takes place where.”[2]

Derrida writes ’s thought is all about nothing—nothing writes “Derrida”-“itself.” On “the other side” of his writing—thither, hither irrespective; “Being” is proliferating its sides as there are no sides to nothing—is the applicable program, where no events ever occur, only the machination of historically constituted rules/sides. But nothing, that is nothing of what is imagined to be implicated of Being, is before the gramma—neither in front of facing faced nor antecedent to it—before the trace, the incision, and the mark; gramma is first, but before beginning, and the gramma in general is what is split a priori according to the structural laws pertaining to, e.g., general iterability: the first is always already not the first, not one, not simple, coherent, homogeneous, and so everything within the spatiotemporal is postgrammatic in essence. Now, what Derrida shows is that our dominant conceptual systems are presupposing what it never admits of, never acknowledges as such, which even is condemned and repressed. The system is utterly incoherent. Its conclusions, its surface concepts, the conceptual appearances, say, of responsibility, beginning, origin, decision, appearing, friendship, hospitality, all contradict the basis upon which they are said to issue from. With systems of programmation you can never, de jure and de facto, have decisions, responsibility, moral, politics, etc. These things streams from what for the programmatic system appear irrational, hostile, nihilistic, satanic. Now one will always be able to say that so is how the system works, but more safe still, we say that that’s how it works this or that certain way. We have no reason to say that our existing ways are the natural, inevitable, the right, and the best. One should deconstruct very systematically and with a view to concrete and determinate contexts and motivations. One says that deconstruction is underway irrespective of wills and intentions, that it happens automatically as a structural or strictural feat of the system: ontology in surprise. One can try defeating it, one can try go with-stream, stay ignorant, or try it insignificant. There is a heroism involved in the attempts to defeat auto-deconstruction—but is it wise? From where does its motivation arise? Most importantly: what interests does it serve? Such ontological revolution is nonetheless observed to have failed, and failed fatally, to a price that no cause could justify. Recent eco-history tells its tale: we are undermining the very known conditions of human, and other, life on the planet, at least as we know it.

.

.

To be continued…


[1] Hélène Cixous, Insister of Jacques Derrida (Edinburgh University Press, 2007), p. 25. “I read with you your work, with your superyou inside and beyond your work, me with my work. I don’t know who reads you when I read you whom I’m reading.” Hereafter referred as Insister.

[2] Ibid., p. 22.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: