The eclipse of the eye

The Eclipse of the Eye

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written, conceived, composed and created in English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

When Aristoteles, a major classical philosopher to us in art since fine arts begins from the very beginning with obligatory ancient Grieg’s, defined to discuss his logical tractactus there was not yet a clear, well defined distinction between subject and predicament as a sentence matter, the subject which was in fact already considered in Aristoteles logics, was still considered as a function of syllogisms, to ancient Grieg’s logic and logical analysis in general, was related with and subordinated to yet a sense of congruency that was not much being comprehended within a formal and structural abstraction of languages, but by common sense derivations from logics of affirmative and negative assertions.

If A supposes to go all the way to his house, there is a way to his house. A may be then be a person because usually only person goes to a house, but not a dinosaur, because a dinosaur maybe goes away but not to a house and a dinosaur can just broken a house, only a person uses to go all the way to his house, so A may more probably be a person, even when we still don’t know if certainly dinosaurs really existed or if that was just an invention of Hollywood genres or a certain effects of adventures genres in natural sciences imaginations.

This fun explanation simply explicit in a few words how logics worked to ancients, the subject was not yet recognized as a formal abstraction of the sentence which helps us moderns to extend the syntactical roll of the subject as a general abstraction that helps to relates elements with qualities, the chair is being transported to another room, the chair is the subject, transported to another room the predicament, adjectives to pronoms, the chair is good, the chair supposes not to be a subject out of language but it is a subject to the good as an adjective which qualify how the chair feels.

In ancient thought, the subject was still a function outside language just as a someone who uses language to something else and logically related with sentences by affirmative and negative common sense implications, only a sense of congruence versus incoherence, sense versus non-sense, maybe linked and seen from today as a modern revisitation, relate modern formalism with ancients.

Grammatology, for example, relates in gramatics with such an aspect, if it is grammatical then it is coherent, if it not coherent or makes not sense, then it is not grammatical, there is also an interesting, unexplored and undiscussed relation between ancient logics and contemporary sociology, when we fully read Alfred Shurtz who was the first one who proposed and created a phenomenological sociology, we can see a subject in everyday life who works out of language as a function and to whom language, given to sociology, goes from and through experience, acerbos, backgrounds, repertories, tipifications, significativizations and pertinences, also Junger Habermas in his Theory of Communicative Action I and II understand sentences as enunciations in terms of intersubjective forms.

The modern syntactical rol of the subject which becomes as abstraction almost diluted within infinity formal relations between qualities and things, adjective and substantives, the email was amazing, the morning light is great today, has being the basis to modernity, civilization and evolution, but beyond just a matter of sintaxis abstraction which still works like early xx century machines, compared to current technologies, the modern dissolution of the subject in abstracted formal logics was a necessary condition to the formal logics creates computers and fractal technologies, it helped makings fasters the velocities of inferences and deductions and as results all the mathematical and cybernetic formalism and informatics creates the acceleration and success efficacy of modern technologies congruency.

Modern grammatology in facts worked with the subject already diluted in abstract formal logics inside language as a formalism and beyond sintaxis fasterly given subjects by elements and revisiting classical philosophy from ancients to contemporary in a way which moved philosophy to be with highest precision an exact science as explicit in Jacques Derrida and Junger Habermas, a simple concept, like the chair, the email or a morning light maybe simply the subject.

Anyway, this issue basis the eighties debate turn to the nineties about the death of the subject, a complex and exhausted debate since all the Lyotard philosophical theory of discourses regimes and about the differences between languages genres, artists versus lawyers, lawyers versus medics, medics versus informatics ingeniers, informatics ingeniers versus economists or business managers, business managers versus journalists, journalists versus administrators and all them versus politicians, basis in the prevalence of the subject as he clearly demonstrated exploring –something I defined as domains exchanges-- in the confines of the given subjects, the philosopher as artist, the artist as philosopher, the prevalence of the subject, by the way applies and is needed to any exploration of the confines of givens in the given confines toward the ungiven horizonts, from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinaries, to specialities and expertises domains explorations, communications, exchanges, cooperations.

Of course any valuation of the needed subject after the eighties debates on the death of the subject, should be completely retheorized as I already did in my book The Subject in Creativity, considering all I has explained before, also.

Who is the subject in creativity?, it may be me, it may be the computer softweres to navigations, it maybe designs, it maybe be the business one, it may be any of us exploring confines, it is abstract logic and supposes the already discussed when ontology dilutes in epistemology as computers are, but it is alive in another ways and in another sense, nor a subject death, it maybe in the theory of practice, the curator of exhibits functioning in the structural logic of practices or it may be art exploring social sciences or social sciences exploring art, it maybe literature and literacy, it maybe writing, in fact, its objects as usually object to subject is here being in marketing, it works in and out daily and is current and proper phenomenologically in the three senses of the subject, the ancient one functioned within common sense syllogisms, the one stay outside or inside in another sense to the everyday life world of phenomenological sociology or Habermas intersubjective pragmatism, and the one prevalence abstract formalism diluted at Derrida grammatology and Lyotard as ifs of the philosopher as artist and the artist as philosopher, Duchamp as well.

The philosophy of the subject in fact evolves a few more things to be considered, first science as a subject and art as a subject as there is not possibilities even to explorations in the confines of disciplines, professions and specialities without retheorizing the subject as I did at the subject in creativity, evolves also a primary, pivotal prevalence of the subject in the basis of any epistemology as knowledge itself needs a relation between subject and object, nor only as a matter of pregiven object or constructive object to the subject knowledge, but also at any phenomenological processing of the given world of nature and society to the impressions, senses and perceptions including the eye we later will seen.

The point in question I want to call in this paper is about a research on the point of views in free markets I developed, research and discussed. There is the whole eighties conversations between Junger Habermas and Jean Francois Lyotard mainly accent and effazis theorizing capital versus state, free markets versus state.

While the subject evolves the theory of the state as althusser clearly pointed out when he said that the state interpelates ideologies and awareness, conscience, as forms of the subject there is not a fix or constantly defined notion of the subject as one with itself to free markets and capital given that free market and capital evolves a process of continuum exchanges in which the position of elements is being defined by exchanges itself, saling, buying, business commercializing and or marketing.

Even when this exchanges may evolves also abstractions of space and time maybe defined as diluted subjects like within the formalism of computer formal logics as forms of a syntactical subject just like relations between elements and qualification may be seen as subjects to the accelerated fast inferences and deductions of computational processing, the financial system, for example, or simply the relation between values and credits, the subject in free markets is not already working in the sense of subject and object relations, nor even according to interpelative forms of ideology as form of the subject.

The object to the subject in free markets is the object of saling and buying, the object is being exchanged nor perceived or received by the passive body memory of the senses, there is, of course, a moment of perception in free market as there is also aesthetics in market, but this moment of contemplation as explicit in publicity is regarded not to a passive object as objects are usually given to the impressions or to the passive objects the subject creates as the object of knowledge constructions. Subject and object are the subject and the object of exchanges. There is not in free market a fix point of view to stablish a fix position to the subject, to the object of the subject and to the subject of the object, the whole idea of points of views is itself being relativized in free market.

One cannot define in free markets a fix or a constant position to an eye even to an abstract eye, the position of the eye is being eclipsed itself within free markets, who knows and perceive in free markets?, who defines the privilege eye?, the vendor?, the vendor is sailing something but he may be waiting his whole life a purchaser to his sales, if you don’t have a free market exchanges process of merchants you can’t not figure out a possibility for the vendor to sale it, the vendor becomes the object of the purchaser and both vendors and purchasers are at the same time the objects of merchants. There is not in free markets “an other” to “a self” or “a them” to “an us” or to “a we”, who is “the self”?, the vendor or the purchaser?, the distributor or the merchant?, the exchanges?.

The concept of exchange supposed to describe a certain activity to the figuration of spacial and time meetings of sailing and buying, vendors and purchasers but as you all well know exchanges in free markets are not reducible to the point the actors meets, who is “the us” or “the we” in free markets?, the vendors or the purchasers?, who are “the them” to “the us”, or “the us” to “the them”?, the vendors?, the purchasers?, the financists?, the business managers?, the distributors?, the publicists?, the merchants?. Let supposes a position, a cream lotion product to the skin, a beautiful woman is being here as an image a model at a merchant publicity, she appear at the bottle product etiquettes, at magazines, at posters within the city, any were the product is being in sale, is she “a we” to “a them”?, or is she “an other” to “a we”?, who is being “the we” when she is “the other”?, or who is being “the other” when she is being “the we”?, she is not the vendor nor the purchaser for instance, maybe she is a girl friend of the product owner, let imagine that, then she may be “a we” to the owners of the industries of cream lotions bottles to the skin, and vendors and purchaser “the others” to her and the owners.

But there is many other industries sailing cream lotion products to the skin with different woman models already in competition in free market so that maybe to another owner she and her boyfriend owner maybe “an other”, who defines the privilege eye?, who embody the privilege eye?, product owners, publicity models, vendors, purchasers, consumers, the banks?, the financial system?, walt street?.

The eye should be completely retheorized. This retheorization of the eye applied to the eye in general any were the eye appear as paradigmatic.

Certainly there is a moment in neoliberal capitalism of full free market in which the whole free market progresibly becomes illustrated, I will even define neoliberalism as the turn of free markets advanced capitalism when free markets culture and society commit to illustrates free markets itself, here all the eighties and nineties literacy on business managing, market control of quality, how to successful improve a business, attention to the client, markets nichos, illustration of group dynamics inside an empresarial organization, in which the dialectics of illustration is being fractalized and redistributed inside the logics of free markets as a new culture of free markets qualification services, the born of a new culture of services applies to the general logics of both empresarial organizations, freelance independent professionals, free markets actors such as vendors and purchasers, corporations and companies, but this neoliberal turn of attention of the free market culture on itself resolves not precisely through a privilege point of views in free markets or an eyes solution, in fact, it required already an eclipsed eye and successfully worked through a new mixture of markets pragmatism procedures and illustration dialectics migrated from a sense of a civil citizen and communities educational vocations to the economies of free markets, it was the result of free markets subjectivities learnings on how to improve the success efficacy of free markets culture of services to take amazing advantage or vintage over the state, by self-providing free markets with a metaculture of illustrating free markets, something which, as we well knows also transformed assimilates many things from the nonprofit, volunteers, profitalics and philanthropy logic of the state, to the private sector of initiatives and procedures having definitive consequences in late capitalism, it was then the result of a conversation the nineties heritages from the eighties about the complex relation between theory of free markets, capitals and theories of the state.

To tell the true my idea, my concept, my initiatives, my desition and my creation to decide to conceive an ethnography of markets is more a mixture relates first with marketing as a market illustration of the market in terms of the fold turn out free market attention to free markets on itself and with the philosophizing of such a subjectivity evolving here all I previously discussed on the impossible point of view of any privilege eye in full free markets is being pivotal, there is then as mainfull subjectivity in my move and subjectivity evolves already nor a subject, but subjectivity and intersubjectivity and the only subject to subjectivity and intersubjectivity is a subject in creativity, by the way how may this ethnography I invented and created work as an unprecedent one, it haves a precedent heritage certainly in all I mentioned before about free markets on free markets and the eighties debates Habermas, Lyotard but moves far away from all that metaphors of the eyes and to the ideologies of us them or we and the other relations.

There is of course also markets of eyes nor only in prostetic shopping stores which literally sales artificial eyes to blinds or a one eye person, a wrong, or at hospital when organ donations operations helps people without eyes to obtain an eye from another person, and there was also the classical image of surrealism films earlier XX century when Buñuel after placing a she-ass over a piano and an actor similar to Jesus crist moved carefully carry away on the flour to the outside the piano with the she-ass over, he decided, as critical metacomment on the image level of cuts and sequences, juxtaposing or montage, to intercalate several times a clouse up image on an eye in the moment it is being intervened at the hospital operation room.

As I clearly stablished in my prospectus writings on my books I am not a socialist nor a communist, I am an neoliberal democrat in free market capitalism and as I clearly pointed out at my paper The Eclipse of Evocation there is not other even lacanialy nor in outside nor in the unconcient, the ideology of otherness begin at being crisalide as an invention of naming since renascence and Iluminism, here beginning by the christian concept of progimity and the only possible otherness between us is the otherness between nomadic forms of deterritorialized subjectivities, (here me Abdel my life as a Houstonian and texan, before as a Venezuelan and my cuban origin as a nomadic mixture, Surpic Angelini, a Venezuelan married with an italean of armenian phater and Anglo-American mother stablished in Houston), but also all the forms of deterritorialized forms of subjectivities evolves deterritorialized economies, transnationalizations, globalizations, etc, as otherness to territorialized forms of subjectivities defined by countrains of nations and ethnicities, and biseversa.

I am fully indeterminist in epistemology and sociology with only Bourdieu at Saussure, Structure and Practices on top to objective structures. There is not in fact any possibility to relations we and the others as otherness in general less in the sense of traditional anthropology or etnography.