______________________________________________________________________________________________
.V.
B. Okorokov
METHAPHYSICS OF EPOCH OF TRANCENDENTAL
THINKING:
PECULIARITY, ESSENCE AND TRENDS
OF DEVELOPMENT
Monograph. – Dniepropetrovsk:
Publication of Dniepropetrovsk University,
2000. – 264 p.
Introduction
All totality of non-linear
processes of modern thinking, which can’t be placed to the frameworks of
traditional idea, shows the lack of ability of old classic (metaphysic)
theory of thinking to make description of linear processes. Otherwise,
there is no any theory, which could include all known deflections, although
some efforts of thinkers of destructive and communicative branches of philosophy
have took place. Attempt of united investigation of basic philosophic theories,
which determine modern consciousness (thinking) in order to find it’s general
regularities, that was made in this research, has shown, that dialectic
game of gnoseology and ontology, which worked well in classic thinking,
can’t solve problems of modern thinking no more. New theory of thinking
is necessary. Thus new theory we called «noseology» (like Husserl’s noeses
and noems) could be only ontological. Ontology, like gnoseology, «sees»
inner structure of thinking without gaps and pleats, using absolute space
of being (or cognition) as abstract persistent continuum.
Being opposition to
ontology, topology builds structure of thinking not in the same way. It
«sees» not only classic (ontological) field of thinking, but all it’s inner
bends, including gaps, pleats, cracks and fundamental homogennesses as
well, which were discovered recently in theories of Foucault, Derrida,
Deleuze, Apel, Habermas etc. This is the main difference between topology
and classic ontological (or gnoseological) theories of thinking.
Historic-philosophical
analysis of specialities of modern thinking (and cognition) in «sciences
of spirit»
(or, according to conventional usage - in system
of humanitarian cycle of sciences) strictly determines historic frameworks
of this investigation. They form epoch, which hiddenly actualized itself
in Modern time (in the
works of M. Luter, R. Descartes etc.)
This epoch clearly displayed
in discoveries of I. Kant and F. Hegel, which are known as the last representatives
of classic philosophy and founders of modern type of thinking as well.
Epoch does not end even now, when representatives of deconstructive and
communicative branches of philosophy began process of creating theory of
topologic processes of thinking. In other words, this idea we can express
in such a way: these frameworks designate boundaries of last historic period
of philosophy, which cause begin and, possibly, the end of epoch of transcendental
thinking.
Perhaps, theory of topological
phenomena proclaimed the end of transcendentalism and entered the «science
of thinking» absolutely suddenly and now it did not leave stage of theoretic
(we can say descriptive) observing. M. Foucault included external forces
of authority that are working on surface of «body» of thinking, into structure
of consciousness. It let to find first topologic element. Derrida’s investigation
of crisis of logocentrism had led him to another fundamental topological
phenomenon – to distortion of surface of thinking in temporal field, which
was perceived in form of fundamental ontology by Heidegger as absolute
phenomenon, but by French deconstructivism (in zone of «present») was described
by means of proto-functions.
The most important non-linear
parameters of modern consciousness, which point to it’s topological character,
are broadcasts of «forms» of thinking (motion as itself – is unknown to
classics, indicates non-classicness) and internal in relation to thinking
spaces (where are situated stratums of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology
and other possible «humanitarian» sciences). Moreover, on basis of analysis
of «surface effects» of thinking in theory of J. Deleuze, G. Derrida and
other deconstructivists we can make conclusion that being, language, writing
and text as well are situated in field of «surface stratification» of thinking,
that confirms it’s topological character. That’s why M. Heidegger did not
managed to leave borders of fundamental ontology, because he had not make
this conclusion. In other words, we can say that all these «surface effects»,
which European philosophy did not managed to mount into classic field of
thinking till Foucault’s attempts, in reality «surface effects» proved
to be found with topology and it’s effects (in consciousness). In field
of topologic thinking it becomes clear role of sociology and psychology;
in this field essence of communicative philosophy and pragmatics, hermeneutics
and linguistics is disclosed which managed to distinguish and to register
within the frameworks of field of classic philosophy broadcast of «knowledge»
or it’s different deflections.
It becomes clear why
modern logicists and mathematicians pay attention to effects of topological
theory (in formal field). Using this logico-mathematic researches modern
thinking discloses itself in new quality, in the form of «pure topologic
forms», which are invisible to «classic eye» (to classic mathematics and
formal logic). That’s why philosophic thinking, which has get orientation
in metaphysic field, first of all to «formal (pure structures) and essences»,
which logic and mathematics were finding on surface of thinking, it always
followed «course», indicated by them.
These sciences in field
of «pure forms» only intuitionally discover they work on surface of thinking
on which, according to Deleuze, «threshold of formalization» coincides
with «threshold of appearing of expression» that, what already appeared
on «surface» as distinguishable, but it has not explicated by thinking
for itself and for it’s requirements (that’s why all discovered here is
being sent by thinking into field of «pure forms» i.e. into field of activity
of mathematics and logic). Modern mathematics researches on topology of
points, tangent differentiation’s; on commensurablenness of linear and
non-linear spaces, on their broadcast and relations – generally speaking,
modern mathematics works on investigation of topologic effects (in field
of «pure forms»). This topologic «forms» notwithstanding they were discovered
in mathematics already, in theory of thinking they appeared recently and
were perceived by almost all of thinkers as space of «blind (and even infant)
game» with words, expressions and sciences, which does not have ground
beneath.
Such notion of deconstructivism
philosophers have, as it could destroy reasonable field of thinking, and
as consequence, it leaves field of thinking without any process in future.
The obvious question in this situation: how to think outside of space of
thinking – has not answer in classic sphere. Deconstructivism is one of
attempts to answer this question, because in this philosophic system not
classic (linear) thinking is being analysed, but modern (non-linear topologic)
one, which sees only «shape», but it’s tangent differentiation as well.
New theory of thinking
shows why mathematics (and logic in relation with it) always has expressed
«effects» of stratum of being, which could not be articulated as «commutation
of thinking with reality» (on the surface of thinking) in any way of it’s
carrying out (in linear, non-linear or broadcasting way). Mathematics can’t
leave borders which are seen by thinking in itself. Ultimately world borders
on thinking. And only when external world is crossing «surface of thinking»,
it becomes inner «data» of thinking (even being superficial or formal);
thinking in first time finds this «data» by means of mathematical (or logic)
laws or forms. When thinking starts «to speak» or pronounce «seen» (on
surface) and to express it in terms already known «forms» (which thinking
contains).
But in this domain meeting
with one another quality of thinking is possible: it leaves it’s borders
only in space-time dimension, because only in this continuum (it contains
the essence of trancendentalness discovered by I. Kant) it still knows
and keeps it’s structureness and formality invariant («data inside in itself»),
it can transpose and circulate on the whole volume of space-time. Inside
of it it does not lose ability to think. Thus, space and time most exactly
reflect the quality of thinking to be identical (better to say – invariant)
to themselves or to project permanently relations of future and previous
it’s conditions. Out of space-time continuum harmony of thought and clarity
of forms are being lost (there is no precision of thinking in this case).
Write this was proved by Husserl in his phenomenology. This is was the
base for Heidegger’s search for fundamental ontology.
In it’s turn, mathematics
looks like universal one, because it is situated on the verge between form
(formal) and external, between ontology and topology, that’s why it is
invariant in relation with ontological (i. e. ideal) and topological (i.
e. space-time) transformations.
Deleuze says, that mathematics
appears in «gap» of thinking, i. e. on it’s surface, touching it’s inner
(ontology) and external (topology). Mathematics in this form was form of
topology in the very beginning, it is performing external in internal –
more exactly – it is situated on their verge (i. e. it is «formal formation»).
That’s why not a single metaphysic change has not took place in mathematics;
on the contrary, metaphysic always followed mathematics.
In the same time mathematics
collided with topological effects only in modern time (sharper, in transcendental
cognition). Classic space was always formal. It’s «forms» were over-conprendable
by means of «essences» and, as a consequence united image of world of any
type of classic thinking always could be performed in shape of absolute
(or linear) ontologies.
Till middle of XXth
century only «humanitarian system of sciences», which includes philosophy,
metaphysics, religion, history, had not known topological effects and had
been absolutely certained, that it’s authority in thinking had been steady.
But numerous non-conformities
and divergences, which are taken into system of humanitarian knowledge
by theories of non-consciousness and social activity (which already knew
or, contained topological effects) led to: 1. Formation of sciences, which
tried to legalise breaks of classic consciousness; 2. Stratification of
classic «body» of philosophy.
Forces, as we know from
classical mechanics, are always working on surface of body are making
diagram. Outcome of this forces indicate a single point. When phenomenons
of authority, which are concentrated in social space displayed themselves
obviously in classic system of knowledge and values - then was found «game
of forces» (of authority), which fixes common point of their applying.
That is discovery of first topologic effect in space of thinking. By analogy
with tangent action forces (of authority) in new theory of thinking sociology
and psychoanalysis (in phenomenological system – psychology) are situated
in touching stratification of philosophy (and classic system of knowledge),
but these sciences let solve many problems of classic thinking. In
particular, pragmatics and communicative philosophy, acting from touching
dimension, not from the «body» of philosophy directly, let remove
(or led out of verges of discourse) the «idol» of epoch of classic thinking
– gnoseological subject (and transcendental as well). Right in tangent
social space J. Deleuze (on the basis of Foucault’s «materials») found
on surface of «body» of classical thinking gaps, which were caused by game
of social and psychoanalytic forces (which are situated in stratification
layers). Derrida extended phenomenological-existentialistic techniques
of Husserl-Heidegger when he analyzed of space-time stratification of thinking.
Derrida’s ontology becomes stratificated in field of «present», Deleuze’
ontology – in zone of working of tangent forces of authority, which are
changing permanently and changing topology as well.
Thus, any stable form
of thinking corresponds to ontology, which describes classic process of
cognition (stratification and earache of knowledge), but it avoids it’s
different specialties. On the contrary, if we must take into consideration
specialties (external as usual), we have to apply topology, which sees
not only smooth classic structure, but also «gaps» in body of thinking
(caused by authority, sexuality, desire and other affects).
That’s why in all previous
circulates of classic forces a human being had fallen out of ontologies,
Foucault has supposed that human being is recent discovery, which has appeared
in the time of politic consciousness and it is able to disappear in horizon
of «game» of permanently changing external forces.
Only in context of topologic
«effects» human being found non-linearity of his thinking. In united theory
of thinking, which takes into consideration it’s modern specialties, all
classic types become only particular (absolute) forms, moments («image
of world») of more wide spectrum of topologic thinking.
In such a manner specialty
of creation of this theory (perhaps, the only possible «means» to save
dying classic culture) lies in the fact that to make «revaluation» of classic
values (if it is possible) in context of modern notions (by analogy with
mathematics and natural history) and include consciousness, which used
to think classically into all existing schemes and forms it’s own broadcast
(motion) and non-linear manifestations.
Deconstructivism in
field of topologic thinking ceases to be only game of damage and deconstructive
forces and manifests itself more likely as a quality; we can even consider
as a new method, which discloses contents of traditional and modern forms
of knowledge as well (of texts and parameters of thinking) and in consequence
of this essence of language and being not only from inside, but from outside
as well. Consideration forms of thinking in such a way led to discover
the «creases» of thinking in that places where ontological consciousness
has not found them.
Thus, while thinking
rested on absolute or invariant relatively of linear broadcasts of essence,
it’s general structure was describable by means of ontologies, wherein
manner of presetting of being let design all remaining «»essences». The
situation changed in XXth century, when thinking became so unstable (non-linear)
as it ceased to obey any linear descriptions. In this case ontology, which
describes only inner structure of being, did not let to reflect external
manners of it’s data. Radically new approaches and decisions – topological
are necessary here.
.
.
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION
PART 1. ESSENCE AND LIMIT OF TRANSCNDENTAL
ONTOLOGY
Chapter 1. TRANSCENDENTAL KANT’ WORLD AND
PHENOMENOLOGYCAL FOUNDATION
OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Chapter 2. TO PHENOMENOLOGY OF MOTION CONSCIOUS
(INVARIANCE ONTOLOGICAL
FORMS OR RELATIVATIONAL READING OF HEGEL’ SYSTEM
PART 2. FROM ABSOLUTE FORMS OF KLASSICAL
METAPHISICS TO MODERN NON-LINEAR
ONTOLOGY
Chapter 1. KRISIS OF CLASSICAL RATIONAL
ONTOLOGEIS OF THINKING
§ 1. To modern
situation in motion philosophy ……
§ 2. Metaphysical
limits of phenomenological ontology (relativational criticism and analysis
concept of being)
§ 3. The problem
of deviation of foundation of being in classical and unclassical fields
of existence
§ 4. Rationality
and destruction (problem of singulational gap of metaphysical mind or identity
of being and
reality)
Chapter 2. THE TRANSFORMATION OF RATIONALITY
(SCIENCES AND METAPHYSICS IN
COMMUNICATIVE PHILOSOPHY)
§ 1. The communicative
ontology (project of communicative reconstruction of transcendental mind)
§ 2. To ontology
of perception of democracy and unclassical philosophy (or about Rorty’s
and Habermas’s
thesis about superiority democracy over philosophy)
PART 3. THE TOPOLOGY OF POSTUNCLASSICAL
CONSCIOUS (FLEXURE AND
RELATIVATIONAL TRANSFORMATION)
Chapter 1. THE TOPOS AND TRANSMISSION OF
ONTOLOGICAL FORM
§ 1. Phenomenology
of motion sciences (metaphysics and horizon of classical existence)
§ 2. Metaphysics
and deconstruction
Chapter 2. DECONSTRUCTIVISM OR ACROSS THE
ONTOLOGY OF THINKING
§ 1. The
topology of deconstructinal thinking and flexure
§ 2. To
description relativity of motion philosophy (G. Deleuze and K. Apel about
non-linearity of modern
form of thinking
CONCLUSION
Bibliography
.
..
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
|