Abdel Hernández San Juan

The Core of Experience

Self-Perception and Common sense

in phenomenological sociology

Book information

Author: ©Abdel Hernandez San Juan

The author rights of this book belong to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, its author, conceiver, writer and composer

Title: The Core of experience

Subtitle: self perception and common sense in phenomenological sociology

Type of Work: Literary of theoretical essays/book

Destination:  Books Libraries and biblioteques

Sides of Covered and Print Publications Sides: 22.5 cm x 15 cm

Number of Pages: 200, Reproduction: from 1 to 5000 exemplars, Covered Conservation and Protection Sides: 21.59 cm x 27.54 cm, Covered Lectures Sides: 21.59 cm x 27.54 cm

Translated to english by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Contents

Introduction

The Intangible

El Self y el Acervo

Being and Monad

The intramundande horizont

Sobreordination in everyday life

An analysis of transcultural redundancies

The Two Dialectiques of Town:

Cultural Analysis in Urban Readings

Rethinking intertextuality: a reconstructive analysis

The indeterminist true

The Intangible

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

The Intangible is the aesthetic; this is the proposal I will develop in this essay.

What another form must we adjudicate to the intangible than the aesthetic?, the idea of an spiritual value?. And it is not already and precisely, in its moment of intangibility a form of aesthetic?.

Certainly, aesthetic might result in something intangible at least by moments. The beauty of a tree, a work of art or a woman fall out it, however, must we define it as another thing than as the intangible of a certain tangible? as when we said that something don’t have a prize?. How might something as much intangible be equivalent to so much tangibility?.

In fact, a first form to understand the relation between aesthetic and intangibility is that evolved within saying that if we affirm about something it is intangible it is because its value is not as tangible.

In a quotidian activity between persons, in front of an art work, we must find aesthetic, meaning, time to contemplate what people are telling us, not as much hearing the said, but instead the how of the saying, meaning to perceive forms as the how of that contemplated.

Such a time of contemplation might be about the images you have in front as when we made the time to visually contemplate the form in which it is being say, its formal beauty, or might be toward what is said, but if there is aesthetic it is because we perceive time in what is being said, meaning that we are perceiving not as much the said but the saying so contemplating the beauty of the how and its ethic.

Thus, to get ethic if must be aesthetic too, it must overall entrance to be a part of the intangible time of aesthetic allowing us to see the beauty of the how. Or it might result from the simple contemplation of ourselves in time under it.

If I am making reference to a quotidian kind of example it is not by any other reason than to criticize the idea which affirm that of course there is aesthetic in art because they always have time to lost their time with intangible things.

Thus to conterargue and at the same time shows that in the more simply quotidian activity, the love of a pear, the relation to our sons, the activities of job, if there is aesthetic it is because there is time to contemplate the how, to perceive the saying in the said, to be presents, besides.

But the same happen with a work of art, a classical music we hear, a concert, a work of painting on the wall, a beautiful girl, if it results aesthetic to us it is because something under it returns ever to be intangible, although it was in a certain moment a tangible phenomenon it returned to be intangible.

And this is the reason because we affirm that the concept of intangibility is also related with economy.

Undoubtedly aesthetic seems to be understand from economy a form related with a certain intangibility meaning another kind of market, and by the same reason, what we thus understand as a symbolic and even suntuarious market.

Hence It is not only wat to sustain and affirm the existence of aesthetic under economy and the relations of offers and demands, but even to said that economy itself as activity is located and defined to be between the tangible and the intangible.

The concept of economy in one of its antipodes have a relation with the idea of economizing and this relation is seen usually as related to the time we need to perception and aesthetic contemplation.

But the true is that indeed economy can’t avoid aesthetic, even in the economy of language and the text, this last must be again and again related to an exceedent, and such an exceedent return to be again and again, aesthetic and intangible.

In a few words, without aesthetic and intangibility economy is itself impossible. Let see it in publicity when it seems to become more obvious.

A publicity spot, for example, as an announce, a poster, or as something printed on the body of the product, the printed publicity distributed and placed any were in the city, the commercial in television, effazising the sensuality of bodies, a cream, something to pleasure or enjoyment, a delighted food, something to entertainment, it will for sure accent the beauty.

Thus beside paradoxically in the literal free market we want to sale that product as soon as possible at a hurry velocity, exchanged by its equivalent in prize something apparently without a time we need to aesthetic contemplation, there we will find how it is relative, it must be sale as soon as possible, but there an anticipated time for contemplation must be included so that as tangible as it should be as to have a prize as intangible it will be at the same time to enjoy it in aesthetic contemplation and to value it.

Certainly when indeed in a last instance a publicity is not as a work of art as a highly exclusive symbolic form but a fast market product consisting about sailing it fast we relates aesthetic contemplation under it as just a form of rhetoric seduction.

However, to negate ourselves the enjoyment of this seduction of rhetoric is supposed under the market competition to consumers and clients, is a way to negate ourselves that without aesthetic nothing as to identify its intangibility will be distinguished and as such now as consumers and clients it is a way to negate ourselves the needed code as to define how the tangible level evolved within prizes in competition indeed belong to the true value of its intangibility.

We must argue of course that toward seduction intangibility must be distorted under it, but if we don’t have the simultaneous level of intangibility communication in the market of the image, fashion and symbolic distinction, we can’t recognize the relation between value and prize.

In a few words aesthetic is nothing added or aditioned as exogenous to the economic chain, it is instead the true of value, the need dimension of contemplation time leads us to distinguish value from prize.

Whence in the relation between aesthetic and rhetoric we must said that publicity is not only seduction, the idea of seduction understand in that form presuppose on the one hand a product and on the other an added strategy of seduction with that product as two exogenous extrinsique things, the idea of encharments instead is developed toward the immediacy world of sensoriality and sensations of the body in which aesthetic play the role of reducing the separation as to provide an image as comfortable as possible of the world of image under the world of clients.

Within the anticipation of the time needed for aesthetic contemplation in publicity we must clearly find the ephicazy of markets under the economy of aesthetic and beyond that even the sensual idea that within consume we must have the time for such contemplation, if we contemplate how the cream is applied to on the feminine body or the sauce upon the spaghetti we are enjoying quality and exclusivity, however, publicity image, although use the time for aesthetic contemplation inside its efficacy about something that paradoxically must be sale as fast as possible, is nothing than at least in a first level as in our exclusive and suntuarious artifacts of high culture, related with intangibility.

The prizes of the products must be more or less spensive, but will ever be entailed with a market related with offers and demands and as such we use to say that in publicity aesthetic contemplation stay subordinated to the merely rhetorical of that seduction.

Although the time of aesthetic contemplation is claimed as to pay attention on beauty and sensuality, an economy of utility seems to regulate it.

Thus, only the suntuarious market of high art and culture provided by symbolic exclusive objects seem to be more directly related with intangibility. This intangibility will ever leads us directly to aesthetic according to a series of excedents which are never exhausted under the objects itself or the products, but related with values.

Hence a paradoxical ambivalence goes to the forefront, albeit all that objects of symbolic exclusivity are collected and entailed with feelings of possession of that intangibility under objects, indeed it can never be fixed in the object as fetish since intangibility itself consist precisely in all that immaterial values outside the object which explain why offer and demand exist, why such spiritual values are alive, beside this is something that will ever be as aesthetic differentiated from the merely utilitarian and of any function entailed with necessity. With all this said we must affirm that aesthetic is nothing else but the intangible once in its sunturarious character the values, spirituals or entailed with time, to memory, culture, beauty or the product exclusivity leads us to the aesthetic of a time in extension increasing its exclusivity related with urban sensibility or to the sense of a certain age so that it can’t be reduced or exhausted by utility and necessity.

Because utility and necessity, we must remark it, are forms to consume time in the product itself and whence it reduces intangibility. If something is utilitarian it is tangible and as such I will ever lost and lack intangibility again and again as many times as we consider it.

We must thus said that intangibility will ever be what leads aesthetic to the sensible and to a certain another economy of the intangible.

This another economy of the intangible paradoxically while on the one hand explain the relation between aesthetic and an exceedent –starting by the exceedent of time needed to aesthetic contemplation it self—always ready to be alive again, under such retuning to be intangible again the intangibility of so much tangibility suppose however a certain difference in front of all that which consume time in the object or aesthetic in rhetoric, whence we can firm again that such a fiduciary economy of intangibility leads us and our values to another economy.

And although we don’t have to go so far to find that economy between us, including the economy of academic papers as this one full of intangible values or that one of the art works or of antiques and collections of cultural artefacts and material culture, aesthetic and sensibility will ever regulate and translate intangibility in a form that will go beyond a sense of the spensive, in fact, intangibility is not only entailed with the spensive when translated to tangibility, it must also lead us to philanthropy since intangibility entail all that which can’t have a prize so that must be without a prize or valuated by its spiritual values.

It thus connects paradoxically the two poles of aesthetic, on the one hand its relation with an exceedent of time defined as time to contemplate beauty on the other to intangible values so irreducible to any tangibility including here of course that tangibility entailed with the object as fetish or understand as a reified object.

And I would like on this respect to offer some considerations on reifications.

When aesthetic leads us not to an open relation with the time of contemplation but instead to reified forms of taste and of culture, it experience the same which happen in its relation with rhetoric as to consume, it become in nothing else than in social forms of taste, as well as in cultural forms of appearance, meaning, ideologies of appearance which are nothing else than presuppositions according to which if accepted appearance are as thus under reified aesthetic forms then behind it must be a form of accepted official culture and as such the it is narrow related with how aesthetic function in the conservative and ortodoxical side of society including the several forms through which paradoxically conservatives and orthodoxies sublime and mystify the aesthetic of the former already conservative old avant-garde.

In a few words an innovation that is not defined here and now in current time as truly deconstructions albeit it must be addressed as positives and good criticism to the modes of reification mechanism, ossification and fetishism of official conservative and orthodox culture, meaning deconstruction of “adocenamiento” --the aesthetics of the official-- and canonization, can’t be expression of the alive avant-garde beyond if it was a former old one.

Self and Acervo

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Of an importance without equal since the George Helbert Mead sociology, the self is not yet, however, sufficiently theorized in all its possibilities to the theory and research of subjectivity and culture. One of the reasons of this lack might be explained from the etymology of the word itself in terms of language.

Many pivotal concepts and words are in one idioms but not in another’s, Hegel for example insisted on several cases about German words and Derrida too about France and several idioms words. When we analyze the semantique subtly senses of certain words an amazing feeling surprise us with the question about how a language might work without certain words. The self is one of this paradoxical words.

It exists in english but not in Spanish. Its importance in english language is crucial and major while nothing in Spanish cover its senses and meanings while of course we can make an effort to explain its sense to a Spanish audience. Whence something about differences in terms of subjectivity and culture leads us to think on the reasons of the absence and emptiness of such major words in certain languages.

This essay is focused in letting know the main aspects of my theory of the self, my own one, developed as result of extensive years of analysis and theoretical writings around the self. Many of the things I will discuss further this time are new questions inside my own elaborations since I will recall my first writings on the self since my essays of Venezuela so as to mix it with my reflections on the self from the united states.

Before discussing my analysis will be necessary to revisit the issue of the self as it appeared in sociology and at the same time to abound in its philosophical implications.

Nothing in spanish as a word or a relations of words as explained above explain the specific sense of the self.

To try to seize it in Spanish three relations of words are needed to be encompassed no one of which attain to enclose it, this words relations are first “it itself”, the translation in english already use a word with self included in a half but in spanish nothing as it is included even in terms of sense, trying to translate back to english how “it itself” is said in spanish we might say something as “it sameness”, the sameness seize the identical of it as the same but without the return to a core that the word “self” imply to a subjectivity, a monad, a one and overall the inside of an individual subject as the self-contains it, so that “it sameness”, even when the literal translation of the spanish from english must be “it itself” back from english to spanish in doing so we are avoiding the inexistence or the lost of the core of a subject that the spanish evolve, we may translate “it itself” simply because self in english while evolving the inside core of a subject might be used too to the itself of anything beyond a subject but this is not how in spanish the sense is solved, “it sameness” the true translation to spanish without using the self the idiom don’t have, never include the core of a subject or an individual, it is only and always the it of any things and objects without subject.

The second word must be “one itself”, but again, as nothing as the self exist in spanish the literal translation should be “one sameness” or “one same” nothing as the core of a subjectivity or an individual is solved inside that, this time the “one help” to seize something but a one must be the one of anything, one house, one rice, one fruit.

And finally the last thirst relation of words must be “yo” which in spanish is exactly than in english I, the I, however, as we well know, I is not the self, the self encompass, includes and defines inside us a well defined moment, zone or territory of our inside subjectivity and interiority different to that one of the I while of course related.

The concept of self have as its main distinction or as its main implicit and constitutive issue in the pair of “the individual” and “the social”, while the self is located on the side of the individual and not on the side of the social, it means inside individual subjectivity the processing of the social, interiorization of the external and permeability of the internal and later the socialization of such interiorization.

The self and the social are in fact as the individual and the social, opposite pairs, otherness, alterity, in this sense saying self seems to be or mean almost like saying “the individual”, but the self is not the whole individual and as such it is a moment, an aspect or a level of the individual as the I, ego or alterego, but well differenced inside as something itself from that.

The pair of the social is not the self but the individual which are at the same time opposites and inclusive in between like the pair of the one and the multiple, the relation of the self and the social is then of the same kind, but with a major difference, the individual and the social are extrinseques in between, a radical exteriority mark the emptiness or the absent of a pass by in between.

The concept of the individual cutted in itself appear as a formation closed over itself without containing something to explain the permeability in between both. We know that the individual receives from the social, that from the moment a language is acquired the social as pregiven have an entrance with participate in the taking shape of it, but we don’t know how this entrance occur, by only the pair of the individual and the social nothing on how to solve the extrinsecation and exteriority in between is covered by the semantique of both concepts.

All that we seize and comply to full the meaning of the how of such a permeability is nothing else than seizing that which the self-explain and contain, the self in fact is that which located inside us consist about the step and the procedure of that permeability.

Without the self all we can do is a list of things without relations in between, we said that since acquiring a language the individual is socially formed as nothing in both notions contains semantically the sense of how to mediate in between that exteriority, all that pass by in between is listed as a contiguity of unrelated thing one following the next, we know nothing thus on the phenomenological order of such a taking shape in both direction from the individual to the social and in reverse, the self is the part of us which is specialized in that translation and as such explaining the self is nothing else than explaining how that translation and processing of the taking shape in both direction made a whole area in us, a whole zone of our subjectivity and interiority. The self is then as the I a well-defined, cutted and located moment of us as relevant and major as the I while differenced from it. In a few world, the self explains the phenomenological constitution of such a pass by or translation and as such a well differenced phenomenological world itself.

About the extrinsecation and exteriority between the internal and the external, the individual and the social I discussed a lot in my first book almost dedicated to it but now we must addition that beyond recognizing such exteriority and questioning it by proposing ways to avoid it we must understand how the passing by of one think into the other take shape, and the main purposiveness of this essay is focused in attempt to attain that such a pass by explain the consistency of the phenomenology of the self itself.

We recognize again that the configuration of the individual take shape by interiorizations of the social world since language is acquired, habits and customs, we also recognize that the process of self-individuation and formation of the self of the person is related with a progressive differentiation of the individual over the social as Piaget sustained, but we don’t know yet how to go beyond a list of collected things participates in that process without understanding how those thing relates in between.

All individual have a self and the self belong only to individuals, nothing as a self must exist on the side of the social ontologically speaking, the ontological location of the self is on the side of the individual and only by the addition of autonomous individuals we must, like we do between the pair of one and multiple understand how the plural is supposed to be inclusive to the single by the similarities of all singles through universals abstracted principles.

Moreover, the individual and the social as concepts are limited and externals in between, nothing in the semantique of both concepts explain or contain in terms of sense the meanings of the permeability in between, each individual have a self as much as an I, the I must be defined as that which maintain a certain stability or permanence being one with itself and identical to itself ever, but the self represent the opposite sort of thing, it reflect the permeability process by which the subject is again and again transformed and reconfigured by that constant relation, the relation itself include a duple level, on the one hand, the individuation process, consist about translating, processing and interiorizing the social so as transforming the extrinsique into something intrinsique to subjectivity while at the same time such an interiorized social is later socialized in the form of socialized former individuations.

The work by which the subject made this dual or duple movement of going and returning, of translating the external to the internal as individuation and in reversal, is made exclusibly and only by the self inside subjectivity, no one other concept such as the I, ego or alterego, made this work inside our internal subjectivity, this is the exclusive zone and area of the self work so it is necessary to understand that the self is not a subordinated or subsidiary instance which made only the work of intermediating between two concepts to which it is added, the individual and the social.

Instead of that, the self occupies an autonomous phenomenological area of work, this is not a bridge between two concepts, not an strainer which as the liquid give entrance of the social to the individual and in reverse, before well the self is itself and area of formation and elaboration which participate in the configurational process of both individuation and socialization in the form of creating the autonomy of that work as a phenomenological universe itself.

On the one hand the self is what transform the extrinsique into an intrinsique phenomenology by fixing experience as a cumulative acervo, experience and acervo are in fact nothing else that one and the same with the self and if we can said that experiencing evolve the contingency of external things such as when we said “experiencing as experimenting something in the outer world”, it later constitute a fully internal phenomena inside subjectivity establishing an intrinsique memory created only by the self, this is the basis of what Derrida defined as the flour of our interiority, the self-transform the experience as extrinsique into something intrinsique, it constitute our experience and acervo as one and identical with ourself.

So we have here two clear areas of work to the self, first individuation and socialization which must be considered as the main processing areas of the self and second the relation between experience and acervo, the first work in the form of a translation process translating the external into the internal by the pass of the social into individuation and in return the socialization of individuated symbols, the second one transform the extrinsique into the intrinsique by a process of memory, a taking shape of retentions which establish the permeability of the mutual relation.

An individual is ever the same one from his I, but is also at the same time always a new one or a becoming of something new as reflected in his self, if we may said, for example, that someone who migrated from a province or a rural village to a modern metropolis in a country is not the same one years after migrating as obvious when this individual visit his original culture it is just because this individual in the process of being permeated by the metropolitan culture transformed such an external experience into an intrinsique experience which is one with itself and by the way while seen from his I must be considered as the same one, seen from its self, this individual is transformed.

The same might be sustained without necessity of a migration example, such a process goes as such anywhere the individual experience its permeability with the social, in any case, the self will ever be at the fore front of becoming’s according to permeability’s of the internal and the external so as to stablish a permanent flux of translations with the I, the ego and the alter ego.

In fact the pair in play is defined by opposites which are otherness in between, externals and extrinsiques, the individual and the social, the self arrive there to mediate that relation qualifying it as well as eliminating the opposites, it transform the exclusive into the inclusive and phenomenologically offers to that relation the translation that permeate one into the other, the result is nothing else than the elimination of the pair since precisely through the formation of the self the contradiction of extrinsecation and externality is eliminated, but in this form the elements of the pair are no longer the same but located inside the individual in a permanent dialogue with the I, the ego and the alter ego.

All individual through his or her life learn to incorporate a variety of knowledge’s but all individual return ever again and again to be exposed to a continuum processing of interiorizations ---individuations—and socialization, this process never stop to the point that what made him or her one with itself must be constantly adapted and readecuated to the self-processing of the new, its taking shape as individual will constantly include and be configured by this self-processing and formations and as such a permeability between the internal and the external is transformed into an accumulation, so the self is a permanent area of work and of identity, it is something that return to be him or herself again and again participating in the phenomenology creates the world and universe of its own subjectivity.

Experience and acervo are majors in the phenomenology of the self, it is a process of constantly adding new levels to the former ones, this level, the cumulative one is the one through which culture is reflected under the self-phenomenology.

Although indeed we might say that in terms of the active side of the self, the process of individuation and socialization of individuated symbols define the main area of the self-translations and formations, instead, the cumulative one side of the self-defined by experience and acervo is the main one defines the pass by of culture into the self through the permeability process through which the self-turn the extrinsique to be intrinsique within its own phenomenology.

We define here the concept of phenomenology in terms of the impressions to the body as to subjectivity, this is nothing else than what Derrida defined as the idealization process created in subjectivity the sense of an internal or interiority.

Phenomenological speaking this is nothing else than the feeling of a world or an universe, the world and universe is of course internal and individual but as such culture is reflected under as individuated.

Thus truly what happen at this level is that we recognize that the self-take shape not only at the two discussed levels but according to a thirst additional one we may define as self-representational, the self in fact suppose a return, a kind of presence of us in front of us like it happen with conscience and also with the sign as Derrida discussed the last one, according to Derrida the sign is nothing else that we in front of us exteriorized in language, there is in the self not only accumulation and translation, but also self-representation, auto-perception.

This return is however different to the kind of self-perception we have in conscience. Certainly in conscience we seize the feel of perceiving ourselves and overall of perceiving ourselves perceiving as it is reflected in self-conscience, but the self-representational level of the self is distinct and unique, it is in fact less reflective than the conscience.

Let then go in deep by discussing this thirst level of the self. Back to the main ontological issue of phenomenology since its origin in ancient and classical thought the issue of the feeling of something that must be itself without extrinsecations to it suppose that we are already there feeling and perceiving it and as such as subjects in from of it, so doing presence in front of us

This issue I have discussed several times major to understand the self-perception of the self, in fact, the self is not like conscience a pure reflection or representation of the reflected separated as another thing in respect to what simply is, but something in between the immanence of that which simply is and the perceiving of it. We must at this point recognize, of course, that what is perceived as being is nothing else here than another moment of us.

A self is a sameness of one-self, on the one hand, but on the other hand a self is something more, it is at the same time a process of individuation in the human being, one is ever oneself but from the moment we said that one is a self it is already not only a sameness but also something that already pass by from the external to the internal to be individuated, so it is not only the sameness of the one self of any one but the oneself of an individual individuation.

At the ontological level this principle leads us to some aspects of the concept of conscience, through conscience we represent ourselves, meaning that we return on ourselves in a representation, the self-have this same movement of return the conscience have, however, this return of the self is different than the simply it itself and of the simply one selves, although it is formed of certain aspects usual in the reflexivity and representational subjectivity of the internal system which leads us to the phenomenology of conscience the self is less representational than the conscience return one.

Instead of something separated from sensible multiplicities as another reflected autonomous thing as conscience is, the self-encompass both things inside itself, on the one hand, something that is at the level of being without being yet a reflected as a separated dimension, and on the other, the moment of self-perceiving that identity as one with ourselves.

In conscience we simply represent our self and we perceive our self perceiving but this happen as a reflected dimension far to the principle of our identity formation, conscience seems to occupy a reflected dimension like when for example we distinguish a language from a reference or a denoted thing or when we distinguish a perception what that which we perceive or a representation from that we have represented, at the level of the self we can’t make this separation because what return to self-perception is at the same time the sameness of an identity in formation.

We self-represent only that which reconsoliate what we are as just a being with the certitude and assure of coincidence that self-represent it as an identity of ourselves with ourselves, this self-perception is not exactly an auto-perception, but a perception of that which made the self in us, that which we are and become.

According to an epistemological principle similar in respect to the relation between a first essence of what is itself and a division of that essence in a concept, the form we self-represent the self-occupy at this levels of ontology a precise and well defined place that we must define as between immanence and exteriorization, a place by the way which was not included in that former classical representation of the issue.

It is different precisely because the self is in a meddle way between what is itself and what represent it, it is located in a meddle way between us when we simply are and us as we represent that we are, a meddle way between the extrinsique and the intrinsique, the self in fact consist in the translation, the strainer, the pass by, the intermedia dot between this two moments, the work of individuation and its socialization consist precisely in a way to bring to an interiority and translate it to an exteriority, internalizing and exteriorizing, in mediating what is itself and what is extrinseque to it.

We are in fact this paradox, on the one side we are and on the other we represent that we are

If we gaze to that which we are taking distance to the merely physical universe we experience an exteriorization but such exteriorization between us as subjects and that external to us but we are not in our identity formation that in front of which we are as externals since as we are it is internal, but if that we perceive is a moment of ourselves we must then recognize both things at the same time, on the one hand how it is one with ourselves and on the other how can we self-perceive it.

Since the self occupy such an intermedia place, we seize the sense of turning from something which is to something we consist in as a self-representing of it.

We have thus already discussed the three main areas of the self, individuation and socialization, experience and acervo and self-perception.

We have yet much more things to be discussed on the self but we have comply in plenty forms the objective of this chapter.

This is not a way to said that the self is the same than being, not something equal to being while similar, it is not equal to being from the moment in the case of being yes we have the sense of something that simply is as being itself, but we don’t have in being the return to itself, we perceive being with another thing, external to it, subjectivity, conscience, the sense of concepts, etc, while in the self we perceive the self with the self.

Differently to conscience, even if we need to cross conscience and use moments of it, the self is a dimension that simply is as in the case of being, but having also the perception of it as a dimension that the self includes by itself, the self s in this sense a principle of identity, like the I is, the I in fact, according to Hegel is nothing else but conscience, so that we perceive the I with the I, as such or in a similar way while less reflective, we perceive the self with the self since it have inside like the I a return, a self-perception

The main proposal here as suggested above is to sustain that the theory of culture through the phenomenology of the self as a theory on what is already individuated and as what is reflected under experience and acervo, return the symbols to the plots of the intramundane impossible to be separated from the ontological place the symbols play in that translations of the self between the internal and the external, by discussing culture within the self-phenomenology all the universe of culture is understanded as already transformed into something intrinsique instead of extrinsique to the subject and as such culture appear reflected within the fine sense and meaning that the self has provided to it, so that the theory of culture as part and as reflected under the self-focus in the intrinsique relation between the individuated self and acervo

Bibliography

Eagleton Terry, Phenomenology, hermeneutic and reception theory, Literary Theory: An Introduction, The university of Minnesota press

Habermas Junger, The Self and the Social; Mead, The Change of Paradigm, Pp, The Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press

Habermas Junger, El Self y lo Social; Mead, El Cambio de Paradigmas, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Taurus

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, Complete Works, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Presentational Linguistic, Complete Works, 98 Labs Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intangible, Selected Essays, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Being and Monad, Complete Works, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Given and the Ungiven, Complete Works, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hegel W G, La Ciencia de la Lógica, Hachete

Being and Monad

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Lo que Benveniste muy rápidamente llama la noción de ser no es ya simplemente una categoría homogénea a las otras, es la condición transcategorial de las categorías, Benveniste lo reconoce, más allá de los términos aristotélicos, por encima de esta categorización se despliega la noción de ser que envuelve todo. Sin ser en sí mismo un predicado el ser es la condición de todos los predicados. Lo que descubre Benveniste por esta extensión es la relación absolutamente única entre lo transcendental y la lengua.

Jacques Derrida, Philosophy in front of linguistic

In the logical movement we made when we are philosophizing being usually language is avoided.

If we avoid language precisely when we are philosophizing being it is because we suppose that there must be a language of being or at least something as the language in which being must be without assuring on language until it.

This avoiding of language might be of course declared if not as unconcient at least as something involuntary and as such suspicions.

In fact the question itself arise as follow: why we avoid language as issue precisely when what we are thinking about n the issue of being?. Is being itself something that resist language?, is language itself something exogenous and extrinsique to being?.

We must detain ourselves at this point as to examine if we avoid the issue of language since we are thinking about being according to an exteriority or an opposite relation between language and being or if we avoid it because finding a language to be in order for it to be we need to avoid such a media as language.

But if it is thus then we must ask: are we speaking on two languages as two ontologically differentiated concepts of language, the one we avoid to pay attention when thinking on being and another one supposed to be quest and search as the language of being or for it to be, or are we speaking on just one language at all?

If the second answer is near to be the true then we must ask, and if there is only a language and we are looking for a language for being to be why to consider language as opposite or extrinsique to being?.

Hence, derivate from it, we must ask too, if at the end both languages are the same one why then to avoid language when we are thinking about being?.

Well, this relation of questions which seems to be apparently tautological are far to be redundant, something on the relation between language and being is there evolved, on the one hand, language need being to acquire meaning, without being we can’t seize and endowed language of sense, indeed only from being we experience a wishes to say and a motivation toward language as expression and in reverse, given the fact that being must be in language there should be a language in which being must be and as such we should find it.

This paradoxical logical relations much more complex that the discussed until here is however at the same time one about how do we realize to understand what thinking and philosophizing should be?.

Whence indeed thinking and philosophizing as an activity must be and as such like being itself, it need a language to be by the way delivering how a way of thinking solves the relation between language and being is at the same time an epistemological problem regarding our ultimate sense on how thinking must be.

We might of course think with eye closed to avoid the visuality of writing which is itself language, but at the end, with eyes closed or open the main point to be outer here is that this relation is not in play in a same form if we consider thinking and or philosophizing as something hermeneutical, transcendental or empirical so that in answering to the logical relations of this set of questions we must recognize answering at the same time how should we consider thinking itself.

Looking for a language to be is thus nothing else that looking a language on how thinking should be, in both senses, the pure sense of the to be, including the becoming of it as being, and the duty of it.

Transcendental thinking requires of a mise in abysm, not only from the ways to understand concepts under it, being, time, matter, memory, etc, but since the way of philosophizing itself must coincident with the movement considered transcendental itself by which the ontology and immanence of being should move the concepts to be spoken.

The avoiding of language according to a first graphic form is related in transcendental thinking not only to that language in which being is supposed to speak as the being of philosophy but overall to the transcendental movement of concepts that must follow or be the sake of the more general and former transcendental movement of being, immanence and ontology.

The welcome of the ontology of things according to which concepts itself are in movement are ontologically subordinated to such former ontology or immanence. A transcendental time, as in the Kant theory of transcendental categories, is supposed under it as what is moved by being, the way of thinking appear hence in transcendental philosophizing as the pure language of being, meaning a language which of course avoided, seems to be spoken by being in its saying as in the said as in a mise in abism

Empirical way of thinking, however, is developed instead as subjected to the empirical issues justify it, objects of description, inference, deduction, visualization, catalogation, corroboration, while hermeneutical thinking is figured out instead under speakers, a community of speakers of a language, it works between subjects who conterenunciate under a language of a culture which is formed of interpretations and readings

Now, how might we understand an hermeneutical thinking developed as a thinking on being?.

This is a crucial question. If under hermeneutical thinking everything is located among the language culture of a community of speakers, how must something as being, considered already as speaking among a language, be theorized?.

The question is about in what another forms must it be discussed?.

Indeed, if in hermeneutics our being itself is considered under language it evolves another way to understand the relation between language and being

During a long time is was a common place to understand that a thinking about being must be something existential both in the sense of existentialism as a movement in philosophy as in the sense of romanticism, stoicism or nihilism as forms of thinking committed with ideologies of being

But such a point of view is no longer prevelecent today by many reasons derrida discussed at Margins of philosophy, such an ideal was progresibly replaced both in continental european philosophy as well as in england and USA

Thus to what figures of thought must then belong an hermeneutical philosophizing around things in which being is evolved? must be here the question.

The issue is relevant not only in regard to being as a theme or an issue but to anywhere or anything supposed to have a being behind, under, upon, below or in the skin of it

To transcendental modes of thinking being might be nothing else than something reflected in the modes to understand concepts and categories, it was reflected under the ways to welcomes all the concepts in the main concept of being or in reverse presupposing the ontology of being as moving from immanence the consistence of any other concept.

Under empiricism, including in it all the forms of phenomenology and also semiotic, being resulted pulverized as deleuze argued on Hume, such as the given itself was pulverized by empiricism being resulted pulverized too, it was diluted in perception and conscience.

So in contrast with that I would like to sustain and propose here that the possibility for hermeneutic as a way of thinking already conceived inside language but sensible to the issue of being, to be focused or attentive to when being is behind, below, upon or simply evolved in it, we must afford it from the phenomenology of the monad, it is even needed of it.

This proposal evolves of course several ways to tie up and clear a way epistemological parameters.

On the one hand, gadamer, who’s worthy I recognize, discussed hermeneutic from an ontological perspective in regard to being and aesthetic, this hermeneutic developed under the legacies of Hegel and Heidegger but was not however attentive to the priority Hegel assigned to monad from the Leibniz legacy, on the other hand, Deleuze assigned a great importance to monad in his analysis of the soul at Leibniz and the baroque, but nothing as encompassing being and monad with hermeneutic was proposed

Why the monad precisely when we are thinking about the relation between language and being hermeneutically?

This turn is attentive to one distinction, while certainly the concept of monad is not as much and even far from its source to language and instead discussed by Hegel yet in a sense, the one and the multiple, that moved it in between social issues, the self and the otherness, for example, and substantial issues, chemistry, etc, without language considered under it, the rearch of the monad to a plenty phenomenology of subjectivity ans hermeneutic is out of discussion.

I would even sustain that the reach of phenomenology to be developed around the monad basis for subjectivity is infinity and as such the monad offers to an hermeneutic thinking on the relation between language and being the possibility to be developed in between the certainties of subjectivity ---subjectivity considered here phenomenologically, meaning, the impression of the internal and the external as experienced by each subjectivity from the internal universe of its monad, the sense of incorporating the outside—sensoriality as processed by the subject—and of extending subjectivity in its outsides, as well as the correlates of it within again also monadic worlds such as architecture, the city, the otherness, etc, etc

Mush of the forms of language we receive pregiven at the monadic level of subjects, objects and environments in which being is evolved are in fact susceptible of hermeneutical thinking.

In a few words, through the monad considered both inside subjectivity as in the single one monad, our single body sense and sensoriality, and considered outside subjectivity, as when we recognize as monadic the nature of real things as experienced by us, language appear as phenomenologically constricted, meaning as something embodied and unfolded under bodies and corpus, we must remember that this duality or duplicity which defined the monad between body and soul is exactly the same that derrida discussed when he compared the two sides of the sign significant and signification with body and soul respectibly, something unique to the concept of monad epistemological basis

The monad in fact, as no one other concept, is both things as the same time, something bodily constricted and something extended or enlarged as feelings beyond the body as the soul is, while paradoxically constricted in that body as the soul is too, the relation between the soul and subjectivity allow us here to hermeneutically afford the forms of folding and unfolding, the forms of being bodily contained ---as in the case of the sign dual and duplicity relation between significance --the body, matter-- and meaning—the soul, the immaterial, as derrida recognized to the nature of the sign this duplicity, while attaining to seize in between how language dimensions and being dimension acquire specific forms under it

Through the monad, in fact, language appear as bodily constrained, as a form to embody corpus and as within hermeneutic thinking being is already hermeneutically considered under language, hermeneutically philosophizing language and being according to the monad is a way to stablish another way, a new one, to discussing bodies, corpus and embodiments

Nothing as an answer about what being is ontologically is on the forefront of hermeneutic at least after gadamer turns, all the contrary, being is already considered as weaved under language. What is then the monad and why it as the right correlate to being in the case of an hermeneutic thinking which also want, besides, to discuss being according to the hermeneutics of language?.

Well, the monad is nothing else than being considered as folded and unfolded, as embodied or trapped in the corpus of the body or bodily as pick upped and extended, as close and as open not only to an outside from its inside, but closed or open between the sense of its own self and the feelings of a more or less sense of sameness or difference in regard to the multiple or heterogeneous, meaning the world and the otherness to the self of the monad interiority

Monad is also a concept that allow us to reconsider the issue of the identical, the identical to itself, or the identitary principle, in a form which include also the becoming other or the non-identity of the multiplicity and complexity of how the internal and the external are experienced in subjectivity

Monad coincident on the one hand with our single body and the feeling of being inside it and gazing everything from there and as such the forms of its folding and unfolding, enlarging or constraining, selfsameness and becoming something new, it is directly related with the issue of sense

Deleuze payed attention to this complexity of the monad while he did it about the baroque without solving and letting disatended how the relation between language and being must be considered at the phenomenology of the monad level

Nothing as a corporeal thinking is pertinent and belong more to the nature of language

A language indeed must be certainly considered as something to express and communicate, but a language is also a corpus and a coupure embodied something we assure when recognizing on it a media which is precisely what the relation between being and language as a logical pair enteil, and as such it is already considered as pre-given, we have of course pre-expressive dimensions as derrida discussed regarding hurssel, dimensions by the way also susceptible to be discussed in a monadic sense, we have a pragmatic dimension in language when already considered from the triadic principle of emission, message, receptor, but we also have to solve the points of mixture between language and being when this relation is not reduced to preexpresive and expression level as when everything revolved around the wishes to say, there is also in language an immaterial level related with being something that must be comply only hermeneutically and as such the monad offer phenomenologically the body and corpus, the media dimension hermeneutic need to encompass matter and subjectivity, language and being

Thus, when being is turned over and around closing over itself, in a selfsameness or in its difference perceived from another objectivity, that one of another body between the bodies, or even in self-perception, monad comes to be like the skin of being, it’s nothing else but the space and surface over which the gaze perceive and self-perceive environment, habitat, the object, the spaces.

Barthes devoted a fascinating analysis to the relation between the gaze and the born of the soul from the first day to born to the first weeks saying that the soul born exactly when the gaze is formed, this is a monadic analysis, so such a perception is also associated with the forms of meaning.

This surface through which the gaze arise is also however on how the being feel and presence as something that happen only inside the monad and according to it, we must then be attentive to recognize that philosophizing being hermeneutically speaking must be a philosophizing of forms, formal logic and nothing else considered in between monad and being, this forms itself is nothing but language and corpus, languages and coupures, language and bodies hermeneutically unified

Only in the monad were being is folded inside the body as relatively hidden, embodied or pick up by the body sense of the monad, the being have a perception of the skin but also on how subjectivity relates with rooms, houses, cities, environments, spaces, the body, works, and on how we welcome, receive, give, let go, possesses, etc, encompassing issue of egoism versus reciprocity, selfsameness versus mutuality

This way of positioning hermeneutic near to phenomenology works as a philosophy of forms and as such it is about ways of the body language to be ductile, relational, plastic, flexible, complexive, etc, etc. All this allow us to think that an hermeneutic thinking on the relation between language and being seen from the monad must work relating form and affect something that remember my previous insistence on the relation between forms such as internet, medias and other technologies evolving relationality and on the possibility to develop a philosophy of form, affection and relationality which as hermeneutic must be focused in subjectivity

©Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Conceived, written, composed and created By Abdel Hernandez San Juan as Individual Author

Abdel Hernandez san Juan Works as Individual Author

Bibliography

Derrida, Jacques Ousia and Gramme, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida, Jacques The Supplement of the Couple, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Deleuze Gilles, The Fold, Leibniz and the Baroque, the University of Minnesota Press

Deleuze Gilles, El Pliegue: Leibniz y el Barroco, Paidos Studio

Gadamer George, Estética y hermenéutica, Tecnos, colección metrópolis

The Intramundane Horizont

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Alive present is the ultimate, universal and absolute form of the transcendental experience in general

Jacques Derrida

Form and Wishes to Say, Notes on the Phenomenology of language

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Why not simply to accept the worlds of life in its wordless occur as it happens in our ordinary decurse between the whole of the activities we develop as individuals under the pragmatics of daily life between day and nights

Infinity motives internals to our life decurse turn our attention to the world of life without yet a question on research or knowledge, this ways to assure and turn our attention to it are implicits to the internal rationality and needs the world of life supposes

In the world of life occur our life style, we enjoy under it life alones and accompanied at the same time under it we made activities oriented to our practical ends evolving our affective and intersubjective relations and communications as well as our professional and economic activities

But the worlds of life suppose countless more things than what we usually assure on in an ordinary sense and the need to go beyond in this comprehension is addressed to enrich our knowledge’s so as to increase the potential of such assure toward enriching the possibilities of both to our ends under it as well as to best known, to understand how it provide us with new cutts to epistemology on how the production of knowledge work thanks to it in a differentiated mode uniques to world of life encompassing questions on how concepts must work and its relations in between

It is not equal a form of knowledge seen as something out of the world immersed in the mere desfamiliarized universe of pure abstraction than a knowledge obtained from the pragmatical universe that engage our senses with practical horizonts. I will thus as follow propose a series of concepts I have developed as result of my own assures on the worlds of life

The first simple phenomenological concept to afford it is my concept of an enveloped world need to understand how a world is phenomenologically feel in subjectivity and the body within the world of life.

If we made an struggle, an effort to assure in our world of life taking a certain distance to it attaining to define it immediately we observe that our habit tendency is to site in the horizont of our gaze, of our visual attention, a whole of physical spaces, of locations, sites and places in which our things decurse

This places, sites, locations, spaces of habitat evolve home, the house we live and the places we usually visit daily such as our job building during the week, the places we visit to entertainment, recreation and markets consume weklee or monthly, universes of interactions and communication evolving activities we develop around our pleasures, our needs and communications, going to shopping, cooking, reading, writing, communicating with other personas, paying attention to family members and friends, taking a rest, etc

However, as soon as we unfold in the visual imagination or the fancy this succession of locations, sites, activities and exchanges with persons we assure that such an unfold we have made outer, as in marquets, is not coincident with the mode we experience, life and feel it in our subjectivity and the impressions of our Bodies, meaning that unfolding visually a succession of places exteriorized as sites and locations, is itself unusual, a way to exteriorize as a were and how something that inside the world of life we experience both sensorially and in terms of our subjectivity is another, majorly different form, all this things in fact, as experience are full and plenty of sense to us and as such a living room, a market place, a coart yard, an office, a recreation site, are dispersed things distributed as exteriorized to our body and subjectivity just like things are distributed for example in scenography’s, interior designs or architectural ante projects something suggest a mude cinema uncoincident with how we make sense and experience such same places in the world of life

The enveloped character of the worlds of life suppose deep and profound issues in phenomenology and hermeneutic. Both points of view may be comprehended in relatibly independent modes but at the end both are narrow related one into the other

The more exterior concept and however internal to the enveloped form of the world of life is the concept of pertinence, we might even say that pertinence order the enveloped nature of it providing it with a common sense texere, pertinences organize and provide word of life its wordless plot, worlds of life are pertinent

I have called this concept of exteriority phenomenological so as to negate the impression of the discussed above about distributed paper human figurine like in a miniature measure of a urban planning architectural ante project with objects around as to give the sense of an anticipated idea of spaces, sites or places to be building such as fake manikins and to allow us to understand that world of life are the opposite of figure on background relations over surfaces or perspectives according to effects of reality in representation, thus that the world of life are instead enveloped, folded, surrounded, hence, this may probably give the impression of something excesibly interiorist and subjective so as subordinated only to individual liveness as a way to return to a kind of interiorism

Well, the enveloped nature of the world of life certainly evolve a certain interiority and subjectivism to experience ordered according to liveness under the alive present but as such it evolve also the making of sense to persons among their intersubjective communication, in this sense, by the same motive, the world of life as a mundane universe is articulated according to lonely self-monologue and intersubjective communications experienced under the pragmatics of everyday life and as such the idea of a full interiority or subjectivity is insufficient

As a closing introductory statement this fold of a first exteriority defined by pertinence is pivotal, pertinence organize the world of common sense, it distribute and made possible the adequate way to seize how exteriority must be understand to sense, subjectivity and bodies under the world of life, meaning, pertinence explicit how a world must be phenomenologically an enveloped world which mean to subjectivity something internal while it have an adequate way to understand how externality make sense under it

In a few words, pertinence organize the genesis of the structure of common sense, it is what provides common sense with an structure, it is in fact at the core of the sense organize the structural genesis of common sense in a phenomenological level and as such guaranty the enveloped character of life world, its structures

Pertinences, however, being the adequate mode of exteriority correspond to the enveloped nature of life world, although overline the fold of this first or proximity exteriority, contiguous and at the same time interior to the sense in respect to how we experience it, are inclusive to the anticipations of enunciations of explicitation as to the acts and actions of the pragmatics of the life world thus providing that nature of worldneess inclusive to our activities and communications giving to it structural stability of common sense, are not sufficient, life worlds in fact are enveloped worlds by countless another reasons and phenomenological motives

Here we have first the monadic nature of any experience and liveness phenomenologically, first, the interior and the exterior, or internal and external, second, the one and the multiple, one self and the distinct, the itself of one selves and the it selves of any one presented to the one of one selves as otherness or alterity, as the multiplicity of many ones, meaning the monad as the single one with its own interiority from which like a church, the body and its impressions, the single one process the exterior world in subjectivity, the experience of the liveness world always from the phenomenological interior of the body sensations and impressions in regard to its outsides, the fall out of each monad and the confirmation that all the other monads experience it in a similar form

´The monadic character of experience and liveness is in the center of the enveloped nature of the life worlds. Without monad the idea and the feeling of the idea of world itself is impossible. The monad overline and confirm being the fold of the interior and the exterior, the adequate mode in which a world is experienced and liveness by the person, that it which confirm a world to subjectivity, impressions and sensations, can’t be a world without a monad, might probably be another thing, maybe reality, but never a world

In the idea of world the subject and the object meet, without subjectivity objectivity can’t be reproduced, can’t have a continuity, permanence and stability and in reverse, without objectivity subjectivity can’t have nothing of it as well. At the same time the monad confirms, we have already above discussed it with pertinence, the modes of exteriority adequate to experience and liveness and in reverse the modes of interiority adequate to the forms of exteriority, we have seen it above with our example of a list of distributed places and sites

Monad is decisive to understanding the enveloped folded character of the life world at the phenomenological level and although less at the hermeneutical level since hermeneutic is itself less monadic than phenomenology, it continues helping with some needed comprehension at the hermeneutical level as well so that the monad is major phenomenologically while complimentary hermeneutically not without saying again that the idea of world is fully monadic

Experience is the main concept of the life world, from experience and returning to experience everything goes and happen, but the life worlds are also full of activities and communications, decursive falls out related with purely mundane and ordinary experience thus fully immerse in the pragmatics of everyday life

I will discuss experience further since it is best known while I will instead try to attempt and attain more in proposing and focusing my concept of the intramundane horizont

With this concept of The intramundane horizont the phenomenological and hermeneutic aspects of the life world start to relates, communicative activities of diverse types, individually expressive or intersubjective mix with the world of life and its pragmatics developing the intramundane character of the life world

In fact, life world considered only phenomenologically although are enveloped worlds and worlds itself are not yet however intramundane, the intramundane character of the worlds of life start to be a such when various forms through which hermeneutic start to be a part in life world and mix or fusion in several forms with its phenomenological form. A world phenomenologically considered is already a world to subjectivity, the body and sensoriality, the feeling indeed of something as a world is in fact something phenomenological, but seen as such it is not yet an intramundane world, to be intramundane the world sake and possible only by phenomenology, need to be plenty in hermeneutics

We need at this point to do some distinctions between phenomenology and hermeneutic as to understanding its differences to comply to how a relation in between must mix and be encompassed

Phenomenology might be very abstract or concrete and empiric, from en elaboration of the phenomenic of the sprit when phenomenic appearance are not given are in objective reality but about which the experience and intuition confirm, to the phenomenological analysis of concrete things

For example, the last one might be the case of the phenomenological study of a work of art, we can know more or less on the author conscience, motivations and intentionality but if we don’t know on it since we don’t have access, we instead recurrimos to how a conscience in general according to our experience must relate things as such, meaning as in a concrete work of art we have in front our gaze things, objects and signs are related, in doing so we must thus do a phenomenological analysis of it

In regard to the first example we can mention the Kant a prioris, in fact, we know nothing on the aprioris according to empirical experience, nothing as the aprioris are in fact distinguished and separated within experience and however, a son as the abstraction of concepts brings to the purity of logical analysis the fact that from intuition there is a different a aprioristic pattern and parameters to practical reason in comparison of aesthetics judgements and with pure reason, while nothing in experience confirm it, we recognize that certainly it is a need to separe aesthetic reason, from practical reason and both from pure reason not only to best understand each one in its own purity, in its own consistency but even also to practice it

Finally, phenomenology allow us to leads the analysis from the appearance of something which we perceive as it made presence to our senses and Sensoriality in front of us, as a phenomenic, as form, as appearance, to further advance to the stratus

Within hermeneutic our procedure is distinct, there is nothing in hermeneutic as to made abstraction of concepts in irs purity, nothing as recognize how the conscience give forms to something and nothing as advancing from appearance to essence, but another kind of things, through hermeneutic we should make sense of something, we must interpret, elucidate and make something explicit and intelligible, it is about sense and interpretation and encompass from interpreting texts to understanding others, to make sense of things

With this say we understand that the enveloped and folded character of life world at the phenomenological level evolve the relation of our impressions, sensations and subjectivity impressions of a world, monadic in respect to the body, pertinent in respect to its structures, the internal and the external and the surroundings of it, while this world is not yet an intramundane world, to be intramundane, such as world must include hermeneutically senses and interpretations, elucidations and explicitations

In doing so by mixing phenomenology and hermeneutic we get and obtain, we at least understand how the intramundane world and horizont take shape and grow, in a few world, not matter how important must be our confirmation of the world to subjectivity and body sensations, it will never be an intramundane world without hermeneutic, without hermeneutic nothing as an intramundane horizont is possible, it may probably be a phenomenological world and universe of any other kind, but not an intramundane one as well as with only hermeneutic we must probably speak of mundane things while never experience it as a world, we say in fact horizont instead of intramundane world just to efface that as soon as hermeneutic entrance to be fusion with phenomenology, that world become at the same time a horizont

Moreover hermeneutic as a form of giving sense plot the world of life transforming it in a plenty universe of sense, explicitation and communication which participate in the definition itself of the practice of everyday life and its pragmatics

It is required to advance here the comprehension that hermeneutic is not including here the relation between the exegesis and a text but only the process of elucidation and explicitation evolved in the making sense of our experience inside the pragmatics of everyday life

Without doubt the intramundane nature of the life words is composed by activities of intersubjective communication between persons and speakers through the exchanges of enunciations, but not only of that, in the worlds of life only the activity we made and performance between day and nights are plenty of hermeneutic within our monologues alones too, it is evolved from the moment we choice to give form to our days, in giving sense to what we live, in returning to what we experience through memory and or selfexplicitations as we realize to interpret and elucidate the sense of the experienced and the ways to relate it with our nexts activities and choosing, to that everything that phenomenologically increase our impressions, our gaze, environments and spaces is presented to experience as an enveloped worlds including the pragmatics of everyday life and intersubjectivity plenty of hermeneutics

In a few words, hermeneutic become internal to our practice, the practice of everyday life supposes in the succession of activities the modes how through hermeneutics we discern and plot the intramundane horizont, what we are doing now, what we will be doing later, what relates one activity to another one, our ends, etc, all that is full of hermeneutic elucidations internally and participates as forms of given sense in the pragmatiques of life

Besides that, intersubjective communications are of major importance in that which define the intramundane horizont. The first concept that appear as decisive at the intramundane level with it ritual repetitive nature is my concept I would like to propose here of share spectations horizonts. To understand share spectations horizonts we need to understand that enunciations as forms of communication seen from the pragmatiques of daily life can’t be isolated or set aside as forms of discourse or separated from that pragmatiques as forms of the messages, the text or a discourse, we are not speaking here of language understand as an emission of a communication acquire a form of the phrase or a sentence written or speech, neither teletransmited about which those who exchange enunciates are emisors and receptors, differently to this semiotic comprehension of communication subordinated the pragmatic of communication to the pragmatique of information and overall of the transmitted text to be considered by its own structure is out of play here, in the pragmatiques of everyday life the enunciations at intersubjective communications level are modes of explicitation and intelligibility

Pertinence as what give structure to common sense in the enveloped folded nature of life world leads here to choice, selected as well as discard what forms of enuntiations corresponde adequatly to the enveloped nature of the worlds of life establishing the separation of that which belong to the phenomenology and hermeneutic of the worlds of life that which give stability and continuity to pragmatics logics under the ordinary becomings and as what prepare how under intersubjective relations share spectations horizonts are arranged projecting its nexts. The nexts are here forms of the immediacy, we all know the relation between pragmatism and contingency, the pragmatics of daily life are inmediacies contigents to life world

As example let consider a teletransmited message, this message might be of course copy, cutted and pasted in a file as well as analyzed as phrase by its discourse autonomy, but this analysis is impertinent to what an email is in terms of the life world pertinence exchanges of enunciated at intramundane conditions. The same must be sustained about a phone call, we might take distance and assure of it observing it as a form of text and discourse, we may even record it and print it as to be read an analyzed but such a behavior and distance is impertinent to what a phone call mean to those who exchange phones enuntiations within the intramundane horizont, it is separations and isolation of discourse as text seldom and rare which is nothing as belonging or pertain to what sound enuntiations means under the forms to make sense of it as explicitations and elucidations of sense between mundane ordinary speakings, all that is being say under phone dialogues is evolved and enveloped within phenomenological and hermeneutical forms of live contingencies, experiences and practices ruled by elucidating and explicating sense, doing so in fact is a lack of sense, a form to lost the sense enuntiations have under such a phenomenological and hermeneutical situation, let note that the relation here is not between and interpretation and a text, but hermeneutical at the ontological level of sense elucidation, something is being elucidated so as to make it explicit the exchange of enuntiations and as to stablish the contingency of the nexts pragmatiques

This is not a way to say the elucidations of sense scape from more or less levels of acertivity, but if a form of enunciation is not explicit in life world from the moment it is not making sense, the entrance to be a part of the share spectations horizonts is discarded, share spectations horizonts results from enunciative explicitations and interpretative arranges as it defined what must be included and be successive in the pragmatics of the life world

Only there and when interpretative arranges arises and source from intelligible explicitations are stablished and projects as its result share spectations horizonts, the practical relation between enunciations of explicitations and life world stablishes the nexts of the immediacies determining what will be successive and continuity to be part in life world

Obviously not everything stays to be successive in the worlds of life, the non-explicit modes of enunciation are discarded by the relation itself between sense and pragmatics of life world. The senses of enunciations in the intersubjective pragmatics of life world are necessarily intelligible explicitations, if it is not adequate to the principles of mutual explicitations and if share spectations horizonts are not the results of it as belonging to hermeneutic arranges, it is discarded and excluded from life world, with great facility and easily a form of enunciation is excluded from the pragmatics of daily life world.

I might be excluded and discarded because it demand a mode of relation to the enunciations inadequate to the pragmatics life world suppose temporality and spatially or it may be excluded because it is isolated in an universe inadequate to the practical dimension of life world pragmatics, this pragmatics are mainly the consequences of interpretative arranges around which share spectations horizonts source and both since belong at the same time as result of explicitations and elucidations of senses at the level of enunciations

A world of life is a continuum alive present, a discrete and measurable universe of wordless sense constrained by phenomenological impressions to the body, sensations and subjectivity, the so-called discussed above principles to which the idea itself of a world belong and the mix with it of hermeneutic at the ontological level of the making of sense of experience to us both alones in our monologues leads the nexts of our practices of sense as well as under intersubjective forms of communication

Under the enveloped nature of the worlds of life enunciations and phrases are nothing else but intelligible explicitations, each enunciation is oriented since it source and arise, since it take shape and form, from mutual explicitations, mutuality is here constitutive of the order of the enunciative modes, in fact, the intramundane horizonts is nothing else than the result of both alones forms of mologues from which we made sense of our own experiences toward the nexts by which we reorder daily our ends, and the result of intersubjective forms of mutual explicitations. The intramunane horizont is in a few words a conjunction of arranges of senses and meanings, interpretative and hermeneutical arranges which results from self-explicitations of experience elucidations of sense, and or from mutual explicitations between speakers enunciations exchanges based in elucidations of sense, share spectations horizonts are thus the hermeneutic form of the intramundane horizont both individually and intersubjetibly

Share spectations horizonts are indeed open forms of understanding established around mutual explicitations which creates intramundane spectatives of pragmatic continuity and stability to the life world nexts and successions

We say that share spectations horizonts are open forms of understanding because because nothing as a closed meaning must be guaranty at the interpretative level, is speaker or reflexive subject is always on his own side making his own sense to both experience and enunciations, nothing as to control the openness of each one interpretation might be guaranty, but at the same time, nothing as a pragmatic of practical endeavors of communication as clear as to decide the nexts and successions of our own activities alones or accompany might be sustained if beyond having at hand more or less closed ways of meanings experience, something as the making of sense by elucidating experience and other enunciations is not in a decisive play, in fact, the pragmatic itself is the result and belong to mutual explicitations as explicitation is the consequence of sense elucidation

In this sense we say open as a way to say letting it go under the horizont of upcoming communications as communications are itself articulated pragmatically in the life world, interpretative arranges are not final meanings, but arranges as the word suggest it, arranges of elucidations of sense and explicitations results and as such modes of adecuation, the rationality of communication is contingent to life world, this is not as needed a consensus, beyond consensus, all indeed truly needed are hermeneutical arranges and share spectations horizonts

If an interpretation is not adequate to the relations of mutual explicitation sake share spectations horizonts with its intersubjective arranges as open forms of understanding it is enclosed from the nexts in the life pragmatics

This exclusion of course is made by the monad which is what phenomneologically confirm a whole to the body impression, sense of inside and outside and to subjectivity. Share spectations horionts replace here consensus, noting as consensus is needed here around something but simply hermeneutic arranges resulting from mutual explicitations as to set in perspective the spectative horizonts around which explicitations and eludidations endowed the senses of the intramundane horizont. As discussed above this is not about consensus between forms of enuntiation according to what the enunciations say but about the consensus on communicative rationality as the form of relation

Beyond even that in the enveloped folded phenomenological and hermeneutic nature of life world, explicitations in the intramundane horizont stablish relations to the practical order which seldom and not always indeed are discerned around the contents of the said and enunciations but instead around what relates such enunciations with the practical dimension

The open dimension of understanding stablishes here intramundane hermeneutical relations parts of the life world received and welcome by life world and projected under it the next and decurse of sucesive activities. The motivations of the participants, of those who exchange and of speakers, entail with the open dimension of understanding as result of mutual explicitations of the enunciative modes, the relation between motivations and adecuations replace the relation between interpretantions and texts, hermeneutic as what indeed endowed sense set in perspective intramundane horizonts of spectatives this horizonts are hermeneuticals itself as narrow related with life worlds in its both forms, phenomenological and hermenuetical

Bibliography

Habermas Junger, The Theory of Communicative Action 1 and 2, First Manuscript Version, The Library of the University of Visual Art Armando Reveron, Caracas

Habermas Junger, The Problem of Comprehension in Social Sciences, Volume 1-Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, Beacon Press.

Habermas Junger, La Problemática de la Comprensión en Ciencias Sociales, Pp, 144-196, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa I y II, Taurus

Schütz Alfred, El Conocimiento en los Mundos de la Vida Cotidiana, edited by Schutz wife Ilse Heim with Thomas Luckmann

Sobreordination in Every Day Life

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Must we sustain the existence of sobreordination in the worlds of life?, this question is sufficient to start discussing the issue.

Because of the worldlees immediacy and mundane decurse of life world it looks to be that sobreordinations are the opposite of life world, one might even think that the entrance in the field of sobreordinations is already a way to exit worlds of life and certainly there is an extra poled dimension in a first instance between both concepts, a world of life defined by the pragmatics of daily life, the arts of living and quotidian activities both of free time and of working time, supposes a contingency between pragmatism and decursive happenings that seems to be empty of any sobreordination

To seize the less form of sobreordination in life world toward the more pragmatic senses of the mundane and the practice of everyday life I will write on Anglo-Saxon pragmatism but in this occasion I have realized necessary to discuss the issue of the relation between life worlds and sobreordination not by other reason than because there is indeed sobreordination in the worlds of life and it play an important place under it

In a few words before analyzing the issue in question I consider necessary to offer a revisitation to main concepts establishes the worlds of life in phenomenological sociology.

This revisitation is needed here not because the analysis of sobreordination depends on it, but because if we pay attention this main concepts are not referred themselves to any kind of sobreordinations, in fact, as the concepts which stablish the main structures and taking shape of life world in a sense phenomenological and transcendental, all about it concern with immediacy levels and as such nothing as sobreordination appears on it, however, in the reverse sense, as we will seen sobreordinations take place necessarily around and among also this main concepts.

One of the objectives of this essay beside to abound on sobreordination is to analyze in what modes sobreordination is related and intersected among this transcendental phenomenological concepts. The main concepts of phenomenological sociology stablishes as an axis of relations defined by a main pair and a constellations of related concepts in between such as follow

Common sense and world of life

The concepts constellated around this main pair are

Experience

Acervo

Tipification

pertinence

significativity or meaningfulness

Experience is well known by all of us. Practically nothing in existence under life world must be sustained without requiring and be crossed through from one extreme to the another by experience. Neither as a domain scape from experience, under language abstractions, under communication, under said things, under interpretation, under living in the city, at the internet, within medias, in the computer, museums, the daily practice of mundane things, travels, people we meet, under job, memorizing, remembering, nothing space from experience

Experience is the more important transcendental concept in the history of science, it encompass all reality, world, universes, an immediate past become experience, even when experienced as full of surprises, a present being alive is itself experience, all that happen become experience, the concept of experience overline that all we have experimented is more than observing as an external testifying, but that reality itself and a world is something happening to us and that as such nothing of that must have cohesion, ontological consistency and sense to us without becoming experience, experience is a concept contrary to the distinction between a world of observation and an observed world about which the subject is not belonging in a participative mode, nothing as not belonging is possible under experience, a cold distance is excluded from it, it over line that we are affected and permeated by all we live and that we are a part of it as much that we are not passive observers

From the moment we live a world we experiment it and its experimentation suppose itself an experimental phenomena to us as to the world, this concept of experimentation is feel under experience and experience shelter it, in fact, the transcendental dimension of experience is evolved in the fact that it transform the experimented in something internal to us and as one with ourselves, and as such is transcendental sense of experimentation at such a phenomenological, level thus what have occurred in the world have occurred to us so becoming relevant as something that impact and permeates us transforming our life, nothing is a innocuous distance is considered here

We use to say the experience I had with the accent on an experience which was to a certain point autonomous as saying but you can also have the experience if you do what you must do to experience it. We say something also the experience was incredible, besides on the other side we said, that is not my experience, my experience consists on this or that, or we must say I recognize that you have a great experience on something, a moment to focus not as much on experience and falls out, experience and world or reality, experience and liveness, but on experience and acervo, experience and accumulation as a learned knowledge

Experience may also and frequently be about the life of the person and define even the person as a whole as saying my or your experience of life so as becoming what shelter and embrace knowledge, reazon, intelligence, intellect, so that experience encompass all we cumulate including memory too

We comprehend the experience of life in that form as when saying he or she experienced his twenties, the one who is in his thirties have the experience of the twenties while not in reverse, so as to say you are in your twenties and I am in my forties

The experience of the individuals of course is different according also to the exclusive circumstances of single unique life’s, each one had experience, read, and knowledge something different to another one, but what is importance to be overlined about experience is that both space and time are transcendental under it

We have experience to the right now in the continuum present of the life world, we have experience of an immediate past as well as of a longer past while the new to come is yet not a part of experience but experience is major in the ways we will live it, all we will read, all we will know such as new persons, all we will speak in dialogues, all we will seen films, all we will organize as our ends to free time as to work time will be under experience, it participates in our reflexive activity, in memorizing and reconstructing in expressing and interpreting and is weaves under the quotidian pragmatiques in what we decide or choice to do now or in few hours, today or tomorrow, this week or the next one

Experience is also related indeed with preventive and asertoric dimensions since, all we know is known with experience and as such also what is new and a surprise will be evaluated by experience

If we are in front of several options when everything to be choice is new only our experience prevents us of the way to be taken, it decides in us the way we will choice, we must follow it.

Beside that a question about the new and unexpected merge: How to do when everything is completely new, must be learn and we don’t have yet an experience of it

Well, at this point, undoubly as soon as something new is already know it become an experience but before knowing it if that is completely new pertinence replace experience, another of the transcendental phenomenological concepts goes to the fore front, if something is fully new to our apprehension, for example, a travel to a place know by us before, when learning must be obligated to deal with novelty, a new book to be read, a new person to meet, pertinence and meaningfulness replace experience and goes to the forefront

When something is new to experience pertinence shelter it, through discerns of pertinence the learner guaranty to relate what he know with the unknown to be known and as such realize preventable and in an asertoric mode, to be open to know what is pertinent, step by step which mean nothing than pertinence by pertinence the learner realize to advance, it tell him or her the way to take, the addressing and the towards so as to be open each time and again and again to the next step, a level of risks is valuated from pertinences, nothing as going a way out of pertinence will be done

We has sited here examples in which everything is new as in a travel to a new village, city, country, culture, or place, but we don’t need to go so far as to experience the appears of novelty in our own immediacy, in fact, no longer considering extremely new things, but looking to our daily well known universe over there we also have constantly forms of novelty and news, we usually don’t know what a well-known person will ever tell us, we must be open to constant surprises about what others are going to tell us and as such the different concepts of phenomenological sociology alternates in between ever in our mundane surroundings

For example, when novelty is extreme tipification goes almost to the level of zero because nothing is already pre-typified but when something is well known but new things arrive, tipifically majorly participate in encompassing the previously typify with the level of pertinences need to deal with the new to be learn and incorporated

We don’t know what a person will say but we had typified what must pertinently be say in certain previously known situations, under pertinent situations the possibility of novelty is reduced by tipification, we don’t know exactly what will be say but we know the kinds according to the situations

We must remember that in phenomenological sociology the main pair is world of life and common sense and that a such the other concepts are subordinated and constellated to it, we must also remember that the main objective to us in this sociology is to know how we know

When we think on experience we have the impression that experience and acervos are the same and without doubt acervos belong to experience in a first instance and level but a level indeed very general, experience in fact is more general that acervo and this last one must be considered instead as an specialized and focused area derived from experience but which acquire and independence from it, both related with accumulation and memory, but we can’t obtain by only experience what we might with acervo around a variety of things

Experience is not sufficient to comprehend the whole dominion formed by modes of cumulated experience, when experience is cumulated something new arises from it, will be better to say not exactly new but complex and enriched to levels that an specialized new forms of phenomenological elucidation start to be need, this is the source of acervo and its sake, learned knowledge, lived experiences turned to acervos participates then in the interpretative activity, hermeneutic, elucidatory and relative to our comprehension of the world, of reality, of cities, of cultures, of backgrounds, of other persons, of society, of art

The concept of acervo we must say that is defined as an specialized area which turn to be a concept itself in the phenomenology of transcendental concepts in life world. It is especially obvious within interpretative activities, in the hermeneutics meaning when we turn to phenomena’s needed of compression, as soon as we move our attention beyond accumulation as something passive to instead called the active form of that background in elucidations, interpreting and we ask ourselves about conditions of comprehension acervo goes to the Forefront and replace experience. I have already discussed some examples of acervos at the cultural and social level of subjects in communication in my essay between acervos and backgrounds such as refreshing it in memory, a communication between two persons who have a different or the same acervo about a city, one who know it, one who was never there, or two how share the similarity of acervo around the same city, culture, idiom, dialects, idiolects, languages an so on, someone who have the acervo of a certain form of art someone who know, someone who have the acervo of fashion in one culture someone who don’t know it and how all that is reflected in the forms of interpreting, calling aspects of the acervo to elucidate or understand, or understand what other is speaking about, someone who usually read fiction have a different acervo to another one who read philosophy all the time while not fiction, etc, etc

In everyday life situations under the life world acervo is thus major to understand the hermeneutics of elucidation, understanding and comprehension of both the already know as well as the unknown

We have not yet defined what significance or meaningfulness is and why are we here speaking on significativizations or meaningfulness instead than on significations or meanings, the concept of significativization or meaningfulness is of a great importance in phenomenological sociology it overlines that something is making sense to us and from the moment if makes sense to us become significative and meaningfulness

It overlines again placing us between common sense and life world between day and nights how the things some others said to us make sense to us or we make sense of it, how we make sense of experience, of what we experiences and live. On the other side this concept overlines not only the mere making sense of it, but also how we significativize things, meaning, how something become significant to us, we design with significativity an endowed activity of elucidation of sense through which something become significant to us

The concept of signification and of meaning on the contrary fix the sense as the content of a form considered and seen by its discursive and textual autonomy. The concept significativity and of meaningfulness is the opposite of fixation or attribution of meaning to a form as it is usually set aside and separed within signs, discourses, texts, visual and sound signs

We speak on significativity and meaningfulness since in the quotidian words the idea of signification and of meanings is disseminated and dispersed, in the worlds of quotidian life que major and prevalence quit is about set in relations, meaningfulness and significativity replace and substitute meanings and significations

In the life world quotidian universe things make sense to us or not, we endowed and give sense or not, things are intelligible explicitationes oriented to understanding in relation with the life decurse of are discarded, this process by which things made sense to us define what we choice as significant and as such the activity by which we endowed senses as discoursed before at the intramundane horizont is the activity that made the plentynness of sense defines and explain the intramundane nature of the quotidian world of life, intramunanity in fact as a nature of the life world is not something coming from the sky, it is weaved and configured by elucidation and explicitation around experience and enough as the source and sake of significativity and meaningfulness

The concepts of phenomenological sociology are transcendental because of the alive present, because world of life itself is transcendental

We must then ask under it on the sense of typifications

Tipification is a concept of great stability to the worlds of life, a typified world is an accepted world. A typified world is a known world by its repetitions, tipification as pertinence which give structure to the common sense, participate in the stability and continuity of common sense.

By this motive, the relation between tipification and repetition stablishes was is typical, it serves to define the quotidian offering to experience patters and standards, patrons and esquemas, for example, it is typical that a sir who bring the newspaper to houses access home earlier in the morning with bicycle letting it at the external post mail box near to the garden in Houston, san Francisco and new York, but it is not typical that this man proclaim with his voice the arrival of the new paper as in an out market saying the merchants prizes as news, at least not in this tree cities, while it might be typical the proclaim of it in such a form described above in Monterrey Mexico and Caracas, if a new paper man proclaim in that form with his voice the newspaper arrival in Houston, new York or san Francisco it is something absolutely unexpected, a surprise, some untypical, out of tipification and if later hi call to the door asking coffee that is more yet a complete novelty thus that in such a case pertinence fully replace tipification as tipification is not explaining the unexpected behavior

It is not pertinent to hear someone calling my door and at opening it to find there an harlequin doing body gestures without using the voice, if someone is calling my door it must probably be a neighbor, an evangelist to proclaim the bible or some unexpected friend visiting, but if the unexpected harlequin explain to me that he his collecting money donations to a circus activity which will be play a block from there or to a cultural activity nearly, I may probably consider pertinent to offer a coffee to him

A first form of sobreordination in life world might be identified by telling a story on experience, the narrative activity by which someone narrate to others quotidian things, this form of sobreordination that can also be recognize within fiction through film and literature, is a part of daily life subjects in a mundane environment, people usually tell stories about simply what they saw, listen or experience during their days, weeks, months or even on past experiences, people also repeat the experience in several form by simultaneously telling it to others, the usual case today with the new medias technologies such as the internet, electronic mail boxes and what’s app and other programs is about narrating the day, week or choice and selected thing from life to others such as Friends, family members or a girl friend something that use to substitute the ancient roll of paper letters sended to others with handmade writing calligraphies

The phone is yet used to tell stories of daily life and certain television programs are yet dedicated to it, narrating a travel for example

All this are forms of sobreordination by which I mean that something is experienced again in another level far to the immediacy level it was experienced at the intramundane horizont, this is now experience through memory as a remembering in language.

Sometimes a story is narrate to someone who also experience it so as creating a single expressive version on it since another one must narrate it according to another impressions, perceptions and interpretation and many of the times it is narrated to someone who never experience is a case in which the intermediation big, something experienced in being intermediated in language beyond the people who participated in it

Sobreordinations are also frequents since people made plants toward their end during the week, the month or the year anticipating the steps to follow as well as usual by the effect of recalling what was experience alones with themselves as in monologue as a way to reflect and obtain conclusions on experience within reflectivity and self-analysis

But what is indeed amazing i show the phenomenological transcedental concepts of life world immediacy and intramundane horizonts continue to be majors at the sobreordinated level, in fact, tipifications, pertinence, acervo, experience and significativity continue regulating, ruling and having effects at the sobreordinated level in a form we must define as an overadded dimensión

The overadded dimension is nothing else but a repetition that start since telling a story that tis being superposed to the immediacy level of the intramundane, a new order of add language developed from another stratus which is not yet the former one of simply experiencing it.

Why and how are the phenomenological main concepts of life world still working at the sobreordinated level if such concepts are immediately related ontologically to the immediacy

This question which looks to be very simple leads us to remember the Hegel distinctions between worlds itself and a putted world, according to Hegel something is it self but something is additionally not as itself as the former one but putted over it as another dimension, Hegel defined the first dimension as in mediation and the second as mediation but indeed what truly happen is that the second level defined as mediation is also mediated, in fact, Hegel explained that that which seems to be a putted form of world such as for example according to him reflection is not a first kind of pure world of a being which is, but a reflected putted one, there is in between what is itself and what is putted over it a kind of dialectique, world itself seems mediated all forms of putted world later transforming it in a world itself and in reverse, several form of putted worlds mediates under itself forms of worlds itself, this Hegelian distinctions are major here to understand why concepts as experience, tipification, acervos, pertinence and significativity are a first level part of the world itself, the immediacy of the intramundane horizont but later it also works in a putted level, the one of added forms of sobreordinated languages were things are not experienced as for the first time, but as repetitions, reflections or added languages superposed to the first immediacy ones

This philosophical reflection on ontology leads us to conclude that we must study forms by which both levels are intersected or working one among the other, in telling a story the stratus of the language which tell the history seems to be constituted by a nature independent and set aside from the immediacy level of the former experienced, but if we pay attention we must find also forms of superposition’s, for example, in a dialogue about a dialogue

In instead of having a dialogue on a theme or an issue external nothing related with the dialogue itself, we have the sense of two orders, the language order from which the dialogue take shape in language and the referential level of the topic considered as something outside that dialogue, but if we sustain a dialogue whose content must be the dialogue itself, the movement and sequence of the current and present dialogue that is taking place since the content is the dialogue itself appear to be taking decurse at the same time the dialogue take shape, so that there is not the language stratuss of speaking and another think external to it about the speaking refer, but the referent of the dialogue as its topic seem to decurse together with the dialogue forms, since this moment we immediately perceive how the immediacy level of the happening time of the intramundane horizont take shape at the same level of the suposed to be sobreordinated and as such we have a tautology in which two planes are decursing simultaneously

Gregory Bateson explored this kind of paradoxes within some of his metalogues while his accent was more mistic than focused in linguistic issues as we are tempting and attaining to discuss here but at the end in any case recognizsing the same principle, he and some of his critics and admirers such as edgar moran defined it as buckle and certainly there is a kind of buckle something kristeva recognized as linguistically well based and supported

Well defined as tautology or as buckle, I prefer tautology, the true is that we have examples clearly illustrates how the immediacy and the sobreordinated can take shape simultaneously

A dialogue on a film that we are perceiving at the same time it is being taking shape in front of us from frame to frame and from cut of cinema to cuts of cinema, is another example of it so to speak

Bibliography

Habermas Junger, The Theory of Communicative Action 1 and 2, First Manuscript Version, The Library of the University of Visual Art Armando Reveron, Caracas

Habermas Junger, The Problem of Comprehension in Social Sciences, The Theory of Communicative action, Boston, Beacon Press.

Habermas Junger, La Problemática de la Comprensión en Ciencias Sociales, Pp, 144-196, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa I y II, Taurus

Schütz Alfred, El Conocimiento en los Mundos de la Vida Cotidiana, edited by Schutz wife Ilse Heim with Thomas Luckmann

An analysis of transcultural redundancies

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written in english and translated to english

by abdel hernandez san juan

This essay propose to discuss the non-coincidence or the non-repetitive nature of a repetition which is not yet repetition the sense of a full coincidence with what is supposed to be repited, something I have defined as non-repetitive repetitions or non identitary repetitions

This principle belong to classical questions very abstracts on languge and reality, simbolization and world, sensible multiplicities or pregiven worlds and perceptions, reflects and representations but must evolve also sociological and empirical issues to the análisis of certain economic, linguistic and cultural formations of subjectivity and sensibility, from mass medias and telecomunications, to modernity, technology, consume, markets as to a variety of phenomenas as the one I will focuss this time, the analisis of what I would like to define as transcultural redundancies

Specifically, i am committed here to discuss something i have discussed previously but while focusing museographic representations or about relations between visual medias and culture, this time i will focus and analyses culture immediacies issue instead of culture mediated by representations between audiences and publics, moreover, I am making reference here again to the relation between the united states and Mexico culturally.

This cultural relation as I set aside it among other books, is nothing far to my own cultural formation before well must be understand as the axis of my experience of cultural transformation as emigrant in the united states, the relation between the Texas culture in terms of sensibility and subjectivity and the mexican culture under it meaning as feel as sometimes reified from anglosaxon Texan constrictions, thus as well as and on the other side, the Texan usa culture as feel and sometimes reified inside Mexican sensibility and subjetivity, so as an issue of cultural identity formations in one culture inside another which is itself a transculturation phenomena.

My experience in this sense is developed from a united states perspective since I meet mexico from usa and since I know mexicanicity as inclusive to Texan culture, while not as much completely unconnected with a Mexican perspective since on the one hand I visited monterrey one months and some other Mexican villages such as new leon and san luis of potosi and since my own sister emigrated to Mexico and her douthers born in Mexico

The issue in question is as follow

I sustain that contemporary Mexican culture is itself transcultural, I understand by transculturarion here the relation between, on the one hand, the north culture of mexico and the south of usa intersection, on the other, the migrant Hispanic culture from Europe defined the main process of transculturation generated what Mexico is as a new western culture and the relation between such a urban, modern, contemporary culture and Mexican traditions of Amerindian composition since the aztecas, mayas and their current communities, all this three elements of contemporary mexico experienced a mixation, a creolization and more over a full transculturation from which the new mexican culture take shape, contemporary mexico in fact is a new culture resulted from such a transcultural transformation

So that mexico itself have nothing to do with the memory of the previous elements later mixed, but with the fusión of it to something new. In this process of transculturation mexico evolutioned to be new transcultural identities and the formation of a new self in respect to the past

Now well, the contemporary dinamics of Mexican culture is also permeated by a new and more recent processes of transnationalization which started with economy and finantial markets but which expressed also in consume and tourism is evolving new forms of interculturality, a new process of transculturation which is not idem to the previous former one already dicussed but a new one with new characteristics started since at least in a sustained form the eighties

Such a new transcultural process is related with the translationalization of economy and of finantial markets iniciated during the eighties and intensified during the nineties started to have consequences beyond economy and consume, positibly affecting the formation of new cultural processes or new dinamics of cultural formations of the self under each individual.

This dinamics of new transculturations related with the translationalization of economy and of finantial markets is at the same time new and older, it must be recognized as olders in the sense that whithout the former already discussed transculturation defined mexico as a new transcultural formation the new started transculturation is imposible to be figured out and it is new since while being to a certain level a redundancy of transculturation over the former one in terms of Mexicans feelings and experience with transculturations, it is evolving the new processes of intercultural learnings and of cultural identity formations

So we are speaking on two transculturations, a first one related with the source of etnological earlier composition of large date gazing it from today to the traditional ancestors in its three directions, the migrant hispanic culture, the border with usa culture and the traditional Amerindian culture and another one transculturation of a short data, sincronic and current instead of diachronic, recent to a certain point, refered to new transcultural process resulting from the interculturality evolved within the new forms of markets, tourism and consume.

The second transculturation is thus in this sense a repetition of the former one as a subsequent or further derived from it next one level but it is not already yet the former one, we must even say that its is and it is not the former at the same time, because without the former the current is imposible to be experience as expressed above, but the further already current is a non repetitive repetition since while based in the former one is already evolving the formation of new cultural processes derived from intercultural learning, it is thus yet non identitary or non repetitive in all its senses as brings within it the formation of new identities and new forms of the self to the individuals.

The main basis of my analisis is founded on the principle that the main elements define cultural reproduccion are langue, education and sexuality, but I also think that economy, markets, tourism and consume play an importance on it since sometimes it may even sign the process through which tradition must survive and be reproduced

At the same time I am interested to discuss another modality of my concept of transcultural redundancies, a concept derived from my previous concept of non repetitive repetitions, since I have experienced that a similar phenomena of redundancies must be sustain with another specificities at the level of texas culture now seen from the united states and as a united states endogenous own phenomena.

As I discussed it already in another papers I consider the resonances of mexican culture inside the south border culture of the united states cultural identity pivotals, this echoes and resonances however are understanded only by united states people living near to the borders and seen from the anglosazon side, meaning, as expressed under and inside texas sensibility and subjectivity, it is in the food, in music and within several expresions of material and inmaterial Texan culture, of course, such resonances and echoes of certain aspects or elements of mexican culture are far to be Mexican culture itself since it is as ever in transculturation something new evolving the mix of several cultural heritages and legacies of the american both migrations and land culture, but my point of focuss is about to sustain that sush a usa Texan transculturation is itself again a non repetitive repetition, it is on the one hand, a repetition of previous texas transculturations while non repetitive so as evolving new cultural and identitary formations of the self

Now my focuss in this paper is not as much on the usa transcultural own process inside united states culture something I discussed more focused within previous books, but this time I am interested in focusing and discussing the definition of a kind of anthropology which is defined in itself as transcultural being made by overall united states anthropologists in mexico and within the binational space of both cultures interactions.

The reason to focuss the implication of the concept of transculturation within a practice of anthropology as such is because first I participated my self in the theoretization and defining of that anthropology since its first form during my theoretical dialogues with quetzil eugenio, and second because I am myself evolved in the practice of it from the united states since I have participated in several of this practices from Illinois and Houston, while also florida

Also because my perspective on mexico is higly defined from usa in both senses acoording to my participation in this practices and more simply acoording to my own cultural experience of self-cultural transformation as an emigrant in texas meaning as texas become by a longer time the cultural site from which everything about my own subjectivity, sensibility and identity transformations taked shape in quotidian life.

This is about the transcultural consequences derived from intercultural and multietnic communication happens within practices of anthropology evolving mexican-maya artesans, mexican profesionals of tourism, entertainment, museum and archaeology and practices of anthropology developed under projects in both sides with finantial support from the united states and mexico as binational efforts through usa universities and sometimes regional spaces, meaning, mexico locals from which the concept of transculturation is refered not a much on an inmediacy cultural issue but defined around questions about the nature of such anthropology itself as a kind of practice

In this sense concepts such as for example one of cultural contact is out of date and unesefull, this concept, in fact is ussualy refered in anthropology to a remote archaic and ancient time containing the memories of the first cultural contacts between White migrants evolved in the colonial time and autoctonous, pre-colonial amerindidas populations of the land, whence we are in this case very far and outside of that precolonial kind of first contact interactions, the mexicans, and the mayas who are evolved within this practices are already transculturated subjectivies and identities derived from the transformation of mexico as a new transcultural formation of identities and the self and as such subjectivities who experienced the two redundancy of transculturation already discussed, in this sense, the additional concept of transculturation defining the practice of anthropology in case are to them without doubht and out of discussion a form of transcultural redundancy of the thrist grade

At the same time it is enoght interesting the fact that simultaneuslly such a practice means also a transcultural redundancy to the united states American anthropologist evolved in it. Indeed, starting from considering my previous analisis on how mexico or aspects of Mexican culture are echoes and resonences inside united states culture as something experienced in subjectivity from the usa American side as a redundancy inside transcultural processed defined usa identity, it is higly easy to recognize how to anthropologist as such both youngers such as students and a mid age, such as those with who I theorized and discussed the foundation of this anthropology –quetzil, lisa, logan, Martinez, Seligman, etc—the concept of transculturation used to define this anthropology practices as transcultural etnography is itself evolving redundancies to their own identity formations now redoubled within what quetzal define as double sensations, as seomthing about the nature of that anthropology it self

Seen from this perspective nothing as recalling the concept of cultural contact seem to be of pertinence here, instead of that, what looks to be pivotal within this anthropology is the way it is calling to the forefront as a kind of to use my own concept –lab of performativity and anthropology---experimental conditions to explore mutietnic learnings and intercultural learnings between several redundant levels, layers and stratuses of transculturality since indeed we must recognize relevant levels of cultural differences in between such layers, this is then more an issue of cultural translation than one about cultural contact, nothing as the idea of as a first time cultural contact is here in play.

This is nothing like with the mexican.mayas of tourism profesionals, of archeology museum profesionals and of the Archaeological parks and community vendors and artists, being in contact with pre-colonial identities, all the contrary, it is about Mexican.mayas who experienced the large data process of transculturation defined mexico as a new cultural formation and about the new transcultural identities mergin from the transnationalization of economy, tourism and finantial markets of short datas, people to who this transcultural anthropology means a redundancy on what them already experienced and know, while, of course, evolving too the process of transcultural redundancies experienced by usa anthropologists certainly new and unknow to this Mexican-mayas and mayas-mexicans but not without considering that since such an anthropology is focused on how the institutions of archaeology are itself producing images of cultural memories and the tourism market having impact on the ways to self revisit the past and guaranty the cultural reproduction of tradition, between other issues focused by this anthropology, it stablishes itself as a site of multiethnic and intercultural learning on both sides ways to discuss the formations of the self

In a few words, as much as this secound transculturation that made posible this anthropology meaning a current, sincronic and contigent transcutltural formation entail with tourism and transnational markets, presupose forms of intercultural communication and mutietnic learnings, this is nothing else than a non repetitive repetion to both, anthropologists from usa and mexican-mayas from mexico, on both cases, the second contigente and current transculturation presuppose the former data longer one on both sides, united states and mexico thus as to be as current interaction non repetitive, it is one the one hand a repetition of previous former transculturation and it is not at the same time a repetition since it is evolving the interaction between new forms of subjectivity within a practice of anthropology contrained by objective forms of existence that include united states universities, binational finantiation and Mexican local supports

Without doubht process of translation of cultural differences are contigent to this interactions since we have inscriptions of many kinds on both sides, the inscriptions that the mexican-mayas and mayas-mexicans have on the way the have mean and tipify former practices of anthropology with similar characteristics in its differences with local practices of anthropology developed by mexican and mayas on thenselves as well as the inscriptions this local practices of mexican-mayas anthropology have on their own, all this need cultural translation

What we are discussing about here is my concept of stratus now defined as an stratifications to be analised and discussed on the concept of transculuration an skein needed to be untailed

On the one side we cant discuss this practices of anthropology without taking in consideration the discussed above, the fact that mexican culture is not extranger or exogenous to united states culture, meaning, the fact that all united state person, overall poeple from south área near to mexico, experience in our own cultural identity transculturla processes of that regions in which mexican culture is a important component participated in that transculturations, meaning that in a first level of stratification we must recongnize that we as united states people including usa natives bring in our own cultural identities the inscription of what mexican culture mean inside that identity

Now well, this is not a way to mean missregarding cultural differences between for example, the sense of it by united states people from the south of texas and a Mexican, differences are there too

On the other side, if we speaks of an anthropology in which we recognize us as transculturals, meaning, were subjectivity is not arriving as a preestablished cultural conformation which stay equal after that, but were we accept as anthropologists that our own cultural identity and our own self is culturaly transformed as result of intercultural and multiethnic learning and permeability, we might thus say that we are speaking on a modality of anthropology in which we have two stratuses of transculturation from the united states point of view, the former one we bring with us in respect to mexico inside united states culture and the another one intensified with the inmersion in the Mexican-maya cultural reality and as such the anthropological practice must recognize itself sited within the intercultural learning that transculturation evolve considering here the concept no as focuss in transculturation in culture but in transculturation of anthropology, in the possibility to speak of an anthropology transcultural itself

However, at the same time we must rexognize that in defining such anthropology that it is not extrange or exogenous also to the processes of transculturations experienced by Mexicans in both sense the large date one and the short data recent one contigent to economy transnationalization and its intercultural consequences and that as such it is also a transcultural redundancy to Mexicans, something that cames to name something the Mexican already lived and know, something that was already in Mexican culture too

The former is not a way to meaning unrecognizing that the interactions resulting from mutual multiethnic learnings derived from the unfolding of this modes of anthropology spatialization and development, have empirical consequences natural to its own consistency as a professional practice, it have a lot of empiricial consequences in the modality of anthropology both theory and practice

This concept of transcultural redundancies I have proposed have the objective and purposivennes to do a near as possible the sensations on what we are speaking about on both sides and as such mean a way to advance the major play of cultural translation around and under this practices a level of cultural translation that goes beyond the literal transltion of idioms between English, Spanish and maya while of course presupposing it too

An example of this cultural translation is started by setting aside the concept of cultural contact, we must in fact choice in this case between avoiding that concept or we must commit ourselves to replace its meaning by redefining it semantically as to be far to its original meanings in anthropology, we need in fact a metatheoretical anthropology to commit our selve with such new levels of stratification as to translate several dimesions of transculturations redundant in between as forms of non repetitive repetitions or repetitions without identity

The richennes and plenty sense of this anthropology to us from the united states is out of discussion but we must also value the sense of it to Mexicans and mayas and in that sense I think that the benefits are out of discussion too

Specifically on this regard I think that if we pay attention to the situation by longer time cumulated with local and national anthropology on this same issue, meaning forms of anthropology practices by Mexicans from mexico on the same issues, we will observ that as much as we must recognize that Mexican and maya anthropologist have in advance and as vintage to have an inside on this issues at the same time, local and national anthropology are higly limited, contricted, contrained and unriched, by many stereotipes and clichés on the issue and theme clearly produced by the exceded level of institutionalization the issue have receibed in a canonical and official sense.

The posesion of the issue by higly and exccesibe level of institutionalization have created an environment of hieratization that usually have produced isolations and incomunication between things afforded as separated when we well know as this transcultural anthropology is showing that all that –tourism markets, museum archaeology practices, tourism events, artifacts and furniture of maya culture artesanies and community ways to revisit themselves are higly related and mutually evolved and as such this practices of anthropology are of benefic to mexico since because of its own conditions of possibility to be economically and culturally possible, it is exploring ways to set in relation things usually unconnected, disatended and surrounded by an environment of estancamiento

Notes

See my concept of non repetitive repetitions discussed at my paper the eclipse of evocation, Houston, 97, at Stephen a tyler paper Evocation, the unwriteable, a response to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, rice university, sep 9 as well as at my paper the dialectique of evocation in my book thinking science

Bibliography

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking Urban Anthropology, book

The Two Dialectiques of Town:

Cultural Analysis in Urban Readings

©By Abdel Hernández San Juan

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez san Juan

During 98 in finded myself, in plenum aicme of my life as emigrant and resident in Houston with a phenomenon I would like to reconsider to the effects to this essay objective.

At poe elementary school were my son studied since his first grade, the use of social psychology was becoming each time more frequent between school professors and directors as a preventive attitude toward adaptive responses to the to increasing entrance of massified culture in the form of new medias as the internet to domestic space, the interactions between commerce and technology and the transformations it implied in subjectivity and culture to something at that time yet relatibly new, the relation between new technologies and free market started during that years to overcome home as space and in response advertising the child parents about a number each time more countless of child’s with attention deficit disorder, was in the forefront of both file tasks news and direct speech.

First as marcel dad and second as a member of school and the town urban community and finally as theoretician and thinker i was committed to think on that since marcel was one between the child’s suspicious to have attention deficit disorders. As prevention I started to pay attention to marcel doing the tasks with him while observing him, focusing on his capacity to be concentrated and focused.

I concluded that he was out of any possibility to have it and as such I explained it to miss dedro and other teachers, but in the turn of a few months the issue acquired certain place in my analysis on the general situation with adaptation of all of us in the community in front of the fast and hurry generalization and entrance of the internet to all the levels of our quotidian life’s at the time still in its first years.

Starting by the child’s each time more individuals become cibernauts inside home, the old habits of tv washing stablished a whole cultural tradition in the past become disseminated, dispersed and weakening progresibly even when it was subestimated as a mean to cultural research in past decades.

Even when grand fathers and mothers still wash tv a general situation with the publicity effects on tv fragmentation and the entrance of market announcement inside the tv screen is weakening it, the adveniment of the internet indeed accelerated the reuse of television to publicity and the decline of programation something that have consequences in the sociology of culture through television which was yesterday mainly based in anticipating behaviors and reception according to the relation between age, hours in the day washing it and kind of programs to offer, the entrance of corporations to all the corners of tv between others things testify that.

This former sociology of tastes and publics was to a certain point the old parent of a successive next generation of research descendants of the culture of screen which is privileged today according to my own pioneer research on this to the study of subjectivity, technology and culture, in fact, the screen since television to current technologies must be understand indeed as a major surface of mediation not only or less in the sense of what is presented and or transmitted under it, and more in the sense of the simultaneity of modern media capability to make coexist what before was confined by distances and differences, so in the sense later hurry of the play of the screen in the formation of current subjectivity.

Something similar happened with the sociology of enterprises if we remember that is was decades ago focused in production and merchants and it later evolutioned to be on consume and clients, but with the additional added content that the culture of marketing and attention to clients of the former time was itself a fusions later extended into new technologies ways of interactions at least to a certain point since there is yet a significant level of actors actions meetings impossible to be comply from the computer or the digital phone.

Whence the home space was transformed into something new by the interaction between new technologies, free market marketing’s and consume with all its consequences on habits, customs and on subjectivity, memory and the self.

If I called my attention on poe elementary it is for nothing else than to recuperated in certain originary sense of the source or the arising time of a modality for the theory of medias that was committed to explore new ways and possibilities since such a time as I did while also to point that far to focus on the negative I instead focused the positive and optimistic sense of it, the descendant for of sociology of taste of the past must today be focused on multisensoriality and subjectivity at all as to understand culture and us in it.

Attention deficit disorder was nothing else than the name of an adaptive response moment of the community and to the needs of another ways to relate and be focused and concentrated under it, something required of us to develop new parameters of axiology, semantic and reflexivity since it is true that as much as the new media’s helps us to coordinate in new forms our relations with the external and the city at the same time it also accent the separation between medias and the city understanded in its spatiality, meaning neighbors, societary community, the old man we see every day at the gas station taking a coffee from his Chevrolet until his car is being washed, the people who goes always to the same coffee shops between other forms of rituals.

Already from the mass medias studies of the tv age this issue adqueried relevance to the comprehension of culture, phenomena’s such as kitsch, for example, meaning the new culture of consume and the aesthetics of tastes resulted from it as forms of reification of television contents such as entertainment genres all that was already sake from similar former principles of interactions between markets and technologies.

In fact, kitsch as a culture and as a concept in aesthetics born as consequences of it but the new phenomena’s leads to a dissemination of television culture under new forms of the interactive screen medias with its effects on subjectivity is creating a new urban culture of aesthetics and subjectivity forms different to kitsch’s and other reified forms of the television age.

In a few words thus as kitsch’s was the expression of the television age the internet age and the new technologies medias have new results on subjectivity of the same kind in terms of sake but of another kind regarding its aesthetics and cultural contents and its aesthetics of tastes.

At the same time television and the older genres of film it promoted on culture producing on the audiences certain inventions of feelings on cultural identities such as for example the films of cowboys genres between others of the kinds impacted our sense of cultural identity through television, stay to be a part in a new inventory memory of antiques or in fancy museum of the memory of television seduce us to collect it today it seems to be now to us almost a ritual of an almost yet tribal age what was modern some decades ago start to be feel in subjectivity and sensibility as antiquary houses stuffs.

On the other hand, the new urban spaces after the adveniment of the internet and the new social medias, pass to be in a new meddle way as abandoned between on the one side medias and on the other the downtown which concentrate all the commercial activity seem from the vernacular traditions of the urban spaces as a kind of extra planetary object fall out from another planet, also digital medias appear thus as abandoning the spatiality’s of the urban spaces of the city since while the city must be accessed or comply in new ways from medias cognition, the immediacy of it as body spaces seems to appear as desolated, isolated kind of spaces cross over by commerce and medias looking to be as an space start to be rare to us as kriteva used to define as “estrangers to ourselves”.

The urban spatiality’s therefore are today the meetings of new complex antinomies which concentrate a lot of new merging neologisms, such neologisms decades ago were considered entailed with the cultural recreations of consume –I am thinking here for example about the typical ways to decorate the aesthetics of home and architecture in several Houston vernacular spaces using recycled remains of soft drinks and all kind of remains of industrial materials, all that today is advancing to be redesigned or replaced by new inventions of design claiming a more bodily ritualized kind of subjectivities.

I am also thinking here in all the white victorian culture of Houston of wood and iron but also in Afro-American parts of the towns, dances of fusion as zaideco by which Afro-American recreates and reinvent country culture ways to decorate the aesthetics of car, dresses and clouds, body attitudes, tastes and forms of material and immaterial culture.

All these phenomena’s acquired new configurations in the weaves of social and cultural traffic abandoned in between commerce and medias, transformed into isolate spaces of exclusive rituals.

But the reason to remember all this is not focused in repeating what we already know in a kind of inventory list, but instead my objective is to objectify how all this old and renewed phenomena’s are today related in between under a general town new dialectique of pairs which I would like to abstract and generalize under a further explanation, I understand here the concept of dialectique in its more ancient sense, from Aristoteles to Hegel, meaning apparently opposite concepts such as for example in town terms homogeneity and heterogeneity, commercials and cultural, idiosyncrasy, custom or traditions versus modern developments, new technologies of medias versus cultural differences, things that look to be antinomies in a first superficial reading but indeed highly related in between as in classical dialectical parameters to understand how the poles are entailed today in between by mutual needs.

We might understand the paradoxically ancient dialectic of apparently autonomic poles in modern towns between as mentioned above for example native custom, idiosyncrasy and traditions versus multiculturalism, homogeneity of the culture of commerce and business evolved in modernization versus heterogeneity, medias technologies interactivity versus urban spaces, modernization versus cultural differences, by recognizing it under five possible readings of a town to which Houston in my experience will be my point of reference.

If we read Houston for example privileging a gaze from riveraks we will recognize how this part of the town play a significant place is the ways the natives idiosyncrasies of the old Victorian town collections, habit, and cultural heritages are claimed and protected from the center of the city while miss regarding instead all the homogenization culture of modernization that is enlarging and increasing the city peripheries in the form of homogenized kinds of modular neighbors on the one side and on the other the commercial and business nature of the moon downtown or the commercial Richmond developments, paradoxically here the old riveraks is claiming and protecting a sense of local authenticity while identifying homogenization as peripheral and estranger in kristeva term, while on the other hand, we must do the opposite reading by recognizing the play of this apparently peripheral urbanizations usually related with less spensives in compensating thanks to homogenization the effects multiculturalism and cultural differences under a feeling of heterogeneity

While seen from riveroaks protection of a sense of the native local traditions and idiosyncrasies from the culture homogenization evolved by modernization, commercials and new urbanizations mean a counter response to the risks of the lost and a lack of culture identity and authenticity toward dissemination of local native culture, from the perspective of the risks that multiculturalism play such homogenization of apparently simply commercial and modern sides of the peripheral town play a major role in counter compensating the effects of cultural differences under local identities by disseminating it according to a sense of heterogeneity that homogeneity may possible.

At the same time, paradoxically, the social and economic groups committed to protect directly local culture and closed to the effects of homogenization in the lack of authenticity looks to multiculturalism as a needed process of culturization and addition of cultural values over the lacking of it, so that reculturalizing must thus be considered in this sense as a welcome phenomenon in any case even when adding cultural contents unrelated with local native’s idiosyncrasies.

In a similar sense, since peripheral forms of urban homogenization must be recognized both inside town as in a reading from the medical center peripheries and outside town as read from out of the loop urbanizations such as sugar land is compensating in reversal cultural difference with a sense of heterogeneity something about which modern technologies of medias play a significant role too.

The dynamics of town development is thus being defined by this dialectical relation of mutual necessities between apparently antinomic tendencies.

Seen Houston from river oaks the city appear with a central and compact nucleus of sedimentary traditional land assented —with a community cultural expression which encompass from Kirby drive at the level of riveraks to Montrose and its surrounding urbanizations, urban parts of the town as Alabama including the museum areas to the rice village east and wester of the river including from Montrose to self-constructed urbanizations such as the highs to which a countless number of artists moved thus besides the surroundings urbanizations of Project row house both whites and Afro-Americans.

This sedimentary perspective reading Houston as a great land assented of cultural traditions and customs, perceived spatially, meaning, focusing it visually, lost however a relevant component of subjectivity seen town from this perspective, its relation with the border culture, on the one hands, and the sea gulf coast on the other, this is thus a reading of Houston indeed made and feel from the land, a land culture, includes kimas, Galveston, corpus Christi, Marfa, padre island and el paso with Monterrey on the other side of the border and little border cities such as presidio and of course san Antonio and Austin.

All this reading understanded as a cultural tradition assented close the eye, however, and avoid in subjectivity all the economic and commerce culture mentioned above, a technocratic one culture symbolized by the moon downtown. Such a dimension of Houston in fact, can’t be forgotten, it is a flouting economic commercial Houston disseminated among and in between start from westheimer after the first loop including galleria and the further urbanization. In the same sense the autonomous and aside closed on it own worlds of the new out of town urbanizations is usually avoided by the previous central town, this part of the town is defined by migrations of both kinds, people who migrated from the center of the city to its peripheries and people who migrated from others cities, and as such it is a major dimension of Houston, there everything is less spensive and self-sufficient.

Also the multicultural side and dimension of Houston us usually avoided from the center town discussed above, issues such as for example, the two Japanize restaurants of the center the one at the rice village, and the another one on Kirby before the first loop, the India restaurants sited in the same form, Arabians restaurants, tailandian all this are external services to such a primary town which of course also avoid all the condominiums of rents culture proliferated after the medical center which define another reading of the city.

Back to that primary part of the town defined from riveroaks there we have the collection of culture and art including antiques of unites states and another cultures, includes as discussed above an important vernacular local culture from kitsch to cultural recreations of television, and vernaculars entailed with local traditions which my friend and colleague Surpik Angelini have studied in her excellent urban and architectural research and projects on Houston and Matamoros.

This reading is mainly native and its gaze or perspective in subjectivity include all that from a large data view we must consider as those traditions participated in the ethnological taking shape of a sense of the usa national as well as on a sense of the regional Texan and thus Houstonians, this is nothing else than a perspective which gaze and seem beyond its own boundaries as a cultural phenomena defined by identities land related with little villages following several routes, the Galveston one, border cities but also rural one on the way to Louisiana.

Many people understand Houston as a medical city while all that which happens after the medical center is almost unknown from the primary center of the traditional town, a countless number of rent condominiums not as autonomous as those out of the loop unfolds over there but as much as self-sufficient as to stay there without a need to cross to the other side of the medical center if not only by job reasons or weekend relaxing, also around the rice village there is in subjectivity a certain sense of university autonomous sense given the rice university near location

The five readings, however, are evolved by the general topic discussed in the beginning, all the readings are abandoned spatially by two main formations attract to itself all the attention of subjectivity, the new media’s technologies, on the one side, and the culture of marketing, corporations, enterprises and publicity on the other. This two formation are progresibly absorbing the whole Houston subjectivity but it play at the same time as discussed the roll concealing thanks to homogeneity standardization the sense of cultural differences created by multiculturalism under a general sense of heterogeneity, including both industrial and postindustrial.

If we understand homogeneity as that which in subjectivity helps to deal and negotiate difference under heterogeneity we must recognize how the level of entropy evolved in fractal technology and the level of dissemination and multisensoriality implied by constant publicity, marketing and commerce play a cultural sense thus that indeed homogeneity expressed in both forms the modernization of commercialization and of technologies play an homeostatic balance, an equilibrium roll in compensating cultural differences under the heterogeneity of homogenization so as to regulate it from the more general sense of native idiosyncrasies and local traditions. However, at the same time, as perceived from the main traditional town, it evolves also a lost and lack of cultural identity and as such, the process of reculturization is needed of multiculturalism.

We should thus attempt to understand the complementary sense of the two main dialectiques of town

Homogenization regulates cultural differences with heterogeneity in subjectivity, land culture of native local identities and idiosyncrasies in the process of reculturization compensate the lost and lack of cultural identity evolved by homogenization in both senses, technology and commerce.

We must also recognize while us the dialectique evolved in it since in fact seen from riveroaks and the center of the city both things commercialization and medialization of everything through modern technology are itself symbols of the lacks and loss of cultural traditions so as to exclude it from the efforts to protect and preserve the Victorian both white and Afro-American culture as well as the sense of authenticity of local cultural heritages, legacies and values, the real true is indeed entailed by how paradoxically such homogenization regulate multiculturalization and cultural difference with the standarizationg of heterogeneity something that apparently contradict how the efforts and commitments to preserve and protect against the lack and loss of culture, native cultural and local values, privilege the need of multiculturalism in the struggles for reculturization as a compensation to such risk of lack homogenization seem to imply

While the homogenization implied by commerce and technology seems to appear as a lacking of cultural native local traditions it offers at the same time a way to regulate the dealing with multiculturalization and cultural difference

Nothing as a remain is evolved in this dialectique almost each component of the dialectique process seems to be inclusive and needed within the regulations process of the elements in play.

Without multiculturalism the struggles for reculturalization of values and traditions looks to be impossible seen from the cultural heritages and legacies values of the local traditions in front of the lacking of culture implied by commerce and technology, but without the homogeneization evolved within modernization and standarization of technology and commerce it seems to be impossible to regulate cultural difference from local idiosyncrasies.

At the same time multiculturalization play in this dialectique not only a sense of reculturization needed by communities, but also a needed sense of connecting cultural localism with metropolitanism since as much as metropolitan become a city as much as multiethnic and culturally diverse in reversal to provinces local self-closures.

This is whence nothing else than the dialectic of development in advanced capitalism at least as expressed in the united states while mostly seen from Houston. So we have several Houston’s inside Houston

We have a demographic Houston not mentioned before, the center of attention of this Houston is nothing else that the density of population, this Houston is gazed exclusibly in reverse, instead of putting our gaze from the center of town to its peripherals urbanizations out of town seen the last ones as forms of enlarged and increased additions to the center, we must gaze form the peripherals to the center as to really perceive and understand this Houston. In fact, we can’t avoid this reading because it effectibly exist

First of all many native Houstonians are living in that peripheries since as discussed before it is lees spensive and as such all this people claims to recognize their readings, second, this peripheral demographic reading evolve to the native a more highly convival with people who migrate to Houston from other cities as well as with multiethnic issues derived from migrations

Seen from the center such a reading between natives as a dialectique of natives versus natives evolve to the center of the town a sense of betray meaning toward lacking of identity, but the reality of the natives peripheral readings is a true as it is evolutioning to be on the one hand self-sufficient universes and on the other a demonstration on how diversity must be truly regulated as to serve to both senses reculturization and convivals under homogenization and as such it symbolize to some people one of the main poles of the sense of future.

This is not of course the only hope and the only sense of future imagined by Houstonians in our fancy, there is not only various Houston inside Houston but also various imaginations within Houstonians fancy on the possible futures of Houston. Many spectations have the gaze on Houston since it is one of the most success cities on upcoming futures in the united states and what usually happens in that real futures overcomes as mixtures

My experience is constrained by living all the time in the center of town with on top the medical center surroundings as near to the center areas and as such my usual feelings and wishes are related with the values of the center of the town committed with local memories but I must confess that visiting places outside town I understanded well why

It is important here to perceive that this stratigraphic reading discard a merely economic comprehension, riveroaks is important here not as much to be an area of plenty economy as to be an area that made earth with Houston understanded as cultural tradition something related with and as response to the tendency to the weakening of traditions because of the effects of all previously discussed and as such all that become spensive, here is the relevance of my concept of the intangible which contrary to a sense of ostentation or lucre is instead entail with moral and spiritual values as well as to the fact that the economic capital can’t be represented without culturalizing it around symbolic culture.

This part of Houston attracts to itself all the Houston’s within Houston train to make of it a further expression and the originaryy city. Is that possible? well yes and no, no because the cultural Houston can’t be culturalized without be commercialized and yes because it can’t be commercialized without becoming each time more culturalized

This Houston struggle to culturalize the downtown which have become unconnected with the cultural weave of the city traditions be transformed in a moon area of extra planetary commercial corporations, the culturalist Houston read to the north, south, west and east from riveroaks, braeswood, Alabama, montrouse, try to culturalize downtown through universities and public cultural activities culturalizating the remains in the immediate peripheral areas something that reflect the dialectique between free market capital and the spates as this issue was discussed by lyotard and habermas during the eighties as one of the main dynamics of advanced capitalism`

A,protagonism is being play here by new initiatives of tax extent’s toward nonprofit benefits to culture and communities as well as the non-nonprofit organizations, volunteer benefices and donations

And here must be recognized the dialectique sense of multiculturalism, this last one and the asented traditional local culture discussed above are distint things, the first one is global, economic and transnational beyond its communities expressions and the distinct modes to be assimilated under the weaves of local culture, the second one is regional, local and national it is referred to originary cultural formations including the originary Texan culture with its axis of Anglo-Americans, Mexicans, Afro-Americans and European migrations, but in contrast with the last one, multiculturalism perse to be sake by economic trans nationalization and of be expressed as multiethnic conglomerated in community terms, its contribution to the general dialectique already discussed is different, between homogenization and specificities it help to enrich the weaves of the need process of reculturization that the former local culture symbolize in respect to the homogeneous and commercial Houston regulated by markets and technologies

But this last Houston at the same time, as discussed above, is a dot of meetings between all the Houston’s since it conceals in subjectivity thus another dialectique getting indeed the return of one dialectique into the another as the main two dynamics of town, the dialectique between homogeneization and heterogeneization on the one hand, and the another one between lack and loss of cultural identity and reculturization in both sense as local idseosincracias mostly natives and as multicultural, all the Houston’s are then regulated in subjectivity by the returns and conciliation of one dialectique into the another, homegeneization helps to regulate cultural difference under heterogenization while local natives indeosincracies and cultural heritages counter response the lack of identity with reculturization and in between this two dynamics everything self, memory, being, sensibility and interactions are both defined in formation and mediated.

Notas

Estas cinco lecturas se desarrollan desde mis áreas residenciales de vivienda en la ciudad, apartamentos, 8055 Cambridge Street, 83, Houston, Texas, 77054, 2111 Holly may, St. Apt 418, Houston, Texas, 77054, 8020 Braesmain Dr Apt 2, Houston, TX, 3131 Timmons Lane # 419, Houston, TX 77027 asi como Kirby drive donde vive Surpik o donde viví los primeros meses,

Rethinking intertextuality: A Reconstrutive análysis

©By Abdel Hernandez san Juan

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Inside the several issues we receibed already discussed from the tradition of semiotic, the one less justified scientifically is the issue of intertextuality.

While semiotic as science is higly based in pragmaticism as well as in the philosophy of language and phenomenology, intertextuality, which started to be introduced in semiotic thanks to the work of kristeva to who the first use of the term is attributed, source and arised from the more philological side of literary criticism and as such born associated with not always to well defined, imprecised and polisemic notions such as dialogicity in the theory of novel and fiction.

As several other literary criticism notions, sometimes difussed as an specialized form of the so-called philological studies of the literary fountains, another times as an specific modality of the studies of literary gneres, the concept started to be used apparently to identify new things among areas of literary criticism already in existent and considered from philology as traditionals.

My perspective I will discuss in this paper takes a lot of distance to the well know forms by which intertextuality as a concept is founded in the work of fiction and its uses acoording to notions such as the subject of enuntiation and subject of the enuntiatedm –a subject considered inside language sentences as diferent to the author subject—and the susposed to be anticipated subject to whom as idealized fabulation language is oriented toward and addressed too

The main reason to take distance from that tradition is concerned about how the work of fiction considered as model was enlarged and extended from the literary work of fiction to the general culture under without major distintions about phenomenological and ontological differences between the immediacy of culture organization and the work of fiction mimesis of fake symbolism

Such an extension of one model –the fiction work—over the other, the social reality of culture, was based in arguments such as the dialogization of the outside without distinguishing that such an outside was nothing else than on the one hand the reader of that fiction and on the other the literacy of fiction corpus both things considered as culture.

The purposiveness of this essay is to propose a completly different way, a new one, to retheorize and reconsider intertextuality outside of the tradition of literary criticism, as a concept to be considered methodologically with basis on alternacy, meaning an optional concept between others to work with, seen from the sociology of culture and more specifically from empirical research of fieldwork

This effort might be considered as a new and next level of complexity after my essay the exegesis of the texts of culture

When one revisite and read the literature in existence about intertextuality one perceibe that asking from a high science rigor intertextuality seems to be more an ideological concept than a scientific one.

But if we discart asking about intertextuality as to solve main scientific issues such as for example, issues of epistemology and ontology and instead, we pay attention to the possibilities of the concept in a more aesthetic sense just like for example, postmodernism as concept is usually considered, we must perceibe that there are yet several unexplored possibilities around this concept

In fact, after all almost nothing not to say that nothing is yet discussed as an effort to retheorize the basis and potential of this concept outside literary criticism studies.

Considered a such, out of the work of fiction, and retheorized, not without considering the semiotic aspects of the concept included by kristeva since her first uses of the notion, several possibilities appears in the horizont to a methodological, ethical possibilities of the concept in social sciences.

Far to understand it as a counterargument agains the structural aesthetic of praga trying to locate it as an attachment annexed to semantic in authorial works analisis, something that, sincerely, is unneed by semantique itself, or as a model pretending to be more efficient or competent in literary criticism which neither need it and under which intertextuality seems to be diluted as a subspeciality more or less related with the old ideologies of the autonomy versus non autonomy of the art work a the interest of intertextuality as concept, i am attempting and attaining to discuss it is not about author texts, not about the relation between the author, his work and the culture function as external to it, not as much about history of genres, fountains of literacy and the so on kinds of adjudifcations of intertextuality to modes of quoting or incorporating more or less the literary tradition into the author work, but all the opposite, to the studies of textual phenomenas in cultures about which nothing as an author was evolved since its source

This concept of intertextuality, more near to the phenomenological use Derrida attributed to the concept of texere, the interview of kristeva to derrida must then be here the main reference instead of the relation kristeva-bajtin, must play certain methodological place considered as optional from methods alternancy at the sociology of culture and fieldwork within the studies of non authorial forms of cultural texts there in the general material and visual culture of non fiction phenomenas

A form to call or rename the world external to the author text or work seen from its inside as an attachment annexed to the interpretant something unneeded by the peirce concept, a refugy in semantic explicitation as a another forms of the texts isotopies –which as eco demonstrated is there nothing as relevant as to be just one between another manys forms of the frames—or considered as a replacement of the sign at the frege and greimas graphics, the attractive posibility of intertextuality is no about what must tell us about how language is oriented to another, but all the contrary, to statement issues of the cultural universe when nothing as an author is evolved in it

It must be atractive within the sociology of taste, for example, to the análisis of cultural reifications and so on

All this again, however, if we understand it not as a concept derived from literary criticism on fiction, but before well as a methodological toll optional to the research on non authorial for of texts in general cultture meaning to the study of certain textual phenomenas in culture some requere a focussed and dedicated work of reconstruction

On the one side it is indeed, from the point of view of the samnnes of the non authorial forms of texts in general culture about Reading it acoording to its inscriptions and clues, here inscription understanded not as an inscription over the page, but inscription as a memory in language or the body, the textual corpuses, something that considered in the old view of análisis of autor Works, limited intertextuality to be a hidden for of the ideology which negates autonomy to the work of art, or to the issue of the death of the autor considered as a counter ideology to the ideology of the autor

What I am proposing here is very far to that, this is not about negating the author in author texts neithter about negating authorships to the text of authors, not about the death of the author, but about forms of text and textuality in culture that source, arises and born from the very beginning non associated with authors, such as forms of non artistic material and visual culture such as ceremonies, carnivals, parties, rituals, quoidians stuffs, artifacts from religion and so on in which nothing as an author is there in the forefront.

It was also asociated with the kind of naif and bad psychonalisis of the artist images as unconcient in the form of for example the interpretation of the classical painting of the girt touching the pezón interpreted as a simbolism of the non solved relation between the painter and his mother or father.

Far to that, understanded in a poslacanial sense, it must be instead, attractive if such inscriptions and clues are considered not in regard to an individual subject but to, for example, the análisis of collective forms of cutlural reification such as the análisis of mass culture recreation by the taste of kitsh decorations or by the análisis of how consume is recreated under the reinvention of taste artifacts in the modes of imageries of several kinds in massive culture, ways to conceibe for example, the dresses of the sense of elegancy by certain groups, or the ways to conceibe what is considered aristocratic under non aristocratic people versus what is considered a code of authenticity in regard to originary cultures but as recreated by chic urban modes of recreating the visual codes of aristocracy and so on

To the analisis of how popular culture asume the aesthetic of cultural distintions under ways to aesthetic its universes acoording to televisión codes of what is considered nice or simply to read inscription under ways to reinvent visual culture in religión and several kinds of cultural groups ceremonies

Thus in the work of textualizing the non textual we must set to work the text enlarged toward several forms of reading culture throught this kind of inscriptions and clues of the text in the text, of intertextuality by inference or inteligibilization

The discussed above must also leads us to think on sociolinguistic archaeology, quest and search of inscribed uses of words among unconcretized multiples subjects such as the clues of arabian etimologies under spanish, amerindian phonology under spanish, spanish under english and so on, also to the reading of culture under the reading of semantical análisis of dialects and ideolects, while it must also leads us to reconsider translation as an intertextual phenomena from the moment translating evolve to set in relation a word, a sentence or a logical grammatology of a language with the corpus of another language and as such to its culture so as setting aside under instertextual relation cultural translation, cultural translation at the same time might operate beyond semantic analisis of words etimology by translating not only from one idiom to another, but going beyond langue, translating modes of comprehension, elucidation and explicitation of issues of one culture acoording to another as something empirically follow and constrained by the set of relation of texts as an intertextual procedure

All this again is far to exclude from the original source of the concept the regards of kristeva of it to both semantique and psychoanalisis, while, however it indeed exclude the parameter of the production of the text as well as its opposite the reception of it, far to it, this is not about the relation between the configuration of a text as addressed to or toward an anticipated another subject neither about the subject of enuntiation and the subject of the enunciated, neither on the interiority of the literary text and an external reality to replaced it by the special effects as in holliwood film spectial effects a literary corpus, such a parameter work well to the kind of analisis it source to born, the analisis of author works, but result unduly to the analisis of textual forms in non autorial material and visual culture

In fact, under author text it worked according to what derrida defined as a relation between genesis and structure, while it resulted in a kind of extradition of the structure under intertextuality and of the intrinsique relation at author works between genesis and structure with it as for the first time and with its acoording to my fundational epistemes and readed from it which define innovation and renovation as well as with it cultural reproduction

Marxist ideology of the non autonomy of the works hidden and masked inside language, in respect to the authorial culture it consisted about displazing the author but from language and its medias itself just when the externalist ideologies of social and historical Marxist determinism were in crisis, it was a kind of expulsion of the inside to the outside but developed with the medias of the inside baipased as an inside under textual inoculation something that remember that fantastic story of cortazar of the ocuped house which showed how the characters of the story supposed to be the owners and habitants of the house, discovered themselves progresibly with less and less space inside their own house because someone whos identity they unknow were progresibly occupying their house,

so intertextuality at the level of author work worked as such, as the unknow phantasms of the fantasy some one who take place of your own house occupying it without knowing its identity since it is done by inocations of the texts inside but addresses to set it outside the house, in the case of the author text and medias, toward putting him as the family of cortazar story, in the streets, out of their own house.

discovered ultimate mask of the Marxist determinism ideology of the author work non autonomy, and ultimate Marxist strategy of expropriation questioned from hard science indeed intertextuality is nothing else but a mask of the very old ideology of philological studies of the fountain and the theory of genres

Far to explode the subject as kristeva dreamed, a concept of subject thinked from a profusión of fiction and reality, we must attempt to attain intertextuality completly outside and far to authorial works retheorizing the concept from sociology to the direct studies of culture without the mediation of art

Before well, from the moment intertextuality as postmodernism is nothing else but an ideological concept its entails with the comprehension of the textual as intertextual are of interest to full the empty spaces which connect the relations between form, semantique and ideology in culture understanded around non authorial cultural formations such as in between taste and aesthetics

By non authorial culture I understand all the forms of material and inmaterial culture unassociated with art such as imageries, decoration, dresses and clouds, consume, entertainment, tourism, authenticity, relicaries, retables, nichos, urbanism, furnitures, customs, artesanies, rites, bricollages, palimpsests

All this forms of material and inmaterial culture considered outside the arts are forms of the texts, all text must then be considered not as quotes of one text inside others, but as mosaics of relations for both textuals forms and textualizable non textual forms. Almost all in this sense of immediacy culture are intertextually readables

In the same sense, to the choicings of investigation, as for example research and studies around social or cultural groups acoording to one or another way leads us to sets aside of intertextual relations of several kinds, if we take as the way of research the modes a group se to make image of itself, we pay attention to one texts and not to anothers, y we set in relation to our research the inscription one social group have about of another social group instead of its self images such as for example how a social group have interiorized the images on itself that another neibord group have, we pay attention to one kinds of texts and not to anothers and if we chouce to avoid just one perspective in favour of mixing one under the another, we must then complexise the way to inference intertextuality by to set aside the mise in relation of texts in betwen

This is something that remember what Bourdieu said on how the interviewed tipify in anticipation acoording to the kinds of questions the kind of social source of the interviewer social, cultural and economic source so as to answering to the last one acoording to the idea he have of that kind on interviews by inventing hi mor herself instead of answering what he or she would answers in any case

But we must enlarge it as to be extended to any kind of interaction between the researcher and those how are susceptible to be interviewed, studied or objectify so as to taking a way instead of another according to it, so that we must set in relation not always or as much spoken, written or visual expresive forms in which the social group speaks on itself, but texts in which others before us did about the same social groups as to studied how the groups reacted and in reverse the researches to the social group so as to study the images boths groups have previously mutually inscribed on the another

So that textual and textualized forms of culture pregiven to us such as artifacts, weaves, ceramics, body expresision, modes of speaking or as well collections, museographies, written Works, transcriptions, are susceptible of mise of intertextual relations to further intelligibility of intertextual comprehension

This is about how forms of materials and inmaterial cutlrue as susceptible of intertextualy intelegibility in the sense of methodological alternancies toward forth reasings as , for example, in my essay about Malinowski and levis strauss

In that paper as introduced and proposed the question about why malinowsky when asked himself about that taking the canoa from culture and moving it to the museum must be considered as a form of mouve it out of its etnogrpahic reality, instead of thinking about in reverse using the museum eye outside of the museum meaning there in the settings of fieldwork as a way to read the canoes in situ as a forma of text or a methonimc on culture as text

He missregarded as well as never asked himself the question about the possibility to read the same in another form if instead of imagining in his fancy taking the caone outside its reality doing the opposite as another way to read culture

This two options are methdologically speaking alternatives and the choicing in between modes of alternancy, by moving the museum eye to the fieldwork setting is new posibility must be opened to set in relation two and even more probably three or infinity forms of texts intertextuality in culture instead of living ten years in an undiscussed drift of what Geertz defined as participant description, doing the opposite allow as to consider the rethinking of how the native inscriptions on his presence traped him with his own scriptions in a kind of intertextual etnography defined by the museum eye in fieldwork

Or if by the contrary we leads us to certain modern urban social groups sch as for example rokers –young people who live around rock museum versus punks as neibord groups as I did under my urban research fieldwork in Berkeley –artisans and street markets hair makers..and long time ago in moscow and havana. The issue in this case is about similars but distint groups, both share a certain ceremonial sense of their Bodies languages in the city, a certain body actititud to the remains of the society, modes of dress and clouds, modes of painting and or inscribing their Bodies, kinds of visual icons of their taste preferences, while from two completle diferent perpsectives, the first ones are expresionists indetify by the feelings and emotions of their simbols and believes as authenticity, the secouds are defined by a transvangard actitude consisting about desacralizing canons, negating authentic feelings and rediming fakennes and declinings of values as obvious in the differences between their hair modes, ther cintos an pulseras, their body languages

However, instead to set aside both groups as separated and asking as by the first time plus by plus in the mode of research questions and groups answers, i explored the devises of asking to each group what they think about what the neiboard group ussually think on the other group so as trigering as a devices effect answers on each one of themselves imposible to be obtaining by elaborating question inscribed by the relation I them, instead of I them relations I chouced you in plural and them in plural relations

I asked rockers their perspectives on punk perspective on them, the rockers as well as on themselves, the punks and in reverse as a divise urban articulated around a meeting to pating a canvas to be exhibited from the public to a concert ocasión

of affording each gro en vez de divagar sin rumbos en descripciones cuyas formas de participación, lo que Geertz llamaba la descripción participante, no eran sino confirmaciones de las inscripciones que los nativos tenían de lo que era dirigirse a ellos en modos previamente tipificados

My concept of devises in fact as I conceibed and designed it play here considered as an intertextual interfase of textualized visual materials –photos, análisis of body languages and icons, etc—as minimun textual unities a metodological sense towards later and further ways of Reading re-meeting us longer with the collected material on scenic urban rituals

If we instad work with a collected material from archives done by others before us on the same urban groups and we share relation with them with basis on such previous materials we activate from the starting point of entrances in relation or engagement, pre-inscribed meanings and senses the group have about images on themselves which are at the same time a chain of sense they have in both sense images on themselves they have as influenced by external groups ways to seen them as well as reactions they have on a part of it as external to them and as much thus calling another ways to set in relation parts and wholes

Methonims are here major under fieldwork to the intertextual modes of explicitations and analisis under alternancy

An infinity or countless level of bricollages and palimpsests in culture suchg as for example objects, furnitures and artifacts of cultural patrimonies related with customs and traditions are needed of intertextual comprehension as well as the analisis of inscriptions under it so that working with a unitary textual parameter result insufficient almost ever, must of this modes of culture are itself needed to textualization and as such affording its complex levels of clues and indicial meanings, intertextuality is required as it help to developed inference and intelligibility, most of the time it evolve to put in relation textual forms unrelated previously and as such constructing the text

Fashion, for example, is a system of corporeal codes, visual and custom codes indeed intertextuals, each part or fragment cant be understanded without reading under it another texts or not considered texts yet, another codes, we cant read in visualizing the bodies of fashion and the tangible visual discourses without textualizating it as to comply beyond the merely simply present what must be read behind that fragments or methonims, to read a visual discourse of fashion among dresses, cloudts, bodies in movements, aesthetics and form, we must read under it another code that is not present in a first instance under what we see, we of course recognize such another codes as soon as seen it, but to do so we must know another social and cultural text only accessible to those who have the acervo of that codes in the tendencies of a culture

Thus, this is not about the psychoanalisis of the subject or of the relation between the author as subject and its subjects of enuntiation and enunciated, nor abut fiction neither outside of it but before well from the point of view of the sociology of taste, on how the objectification of textual relation we stablish among a chain of text is itself intertextual, a text send us or leads us to anothers by the regards of codes under codes, of texts in culture, well considered as something we receibed as pregiven in culture well because we relates it in that form methodologically, something leads us to the axiological, semantic and ideological –while ideology is already replaced by the relation form-semantic—universe of elucidations of comprenhesion of culture textuality supposes to tastes as to social and cultural forms of valuation

Thus, this is not then about enlarging or encresing as extending something that taking the literary discourse as pattern open the literary over the cultural acoording the corpus of literature mimesis of culture as reality, but about a perspective that renounce to intertextuality as a concept of literary criticism

Dialogicity and intertextuality have indeed nothing in commun.

This is not a way to say that dialogicity is out of interest to social science, a similar resemantization of the sense of the notion is needed to be replaced far to its subordination to the novel, while at least instead to said that dialogicty from the point of view of morphe phenomenologically speaking and of the relation between morphe, eidos and noesis is epistemologically incompatible with the principles in which under that same notions intertextuality source

Both are diferent kinds of species, one is a phelinus the another one an equinus, of is aborseos and another one carnivorous to mean it by analogues

A text from its epistemic constitution is the contrary of a dialogue, a text start by inscription, but that which made it autonomous as transportable, as conservated, as memorized, as retained by a matter which fix it and made it the inscription of an institutional memory, a dialogue is on the opposite site what is irreducible to a text, to call text such a minimum unit of writing defined by a word evolve to return to performance, before yet, defining dialogicity by arguing that a word have a duplicity as placed within a dialogue in a novel which is already writing as bajtin did, is itself a way to enlarge semantically the concept of dialogue very beyond what a dialogue really is, a dialogue represented under fiction acoording to a mimesis principle is not a dialogue enoght not at least since under such a dimension it is already contrained between writing and a reader so as to call it dialogizing or dialogicity of the reader cultural memory on the mimetized universe allude by the fiction is to confuse culture with the history of literacy, is to confuse mimesis with reality, with the literary diachronic corpus, so far to be dialogue itself, is in a few workd a hidden form of the ideologies of realism, that of the identitary presuppositions between mimetic representation and reality

We must remember here the depper and profound analisis of derrida on the relation between text and death, he even sustained the sign as text comparing it with the lapidary image of the tumba

At the same time to call intertextuality such a dialogization of fiction is antinomic in the sense that Kant atributed when asking what is first the whole or the parts, to set in relation texts which as parts are already fixed inscriptions least with the argument that to call text that minimun unity and that it descenter language in the sense of the structural relation langue-speeach

Kristeva semiotic erudiction assigned to Bajtin dialogicity her concept of intertextuality as a lisence, she was generous in train to do the imposible, to move a theory as the bajtin one strictly constrained by literacy of fiction, to culture under concepts of discourse ancient as artistotles such as relation between subject and predicaments and lacanially interpreting that relation as triadic toward the reader considered as an abstract othernnes, was a way to yuxtapose two phenonemas phenomenologically and ontologically unconcidents

The truly dialogic considered indeed in culture as from social science is considered is nothing else but to use a kristeva earlier Word what explode intertextuality, it is the oposite of text and as consequence the oposite of any form to encrese the text under a chain of inter-texts, under truly dialogicity intertextuality death and end, if we are theoretically really honests

We are neither sustaining that nothing as to consider intertextuality under author patters and parameter is imposible, I myself did intertextuality several time with that sense as for example within my work the market from here: mise in scene and experimental ethnography quotind Stephen a tyler postmodern ethnography or later when I proposed durind the spatial conceptualization and design of the exhibit of anthropology and maya art at duran gallery in lake forest, to open and entrance the room of the maya collection and pieces, with a lup of stegerdad archaeology cavinette as an intertextual allusion to the fact that quetzal ways to be in relation with direct maya communities is mediated by his studies of how the museum of archaeology is already present in the community and by references to previous archaeologist working in the same sites, an anthropology of archaeology which at least to a visual exhbitions as such was needed to be understanded intertextuality

And so on, I have discussed intertextuality several times at author parameters in my semiotic analisis of visual art works and it have a certain possibilities such a way too, but we must ontologically and phenomenologically differentiate the use of this concept when speaking on fiction and when speaking on the immediacy of culture without the mediation of art without extending the parameters of the former over the phenomenology of the last one

We cant reduce culture to the history of literacy neither to any form of fiction, not from sociology neither from cultural theory and antropology

Whence examined from the microscope of the laboratory we must also distinguish that under the hight definition of the lup around a ten percent of what have being declared as intertextual are not as such rigorouslly, as eco discussed, intertextual frames are clearly located as one in between many other modes of the frames, and all forms of chains of language, not from the signifier neither from the interpretants are rigorouslly intertextual nearly seen with the microscope

Now returning to my focuss of analisis, back to sociology and fieldwork, intertextuality considered as an option in research methodology is not necessary something we must be concerned about as interferent to life world and the intramundane horizont, not at least if we take care of maintaining separated what must be by phenomenology as by ontology, fieldwork as a real spatial practice located between day and night in a societary level of experience is higly based and supported, almost depedent and strongly source and arises from life world and the intramundane horizont of the fieldworker and nothing as a saturation of texts must be accepted between one and the immediacy of culture from which and in which strongly based in commun sense and developed through commun sense raise fieldwork in the performance activity.

Considered methodologically intertextuality work during certain moments of the process of research like during the definition of the research Project at the beguining during defining how the project will be developed acoording to alternatives as well as at the end during the momento of meeting ourselves with the material collected in a documentary and reconstructive sense from reflexivity, while in the mid time, we should take notes of intertextual phenomenas in the process of Reading

Within my examples my questions and queries revolves around the study of social and cultural groups throuth three well diferentiated parameters taking shape in between diferiented relations, on the one hand, we set at the Forefront the image a social or cultural group make and have on itself, on the other, in reverse, the images that a social or cultural group have inscribed –we must call it also typify in the commun sense perspective—or relatibly fixed as a memory of what it mean to them the image of them another social and cultural groups or members of it have

Going beyond, let say that the image a group have on what a neighborn groups means to them is asocieted with the image they have about the image that group have on them which also influence the image they have on themselves, all cultural or social group not only have an image of itself, which is important, but also an umage of the image of itself gave by individuals members of another social or cultural group including thouse kinds of individuals which belonging to certain social meaning as groups are usually associated with studies of social groups as their one and all this form an inscription in that group. The relation between both inscriptions, the one of the image of themselves by itself and the one on the neightbord groups imagen on them, is all we need as the condition of possibility to know a social and culture group as to interact with it, in a few words, nothing is in existence as situational possibilities or representational ones to seize the sense of a social or cultural group outside of the relation between this two inscriptions and the mode to be weaved and related. We must of course consider both sides since the image the second or neighbord group have on the first one are also their own inscriptions as group since they cant evoid that the way the first group mean them inscribe their ways to be in relation with such a former one and that the image they have is also the result of that inscriptions and in reverse

We are putting here the accent of the image the groups have since we are pointing cultural ways of meaning, symbolizing and representing but without avoiding or forgetting that inscription are not only image our themselves and their neigh bords and in reverse but self inscription defined by their own memories and acervos. Finally we are considering the thirst level, that one of divises which is nothing else as concept than a divert, a way to lead off to deviate in between both inscriptions while not to avoid it but to comprehend it, we discussed already the debise of letting know rockers how punks as urban neighbord group seen them and in reverse as a way to entrance in relation under already meaninfull relation instead of the constrast research-group or subject of knowledge object of it and how i finally transformed it to the climax relaiton of an interfase of the devise, the painting of a canvas meeting members of both urban groups to be presented in a concert as a ritual activity of meaning and communication.

The devise is nothing but the comprehension of the two inscriptions as the limit of any possibility of knowing hermeneutically constrained.

In this sense a devise is an intermediation as well as an interfase designed as deviation, in fact, we cant try inscriptions giving the face to it not because it is hidden or imposible to be verbalized but because inscriptions itself are not as voluntary positions or wishes of ends, inscriptions are constrined memories of the isotopies of situation which limit the subjects under their own inscribed situations and it is imposible as such to face social and cultural groups by simply calling the inscriptions by their names, we must instead creates devises of meaninfull images and relations such as to obtain from the devises the desviation situation which call as possible the inscription, instead of an empty space of meaning or and emptiness of meaning, we must full the situation with meaninfull relation through the intermediation of a devise which will it self set it in motion and introduce us already under it and as a part of it since there is not space to the inscription discussed we are in fact inscribed too and limited under it .

Moving the semantic concept of isotopies outside of the sentences of literacy let clearly define the former as nothing else than situational isotopies, we must speak of situational isotopies because situations are not here susceptible to entropic, aleatorial or accidental anacronic as when we confuse situation with everything that may happen even unespectably, while undoubly there is always a certain margin of unspectected news and surprises if we consider social and cultural groups under principles of pertiences inside commun sense and overall through the principles of inscription already discussed we cant exclude the concept of situation from meaninfullnnes relations, the devise helps in this sense to accent and effasize the meaninfullnnes nature of the interactions, it calls the situation to be weaved under relations hermeneutically plenty, to set in relation the image that neighbord groups have one in respect to the other and each one on itself is a way to call out a universe of sense already meaninfull as well as already plenty of sense as such the devises as a needed desvitation between both levels of inscription both intermediate and interfase it.

Shorty. All a social or cultural group said on itself, the image on itself they have is all we need to know to seize the sense of reality but at the same time we know that the process of semantique explicitation weaved under it, images on themselves images of a neighbor groups on them and in reverse, we never comply or fully access to seize what a group is in itself without putting in relation this two planes, the devises must be articulated between this both sides and take shape as a comprehension of the situation defined in itself by forms of relation between the two planes under semantic explicitations which are nothing than situational isotopies in regard which the devise itself is an hermeneutical construction, a desviation, an elaboration or a moment called to the situation y from it as a form to interfase and mediate it, thus, although the divise itself is not intertextual is must be called later from an intertextual analisis since meeting ourselves with collected materials

What a person or a social cultural groups or members of it think on themselves, the image they maket on themselves presuppose images they have on the images on their groups another groups have, this another groups may be neighbord groups in a same space such as a village or a city or countries or located in contiguous but something far spaces and in reverse, the later images of the another groups participates in the image they have on themselves or to invent on it, the devise which presupposes itself the situation derived from interaction, moves between this two inscriptions which are at the same time the ontology of its own condition of possibility but from the moment weare focused in the semantic explicitation inside the situational isotopies, the devise present itself as a possibility to mediate this istopies that as a moment pick up and extend it in an interfase which to the situation itself is a desviation

Returning to the same to accent points, here the notion instead of we never know must be but we never seize the adecuated sense and meanings without to set in relation both inscriptions, what we must seize at the level of sense and meanings will derive from understanding that the image they have on themselves beside to be the result in diferent grades of diverse forms those groups had experience to question themselves on it, are imagen of themselves made acoording to what other groups who have image on them they know more or less means to them and think on them

We might say desviation or and we might say diagonality too, the meaning of this detail of defining it as desviation and diagonality should mean as follow, we have an itinerary to be made from one dot to another in between which an straight line is obligated well as we are speking here on situations and on isotopies let imagine that such a relation between dots and lines is not defined as merely Surface and space, but sense and meanings, one dot is a point of view or a point of arguments or meanings another dote from the oposite extreme of the line is another argument, meaning or position, and let supose that instead of taking the straight line between the dots, we do another survey or traverse which evolve to be a desvitation or a diagonality way to comply, acceso arribe to the oposite dot, let even supose that one dot is an speaker and another dote at the oposite side of the line is another speaker and the line represent not as much a physical survey but the survey the dialogue of relation between enuntiation and counterenuntiation will take, instead of going straight around climax, dramaturgic nudes, topics, predicaments of arguments regarding subjects, we take a survey, a desviation a diagonality, more over, let imagine that between both dots there are point of controversy and that taking the straight line effasize what accent and complicate the communication to the point that a polemic or a incommunication might arise and we take another survey, a desviation or a diagonality, this is not however an avoiding, but relaing things in another forms not spected to be the upcoming since the dots are prestablished by a suposed to be straight way

In this case we are speaking not exactly on different point of views at all, not necesarilly, but on situations as well as on ways to entrance in relation and engagment subjects not belonging to a same situation of departure, the relation must be between a subject who have a query, questions, purposivenes of knowledge and a research and another one who is not defined by such intentionality when the communication start to happen, must be simply to far us from the complexities of subject and object under knowledge relations of research a subjec who choice to pay attention to himselve and his cultural reality as to wishes about it more than simply living it but thinking on it and another subject who is a part of the same cultural reality who is simply experiencing it, so between purposivennes of knowledge and circunstances of commun sense while about two subjects who culturally and socially belong to the same reality and experience a similar usual situations regarding it, one subject in both examples is a dot, another one the oposite dot in the line

Or let even take examples from spontaneous situation in every day quotidian life so as suppose subjects who are not motivated under intentions of knowledge even in this case we will find again so as something amazing the two inscription discussed above in this essay

Dot one is one inscription, dot two is another one of the inscriptions both to the previous examples as to the following one, among it the two inscriptions and its interrelations are ontologically unavoidable, the desviation operates another survey around the situation and its inscriptions, helps to relate the elements in another form, this leads us again to an hermeneutical issue already discussed, the point of focuss is nothing else than to provide the situation with plentinnes of meaninfullnnes over its previous emptiness

We must now forget as possible extreme opposite situation such as when the inscription are about opposite cultural constitutional experience such as those we experience for example between a very province and a very metropolitan capital, a village and a big city, the rural and the urban and subjects on both sides as one dot and the oposite other within the imagined line which have in between a situation of communication or of interaction or best yet of countenuntiation within a patter of intersubjectivty mutual explicitation

Instead of that which also accept in any case the devises intermediation, let figure out dots with a mínimum of differences even less than in my research on very similar groups while distinguished such as rocker and urban punks, but focussing very quotidian kind of almost diluted in dayle life situations

Let define that the margins of familiarity and belonging versus foraneity at this level must be recognized as follow, the level of belonging to a cultural situation is defined by natives and emigrants, only natives or instead emigrants, those who emigrated to a culture, are rigorously a part of it from its inside, other ways are more or less exogenous, dot one and dot two

Let see for example the variation of the ontology definition of subject acoording to urban funtions such as being clients under one activity and being consumers under another as very nears funtions, while being sidewalkers or transeunts and being usuaries are less nears, instead being usuaries and being clients is more near in between, or purchashers and vendors, all this may be about only one subject whos condition variate from one activity to another such a change evolve variations of situations and as such of inscriptions

I am thiking here for example in the example of proxemics and cinesic studies, let suppose that we prepare a room in different forms spatially, once with the chairs located as doing a circle, our visitor to the situation will inference that a psicodrama section is going to take place in the afternoom people who will exteriorize their problemas as in a teraphy or probably something as a team meeting of partnerships or a team of sport or of collaborators in a movie, in the next example the room is ordered with one chair alone near to a table and a blackboard looking to many chairs place in lines looking to the isolate chair, our visitor will suppose that a class is going to take place

If we instead distribute the chair in an aleatorial forms such as groups of chairs on a corner, some chairs here or there under letlee groups, our visitor will imagine that something as a party or an entertainment activity or a rest activity is going to happen while it must also be the clues of an improvised situation, by the placement of the chairs in the room we can infer the situations

Thus if we are in a supermarket, a market place and two girlds texan girlds are speaking inside the indian food hall and we are in another hall such as the usa, england, australian or japan food hall and we want to afford the girld we must abandon our situation to entrance in their situation, how to do, how to entrance in the another situation as soon as asking to us that question we inmediatly reconigze again now in a microsocial situation exactly the same two inscriptions discussed above in this paper about social and cultural groups, we will have to consider that this girls speaking at the india food hall have an image of thenselves as Texas ready to choice indian food while it also evolve the image they have about the image tha people who usually buy another kind of food have on texasn girlds purchaser of indian food, of girld speaking and of reasons for boys to address or afford them, and the opposite in reverse, while there is additionally the need to set in relation two well differentiated situations under a general one the supermarket, one and the another situations are here the extreme dots of the line, the intermedia inscriptions are the dilemas evolving difficulties to entrance one of the situation inside the another as to create a new one, a debise must be something to desviate this dilemas from a diagonality survey unespected by the dots and the line, a kind of another survey while that is not sufficient, the debise must provide also a way to already full the emptiness of the differences with plenty of meaningfullnnes so as to comply one situation into another by sharing spectatings horizonts and hermeneutic arranges

So the divises is not exactly a trigger, a trigger must something as to tell a friend call me from the near to the girlds hall of arabean food telling me that there you have find the grains I am looking for and when the another boy arribe then now near as as such hear by the girlds, telling him, well you will probably like to compare it with the Indians so as to justify the entrance to the indian hall and as to justify a sorry beutifull girlds, a need this grains near to you, but the trigger do nothing as to make the entrance of one situation into another as something meaninfullnnes, nothing yet to full the emptiness unrelated one situation with the another, nothing as sharigns of spectations or arranges of interpretation, it is simply the dispositive but without contents, the devises must instead work with the situation isotopies as to offer a desviation or diagonality capable to readecuate both situations into another one already meaninfullness

Let suppose we are in a buss of hundre passengers from Houston to san Francisco no one know the other and you want to breack the silence with the people nearly around you, how to do it, everyone around will hear it, here the two discussed inscriptions will be against at the forefronts, the trigger here must be letting fall off your watchs so as to provoque something to pic up it to you and be ready to not only said thanks but something more as to start a dialogue, the devise will come later no longer around the starting point, but from the point the situation must advance toward a research projects

We are in a coffe shop at Berkeley, the mediterranen coffe, for example, sit on a table and reading a book, but all the tables around are doing the same, how to do to entrance in the situation of your neightbord table, both inscriptions are goind to full the situation again not at microsituations levels

Intertextuality under fielwork is not confused with the exegesis of the texts of culture as discussed in my essay of that title, before well, it is defined by the forms of going and returning from the texts to culture and from culture in return to texts and is stablished overall at the begining and the end of a research, it belong to the analitical, theoretical and reflexibe momento of analizing the forms of research as well as of Reading by clues and inscriptions the texts of culture, beside evolving the reflexivity on devises as articulated around situational isotopies and semantic explicitations including desviations, diagonal trips and representational interfaces which are recalled from the general exegesis of the texts of culture and belong to the reconstructive and documentary momento so intertextuality is not absent at all from participant observation

This relation pass by several moments from a determinant modality generally prestablished around a Project way to be in culture –my lab in Berkeley 98—the market Project with the museum in caracas 94—making Project in havana 9o—

Parson separated as we well know several subsistems as diferentiated halls, he defined the person, society and culture as diferentiated and independent autonomous subsistems to action, in this sense with each level separated in between the question about how to go from one subsistem to another methodologically speaking, is considered here in the Forefront, how to go in fact from theorization settings and dialogues to culture and society, recordings in Oakland, from the museum in caracas, from the classroon in havana from spontaneous situations to the later meeting with the collected material

Space of the project

1-Lab-space of theorization in the academy

Mode of working: travels, routes, itineraries through cities and situations

2-The Museum: space of theorization

Mode of working: itineraries, visits and routes through the urban markets spacialities, situations and interactions

3-Classroon: space of theorization

Mode of working: itineraries and visit to so social and cultural groups in the urban space

4-Social groups in question

a-cities, artesans, boulevard street markets

b-Urban Markets

c-Social and cultural groups spaces such as concerts and private houses meetings

Now well, the actor who participate within devises situation developed under a project with the purposivennes of a research focused in a topic is informed on that purposiveness in a certain momento of the process of explicitation, something that regulates from that moment the situational isotopies and its analisis, we said regulates from the moment many other things are anticipated to continue participanting in the sucesive situations and as such the devise introduce under it a regulatory function within the evolution of semantique explicitation trajectories based in mutual explicitations, dialogues and communications

The debise take shape as result of the comprenhesion of the process of semantique explicitation result from the sucesion of situations based in a logic of commun sense usual within interaction so it is a such a another survey diagonal in respect to usual evolution of sucesions in the situational isotopies, such another survey is elaborated in respect to the two inscriptions discussed above by such another survey is not a way to avoid the situation but the emcompass it under a comprehension addressed to create an interfase of the the situations, this interace mediate and intermediate

The proposal of this interface cross through several moments of reflection on the project discussed with people and trigger a critical reflexibity on representations about which the participants are invited to participate, in berkely the ways to avoid the usual touristic representations overwell the images of the city to instead obtain intersubjective forms of interaction as to provoque another ways to afford the street vendors visual and material culture as well as meanings and the photos of it, in caracas the ways people in the urban market sense and means their world and the ways to avoid observation to emcompass intergestural communication, the phenomenology of seena dn being seen and the polophoni of the market and the making of a work based in it communicated and explicitated, in Havana the use of the image of neihgbord groups to activate already meaninfull ways to mean presence among punks and rokers

The devise is a moment of fieldwork arrange with the participants addressed to work in an interfase that will mediate the situational isotopies around the topics, in Berkeley the photos made severals by me and another by Leonor antony on me among them while without excluding photos in reverse such as those made by people asked by us on us, in caracas, the market from here: mise in scene and experiemental ethnography as work, in Havana a photographic essay on their body icons, dresses, clouds, habits, styles , hair cuts or a canvas painted in between as a mutual interfase to be showed in next concerts

The debise suspose indeed by the way interpretative arranges and spectative horizonts around sense and reasons to be of the interfase two both sides. The concept of isotopies referiental to a trajectory of congruence within a narration is here displaced outside of the linguistic surface to be played in between a sucesion of situations congruences acoording to commun sense explicitations understanded semantically, Greimas in fact dicussed a sociology of the comun sense based in semantique, something as such as presupposed here, it takes shapes as result of semantic explicitations and offers a way to understand another survey between the tow inscriptions discussed in this paper, all this is later recalled from a documentary and reconstructive perspective in a sense intertextuality reconsidered

Referencias

Bourdieu Pierre, Cosas Dichas, Gedisa

Derrida Jacques, Génesis y Estructura: De la Fenomenologia, Antropos

Eco Umberto, Las estructuras discursivas: La explicitación semántica, Pp, 123-1444, Lector un fabula, la cooperación interpretativa en el texto narrativo lumen

Habermas Junger, Ciencias Constructivas y reconstructivas: conciencia moral y acción comunicativa

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Exegesis of the Texts of culture, en Self and Acerbo: The Self and the social Between writing, research and culture, y en, The World Correlate: Interpretant and structure in posmodern cultural theory

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, A Socio-linguistic Archaeology: An análisis of ethos and imageries, paper

Kristeva Julia, Entrevista con Jacques Derrida

The Indeterminist True

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written in English and translated to English

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

An Individual Perspective

“Cual”

Jacques Derrida

At the end: indeterminism and determinism; the main epistemological question

We want to know a reality and we have two options, or we consider the subjects who are a part of it as secondary in respect to the structural objective conditions to which their life are subjected analyzing this objective structures with basis on datas, information and collection of materials miss regarding what they might say and express on themselves and their realities or in reverse we consider as relevant to the objectification and knowledge of that reality what this subjects say on themselves and express on their realities, the ways they endowed of sense as meaningfulness the their world, as for us to know that reality. The first position is determinist, the second indeterminist.

Between these two contrary extremes we have however several paradoxes, within the first option, the datas supposed to be on the objective reality use to reflect more the reality of those subjects who provide the datas and the kind of relation they maintain with such a supposed reality which they unknown than with reality itself. Such people who provide the datas are inclined to explicit unconciently a relation with such a reality usually entail with the colonial administration of it, its governmentality, in other cases, or simply to explicit several modes of exogenous and extrinsique relation to such a reality as might be for example any mode to consider reality by how it is statistically measured and not according to the experience needed inside that reality to made sense and meanings of it by those how evolved within that reality need it to live inside it

If the datas are provided, for example, by the parish priest of a reality, someone who more or less is a part of it, the material he or she provide suppose a kind of relation with such a reality he or she is a part of it as parish priest distinct, on the one side, to the remains of the other peoples who are a part of it stablishing a mode of relation between the parish priest and reality different to the kind of relation other parish priest experience in between them and reality

It supposes besides a kind of relation between that reality and another reality external and exogenous to the former one which is not a part of the former that to which the parish priest provides the datas so that in the first extreme neither assisted by administrative statistics, on population, economics and socials, we really seize with that reality more than with modes of extrinsique relations with it, never with reality it self

The second extreme, the indeterminist one, is the contrary by the fact of relativizing that any reality might be understand, know and objectify without seizing the senses and meanings, in a few words, a world of reality is impossible to be known without seizing from inside how a world is endowed by those who live and meaning it. In this mode the only form to know a reality is by a full immersion in it by a long time in a form as such that your own life must be affected by it without possibilities to make differences between your own reality and that reality so to the point that the main questions affecting people under that reality become your own questions of priorities to your own life, evolved by that reality as your own to do so you must seize the ways to sense needed to move yourselves successfully within a reality that is your own in respect to the sense of your things and ends, so inmersioned in the sense and meaning people seize under it

This sense and meaning, as we know, might be as infinity as life is and it is naïf to suppose or to figure out that you will be submerged in a reality without evolving the transformations of your cultural parameters, habits, customs and patters of previous parameters, nothing as your previous parameters will survive under it, from the moment of getting to yourself the needed sense and meanings to move inside it as to seize the sense of things, your parameter are already modified, but even let suppose that there will be not an starting moment to ask yourself about how to immerse your life in a reality, let suppose that from the beginning everything is about a reality what is already and was ever or by long time your own one, in such a case, if you are committed to take a distance to your own reality as to know it better the same problem will appear, the idea of taking a distance will be itself endogenous to the natural attitude needed to simply experience a reality and as such asking questions on that reality will be seldom rare to the usual attention of common sense on it, in a few worlds, even considering your already own reality from ever or from a longer time, a distinction between simply living it and the task to know it will make a difference that will place you in front of the indeterminism versus determinism dilemma

In front of this fact the first extreme opposite to the second several paradoxes, to sustain and affirm the individuals assign sense and endowed of sense their worlds meaning it is not a guaranty and is nothing as supposing that such sames individuals are in conditions to express that senses and meanings in the modes of languages about a reality, its senses and meanings

To guide oneself in a world through common sense and experience endowing of sense things from its pragmatics is not the same than making reference to it or a to a reality. The individual might have a feeling of things and the world surround him or her but may not find a language to express or communicate it in most of the cases more well, on the contrary, must repit stereotypes and offer instead to us a pur expression doing nothing else than repiting clicles of what everyone already knows

But the tendency to give clichés and stereotypes of what everyone already knows is not critically significant because those stereotypes are what everyone knows in a last instance tipification of the social world is required to the knowledge of it and typifying’s suppose certain level of clichés and stereotypes, this criticism become significant by other reasons which the second extreme would argue, because if you want to seize the sense and meanings from the inside of the form to endowed a reality as it is required to be understand to move yourself successfully under it as your own reality before even having a question as something to be research, such clicles and stereotypes are unusefulls thus since in a first and last instance a world of reality which make sense to people evolved within societary decurses in quotidian life is a world plenty of fresh and rich senses and to get it from its freshness and richness we must discard any pur form to represent it to instead comply the forms hermeneutic horizonts and intramundane explicitations around which worlds of life and life styles, modes of doing the things and of experience it take shape and makes sense, so that stereotypes and chicle’s uncomunicates it

Whence stereotypes and clicles might be nothing else that a mode about which the first extreme, defined in itself by modes of relation to that reality supposed to it governmentality or administration unknowns, avoid and thus here the second extreme use to argue that if an individual is repiting clichés and stereotypes is it because the modes that you have choice to be in relation with him or her is insufficient and exogenous, it is a mode that continuous depending on previously established modes of relations in which forms of authority made it extrinsique and rare to the way people give sense to their universes from the inside of it, as much as your form of relation appear from the beginning to the subject mediated by the image he or she have on you as an someone exogenous that unknown that reality since seen it from authority, the individual will face himself with a discourse addressed to that authority which will in itself exclude from it any possibility to let know the truly sense and meanings, so that in a last instance it is precisely what you mean to that reality since you are approaching it from authority what will provoque excluding any possibility of giving to you entrance to what indeed make senses and meanings inside it, repeating stereotypes and clichés appear then as a mask of conformity and a closed reaction to let authority entrance in what is truly happening, this is then about not about people meanings but about what you and your presence as exogenous mean to people

Also stereotypes and clichés are frequently ways through which people repit what was distributed under authority forms to make references to that reality while excluding from it their own societary acervos on the ways to endowed it of sense and meaning, so that they must know that in repeating to what the authority have distributed about reality unknown reality and maintaining that image is a way to maintain separated what the authority think from what reality really means to people lacanially understand so to speak

Let see examples. Tin-plate remains soft drink

We know well that to know how a man who pick up and collect in the city soft drink remains of tin plate and to seize how him give sense to his world, meaning his universe and wee the world from his perspective the only we is do it ourselves too

But as much as it is not probably to us thus that we can’t imagine doing it from our situation as much as in reverse we must figure out all a man as such must do to understand how we make sense of what we do and why is it not probably for us to do what to him is a world

We can’t however avoid the question as much as we want to know how he mean his world that asking him, how to do, what to say, should we bring with us an anticipated question or should we buy soft drink remains to him

If we choice to buy soft drinks remains to him we choice a type of relation which evolve in itself meanings and senses to him so that in defining the way of relation are supposed modes of endowing senses to his world and things, since you have choice to buy his soft drinks remains you are becoming a client to him a purchaser but given that the market of soft drink remains is not as usual in terms of merchants you must pay attention to seize the specific sense evolved in being to a man a such a purchaser and a client, soft drinks remains are without doubt far to be first hands merchants, nothing in it is new, but reused and collected and as such that market take shape from a quest vendors of it usually do in a social level about who in certain circumstances might be interested and inclined to buy it, so that we are inserted in a very unusual market

We should value that a collector of soft drinks remains of tin plates must not in general have a well stablished market of clients since a percent of his tin-plates are obtained from a varieties of secondary benefits such as for example, the enterprises of communal which from their standards trucks of trash toward the general city are not occupied and or focused in the details of soft drinks remains dispersed or disseminated sometimes in unusual places not ever with the remains of the city trash and as so an addition effort independent to that must be needed by the struggle of this kind of mans focused in a quest under the city narrow halls and corners were additional soft drink remains must be find and collected

People can let it in unexpected places from day to night so that this man obtain his benefits sailing his services as an additional work to the Enterprise which report the city cleaning or another percent to nonprofits and or kinds of organizations focused in ecology and the issue of recycling industry remains as to reuse it to social values and or recycle it as to avoid secondary effects to the ecosystem

Such kind of matter at the same time must be distributed to the benefit of artisans or another kind of activities needed of that remains to aesthetic and or environments ends, so that in any case in choosing to buy it to him as the way to entrance in relation as to understand how he means and sense his world is not like acceding to a firsthand merchant neither an usual way to engage him

Beside that we can imagine an artist who approach the collector by another reasons such as explaining him that he is doing an art sculpture with soft drinks remains as matter and that he need it in a whole sale proportions as much as possible and under that example you must figure yourself differences to it, you must, for example, differentiate that while the artist will also buy it to him a quality will peculiarize his mode, first he will not buy is without explaining to what, second as soon as explain to what is will appear to the vendor collector as something already provided precisely by ways to give sense to soft drinks remains and probably the example under which it will probably acquire more senses than in any other form, you must then recognize that in reverse in your case it is not clear the sense that you as purchaser are endowing to it and that as such as distance to the sense he and collector and vendor give to it and you as his purchaser will be bigger, beside, paradoxically in your case the issue of sense as regarded in reverse since you are the one who is interested in how the vendor collector endowed of sense his world and meaning it or seen the world from his perspective

Between the artist and the vendor a matter and a sense endowed to that matter by the purchaser is mediating the relation and its engagement, two modes of endowing of sense soft drink remains are in relation around a same matter and mediate the relation, in your case, nothing as to know your own endowing of sense to that matter to which he dedicates his time and life, is unfolded and explicated, why and to what are you buying it?

So without doubt you are here in front of realizing that beyond your wishes and motivations something involved in the mode to be in relation to him and to engage him will inscribe you to him, meaning that will give you a place among his inscriptions and will inscribe you under it

You may probably argue that in terms of ethics to try to seize with the mode he endowed of sense and meanings his world and reality buying his soft drinks remains is a more ethical mode to pretend something in exchange when minimum understanding his economic situation it will not be equitative to occupy in understanding how he mean his world knowing that he is occupy in surviving in that world. We’ll let supposes thus that your choice buying as the mode of relation to obtain in exchange knowing his ways to mean his reality and see the world, whence if you stablish this relation you must be later challenged to let him know, to explain him or to make intelligible to him that differently to another’s purchasers your pretention is about something more than simply buying it

Inside this pragmatique of possible relation you must consider that usually direct purchasers mean something to him in exchange and that what you as asking in exchange is after all not necessarily miss regarded since additionally to buying your interest goes beyond that with something more, in this sense, equity is followed by a barter principle of exchanging something by something

This fact which in respect to his convenience may devaluate your position in the barters since in a last instance if all is about surviving in his world nothing as to try to know how he mean his world will ever be more convenient to him that to continue buying his soft drink remains, between one and another thing you have to arrange to define how to goes beyond just buying it to instead pretending something more, and this questions evolved and is itself an ethnographic question, indeed, the ethnography question is evolved and implicit since we started all our deliberation on the relation itself

How to do?, stopping to buy soft drink remains or to do both things at the same time?, to analyze and dialogue with him your own situation?, something as saying, more than buying your softs drinks I want now to know how is that of living pic upping it and to understand it, or saying nothing, to continue buying it and to arranges yourself while trying to understand his world

Or You might bring an interview and say to him today I want to buy you ten soft drinks and to make you an interview because I am preparing a film on soft drink remains collectors or I am writing something on the city and interested in your point of view, or I am realizing a work on remains and ecology and I want to work it from the perspective of those who pick up soft drink remains in the city, on pollution, if you made this last option, although avoiding to focus on him, you are calling inside him his inscriptions on what it previously mean to him

The artist, for example, probably will be interested in the matter but not necessarily on him and his world, a case as such is not less attractive

But returning to our previous questions, how to do, to be attentive to collector’s hours of work as to stablish a dialogues with some of them, or to go to the archives of films as to unveil who before you were interested in the same theme, how the relation with this kind of collectors was and what’s ups about the results?

Let supposes that you are visualizing two distinct films, the first one tematize soft drink remain collectors but subordinated to a more general issue about recycling’s of remains in the city and ecology, on industry pollution and the relation between merchants and remains, from panoramic planes of the city it turns to meddle planes and sometime close up and occasionally focusses in this kind of collectors urban mans, a voice in off is sustaining a general discourse on the city and by moment mention the cases of this mans to the point of nearing a group of them as to start asking question

Why are you collecting this tin plates, must be the question?

Because it is my job and by economic subsistence, must be the answers

Or let imagine the opposite, now you have a film in which a group of artists appears with a camera in the habit of one of this man’s so inside the house of one, you can see through the film how the house is full of this collected soft drinks remains even used not only as something keep but as to environment and build divisions and areas of the house as well as artisans decorations furniture’s mades with this remains may be seen at several points of the house such as on living room tables as to aesthetic it better, beyond only using the material to be sale which is something also obvious by certain areas of sacs, this collector is inserted into a whole universe around the drink soft remains

In the house in course you may see several film cameras, one of the cameras shows the artists with a camera making scenes of the walls, artesanies and some sacs beside as suppose another camera is in the same position of the soft drinks remains collector making scenes of how the artists are at the same time making scenes inside the house.

How is you’re feeling about the scenes they are taking inside the house? one artist asks to the collector the one place near him

I think they probably like my soft drinks remains, it like it too, or maybe they like this artistic forms created with the tin-plates, answer the collector

Do you like what they are doing.?

Well, I have not seen it yet directly

Do you want to see what they are filming?

Yes, of course.

Do you want we to let you copies of the scenes filmed with the camera?

yes, of course,

we will let you a copy for sure, to what do you want to have it?

To have it.

Do you want to make yourself some scenes of them filming your tin-plates?

yes, why not,

why?

because all this is my and thus I must then have it later,

do you think these scenes we take here have to much light?

it is because the door is open, I will better close it and you must do it again, why are not taking images of this here,

well we will soon, there was to much light too, do you want we to take image of this artesanies?

well yes,

who did this?

I did it this is the room of my son,

let take image of that,

yes of course,

also this wall, this is my,

do you want to move the artesanies to a best place to film it?,

yes,

well where do you want we to take it?,

on this side will be best,

entrance of scenes of the collector putting the artesanies where he prefers it to be taken.

Again Do you like the idea to take images by yourself?

well, I don’t know to operate that camera,

is simple, just push your fingers looking what you want to take from here

Entrance on frames of scene of another day, the collector distributed an environment made with tin-plates, soft drink remains in the outside of his house near to a back yard or a garden, he did like a set or scenography to take images with the camera, now his own, it was like a background with fabrics included, he asked the artist to stand up one by one on that background so a to make one by one a film while he also called people from his family and the neighbor as to set them near and around each artist, he asked the community people to tell their name and a short story on themselves as well as to each artists

As distinguished in two distinct modes about possible ways to entrance in relation and engage with soft drink remains in the city in the first case our example choice to buy the collector soft drinks as the way to start a communication, under such a situation our research example discovered him selves trapped in between the collector inscriptions about what purchasers of his tin—plates had mean to him before and his own way to be inscribed by the sense and meanings evolved within his choice form already discussed in this paper, in the meddle way we discussed an hypothetical example, the one of the artist who afford the collector to buy soft drinks to an sculpture, we already analyzed the differences and specificities on this modality in terms of engagements, a sense attributed to the soft drinks by the purchaser qualify him in respect to the collector in the a different forms since he also have sense to endow to the same material instead of being interested in the senses and meanings all that mean to the collector, usually artists as such are not, differently to our first example, interested in the subject behind the material they need, only interdisciplinary artists motivated by issues and questions of sociology and anthropology are interested in going beyond mere materials toward subjects and their ways to seen, perceive and mean things and worlds, our last example has showed to us a modality of this kind, when even as a something seldom and unusual we meet artists committed with a modality I have defined since the late eighties as sociological art or at least, of interdisciplinary research of art developed under a model of sociology investigations, while the point to be learned about the case in discussion stablish a major difference to the usual modality of making films on this kind of urban subjects such as the first film evoque on pollution, recycling, industry and ecology, the point of interest about this last example is seized by the fact that from a certain moment everything is in reverse, instead of the research who have something to say on its subject, it is the subject of his attention the one who have a perspective to bring to the film on the subjects of research. We know already some cases as this both in sociology and in anthropology, but the reason to call to the attention an example as such is to illustrate with example the differences and paradoxes between the true of indeterminism versus determinism which is the main focus of the current paper discussion

The dilemma focused and discussed in this paper, while an issue i am discussing since my first book, was also major in how i deliberated the form and ways to research and explore both fieldwork and the mise in scene of it in my work of sociology and anthropology in visual displays the market from here, in a few worlds my perspective was to that research on the side of the indeterminist true, I conceive the final work resulted as a way to evoque the sense and meanings assigned to the markets as well as how from the urban markets the world is seize of senses by the mans and woman’s of common sense who are vendors and purchaser under it, more than priorizing my perspective as observer a concept which in fact, I deconstructed on the work with the idea of the markets as polyphony, the dismantle of the observer in favor of the observer observed and the polyphony of markets, I research and explored a way to encompass a focuses on their own senses among the markets while regarding my position as author, sociologist and anthropologist as one of elaborating a critique of representation and of evocation. One of the main issue discussed under that work in fact was the possibilities to innovate and renew from new avenues and perspective unexpected new questions and unveiling new answers to the dilemma of indeterminism and determinism, I hope, at the end, that the market from here, attempted and attained to demonstrate firs that there are new possibilities to exercise and increase the plenty and richness of indeterminists true perspectives

The Market from Here: Mise in scene and experimental ethnography is a work i did it as result of my own fieldwork presented later as a mise in scene of that fieldwork at rice university during march-April of 97 at the back yard sewall hall sculpture court a work fully based and focused in the urban popular markets of Venezuela during the neoliberal capitalist period on the country.

References

Bourdieu Pierre, Said Things, Gedisa

Habermas Junger, The Problem of Comprehension in Social Sciences, Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press, Boston

Habermas Junger, La Problemática de la Comprensión en Ciencias Sociales, Pp, 144-196, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Tomo I, Taurus

Habermas, Junger La Teoría de la Racionalización en Max Weber, Pp, 197-250, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Taurus

Shurtz, Alfred Knowledge in the World of Every Day Life

Tyler Stephen A, on the markets in India, A POINT OF ORDER, Pp 133-135, Rice University studies, 1973-1974, USA

Bibliography

Benoist Jean, Julia Kristeva, Michael Serres and others, Identity: meeting with Claude Levis Strass, Petrel

Bourdieu Pierre, cosas dichas, Gedisa

Breglia Lisa, lecture discussed at the panel of Lasa congress, with lectures by Quetzil Eugenio, Abdel Hernandez San Juan and Lisa Breglia, LASA, Florida, 2000

Deleuze Gilles, The Fold, Leibniz and the Baroque, the University of Minnesota Press

Deleuze Gilles, El Pliegue: Leibniz y el Barroco, Paidos Studio

Deleuze Gilles, Empiricism and subjectivity, An Essay on Hume Theory of human nature, Columbia university press

Derrida, Jacques Ousia and Gramme, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida, Jacques The Supplement of the Couple, Margins of Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press

Derrida Jacques, Génesis y Estructura: De la Fenomenologia, Antropos

Eugenio Quetzil, letter to Abdel Hernandez San Juan as transart foundation artistic director, Lake Forest College, Faculty of Sociology and anthropology, Lake Forest College, Illinois, USA, 1999

Eugenio Quetzil, lecture discussed at the panel of Lasa congress, with lectures by Quetzil Eugenio, Abdel Hernandez San Juan and Lisa Breglia, LASA, Florida, 2000

Eugenio Quetzil, The Neoliberal imperative of tourism, vol 34, no 3, pp 47-51, summer 2012

Eugenio, Quetzil The Invisible theater of Ethnography: Performative Principles of Fieldwork, The Open School of Anthropology and Ethnography, Anthropological Quarterly 79 (I)75-104, USA

Eugenio Quetzil, Art Writing in the modern Maya art world of chichen itza, Transcultural ethnography and experimental fieldwork, American Ethnologist, Open School of Ethnography and Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 21–42, Universidad autonoma de Yucatan, 2004

Eugenio Quetzil, Between Pure and Applied Research: Experimental Ethnography in a Transcultural tourist Art World, Napa Bulletin, 23: 87-118

Eagleton Terry, Phenomenology, hermeneutic and reception theory, Literary Theory: An Introduction, The university of Minnesota press

Eco Umberto, Las estructuras discursivas: La explicitación semántica, Pp, 123-1444, Lector un fabula, la cooperación interpretativa en el texto narrativo lumen

Eco Umberto, Cinésica y Proxemica, El Campo Semiótico, La Estructura Ausente

Eco Umberto, Sociolinguistica-etnolinguistica, Pp 14-16, El Campo Semiótico, Pp 9-22, la estructura ausente, lumen

Gadamer George, Estética y hermenéutica, Tecnos, colección metrópolis

Habermas Junger, The Self and the Social; Mead, The Change of Paradigm, Pp, The Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press

Habermas Junger, El Self y lo Social; Mead, El Cambio de Paradigmas, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Taurus

Habermas Junger, The Problem of Comprehension in Social Sciences, Volume 1-Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, Beacon Press.

Habermas Junger, La Problemática de la Comprensión en Ciencias Sociales, Pp, 144-196, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa I y II, Taurus

Habermas Junger, The Problem of Comprehension in Social Sciences, Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press, Boston

Habermas Junger, La Problemática de la Comprensión en Ciencias Sociales, Pp, 144-196, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Tomo I, Taurus

Habermas, Junger La Teoría de la Racionalización en Max Weber, Pp, 197-250, Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, Taurus

Habermas Junger, Ciencias Constructivas y reconstructivas: conciencia moral y acción comunicativa

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking Urban Anthropology, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, Complete Works, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Presentational Linguistic, Complete Works, 98 Labs Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intangible, Selected Essays, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Being and Monad, Complete Works, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Given and the Ungiven, Complete Works, 98 Lab Books, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Exegesis of the Texts of culture, en Self and Acerbo: The Self and the social Between writing, research and culture, y en, The World Correlate: Interpretant and structure in posmodern cultural theory

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Stratus Confines, Pp, The Presentational Linguistic, Book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizont, Complete Works, Tome VI, Book, 2017

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Sobreordination in everyday life, The Intramudane Horizont, Complete Works, Tome VI, Book, 2017

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Los Seculares: Problemas de comunicación entre ámbitos, disciplinas y especialidades, en El Ser y la monada

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Exegesis of the Texts of culture, en Self and Acerbo: The Self and the social Between writing, research and culture, y en, The World Correlate: Interpretant and structure in posmodern cultural theory

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The World Correlate, Pp, The World Correlate: Interpretant and structure in posmodern cultural theory

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking urban anthropology, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Anthropology of archaeology, book

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Eclipse of Evocation, Paper, Houston, Texas, USA, 1997

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Self and Acerbo: The Self and the Social between writing, research and culture, Texas, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, The Intramundane Horizonts: Hermeneutic and phenomenology of everyday life, Texas, USA

Hernandez san Juan Abdel, The Market from Here: Mise in Scene and Experimental Etnography, lecture discussed at the panel of LASA Congress, with lectures by Abdel Hernandez San Juan, Quetzil Eugenio and Lisa Breglia, LASA, Florida, USA, 2000

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, From modern to posmodern markets. By Abdel Hernandez San Juan, catalogue of the market from here, rice university, back yard sewall hall, april, produced by Transart Foundation of Houston, transart foundation of Houston catalogues collection, Houston, Texas, USA, 1997

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, 1997- Devises in urban sociology fieldwork. By Abdel Hernandez San Juan, theoretical conference lectured in person at the bag lectures main room, included a pos lecture dialogue with theoretical interventions by Abdel Hernandez San Juan, Surpic Angelini, Stanford carpenter, Quetzil Eugenio, James Foubiam, with the documentary participation of Surpic Angelini and Johannes Birringer, tape and film recorded, translated by Surpic Angelini, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel 1997- The Eclipse of Evocation. By Abdel Hernandez San Juan, paper, 8055 Cambridge Street, 83, Houston, Texas, 77054, translated by Surpic Angelini, Houston, Texas, 1997

Hernandez San Juan Abdel 1998- Pierre Bourdieu. By Abdel Hernandez San Juan, Conference Lectured in person at the Bag Lectures Main Room, 12.00 Am, coordinated by faculty students, Anthropology Faculty, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Thinking Science: New Avenues of phenomenological research between philosophy and sociology

Hegel W G, La Ciencia de la Lógica, Hachete

Kristeva Julia, Entrevista con Jacques Derrida

Logan Joy, transculturation and affect in the l2 classroom: Teaching English and ethnography in the Yucatan, University of Hawaii at manoa, usa, published at www.osea-cite.org, For OSEA matters please use quetzil@osea-cite.org 

Muguenza Javier, Salvador bueno, José Maria malabar, Max Weber, Teoría sociología Contemporanea, Tecnos

Schütz Alfred, El Conocimiento en los Mundos de la Vida Cotidiana, edited by Schutz wife Ilse Heim with Thomas Luckmann

Tyler Stephen A, on the markets in India, A POINT OF ORDER, Pp 133-135, Rice University studies, 1973-1974, USA

Tyler a Stephen, Evocation, the Unwriteable, a response to abdel Hernandez san Juan, sep 9, rice university, Houston, Texas

Tyler Stephen A, Lexemes, Lexical analysis, Pp, A Point of Order, Rice University studies

Tyler A Stephen, Ethnography, intertextuality and the end of description, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1985, The American journal of semiotic Pages 83-98

Tyler A Stephen, emails to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, 2013-2014