Monthly Archives: September 2015

‚ÄėWho is time?‚Äô: Brassier on Heidegger‚Äôs Philosophy of Time

Bibliographic Note: Brassier, Ray. Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print. p. 153-156.

51qEzhoO5bL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_


My critical summary of Section 6.1 of the book Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction. I provided an additional reflection on how this certain section from Brassier’s book can be of help to my Lav Diaz x Time research project.


Brassier begins his 6th Chapter: The Pure and Empty Form of Death¬†with an elaboration of Heidegger’s conceptualization of time in his 1924 essay The Concept of Time, a precursor text to Heidegger’s magnum opus Being and Time (1929). Brassier highlights Heidegger’s privileging of individuated (and existential) time over ontological time, which constitutes the larger part of Section 6.1. ‚Äď Who is Time?: Heidegger. In this section, Brassier emphasizes that time cannot be understood in terms of “essence” because essence is only understood as presence. It cannot be studied time-as-being-present because time is never ‘present’. (Brassier 153)

To understand time in a conceptual sense, Brassier insists that the relation between intra-temporality and ontological temporality must be established. The relation between the time-within-being, or that which gives the being an existential duration, and the time-outside-being, or that which gives the universe of beings an absolute duration must be explored to properly provide an ontology of time.

According to Brassier, in Heidegger’s essay, the privileging of individuated time is highlighted by the turning of the object of the temporal analytic towards the Dasein, that, to understand time is also to understand the determining characteristic of Dasein. Heidegger highlights that Dasein has two components: temporal specificity (Jeweiligkeit) and mineness (Jemeinigkeit) and its conceptual constitution is always a ‘mine’ – a specificity of the “I am”.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Notes

Aleiatorytexts for Augustus

libary-babel

Borgesian library-Google Data Bank. (from here)

1. Each text is a construct: a reduction of thoughts’ pluripotentials into a well-arranged, grammatically sound signifying system. ¬†2. To arrange a text is to intervene in thought itself. 3. Hence, the arrangement of the texts in a hypertextual environment is a political act: a will to power is involved. 4. In this day and age of informational catastrophe, the author is self-aware of this text’s¬†complicity with the politics of the digital. 5. This act of hypertextual writing is preconditioned by another construct: an¬†assumption that there exist¬†an anonymous¬†individual X who will read the excess ‘i’ in the text’s title and wonder if it is something that the author of the text intends to typogrify.


 

Text 1.


Anti-Auteur
. I am currently developing a polemical piece that seeks to critically ‘deconstruct’ the tenets of auteurism tentatively entitled ‚ÄėParricide to the Auteur‚Äô. The seed idea came from my reading of Jacques Derrida‚Äôs book Of Hospitality where I encountered the radical word ‚Äėparricide‚Äô (a passage of which will be provided in a separate text below). Derrida dispenses the radical potential of a Foreigner as parricidal speculum¬†to the paternal logos. We commonly associate the logos¬†to¬†the rule of law, the central structuring force of all knowledge and discursive structures in the history of thought.

This parricide to the paternal logos is very much close to my developing polemic against the celebritification and mythologization of auteur in today’s film industry. In my developing study on Lav Diaz, I outwardly criticize the signifying logos of the auteur as all-encompassing concept to my philosophical investigation of the Diaz’s cinema’s relation to time.

In one of my papers submitted in Advance Film Theory and Criticism¬†class (Film 270) (view here), I proposed a reconfiguration of the author-function as inherently complicit with the passage of time. In a way, I was trying to re-envision Diaz as a continuing process of constitution and deconstitution, an assemblage of significations and many other things beyond his body. That, in the cultural sphere, he no longer exists as One body, but as a¬†continuous being-in-process¬†, a¬†becoming-in-transition. The massive circulation of texts within and outside the¬†stratifying machine of culture, the free play between signifier and signified, and asubjective ruptures surrounding his work, all of which¬†participate in the constitution and deconstitution of ¬†his ‚Äėbeing‚Äô, transforming him into a ‚Äėdifferential immanent object.’ ¬†To simply put it, ‚ÄėLav Diaz‚Äô no longer exists as purely as Diaz-in-himself but rather his body becomes¬†reconstituted and mediatized by informational, cultural and socio-political fields.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Notes