Podcast
Failure Is Freedom
Hosted by https://www.martinessig.com · EN
I'm exploring why Generation X failed to get free, and how the concept of "authenticity" was turned into a sort of un-freedom.
14episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Hermeneutic Circles: Annihilation
3w ago01:31:29Tap to summarizeHere is another example of Hermeneutic circles in action. Annihilation, both the book and the movie, are like David Tracy's "Classics" to me because they provide an inexhaustible wealth of possible interpretations, especially because they both deal so strongly with the ambiguity of identity, including the ambiguity of the apparently determinate nature of our genetic inheritance. My partner Char and I have a horror podcast in which this episode first appeared that deals with ideas around the vertigo of irreducible ambiguity in the Horror genre. https://www.buzzsprout.com/2509184 My sister Andrea who works professionally as a scientist joins us for this episode's exploration of the slipperiness of the material reduction to "scientific facts." https://www.buzzsprout.com/2565712 This is the link to my podcast "Deep Calls to Deep: Reading Together," which explores the possibilities for hermeneutic circles more thoroughly.https://youtu.be/nqaZp3-AK4Q and this is the YouTube link to the episode if you'd like a visual of us hashing out Annihilation.We get deep into the weird genetic refractions of Alex Garland's very loose take on Jeff Vandermeer's Annihilation. Area X seems to be a place of infinite possibilities, except for the possibility of remaining untouched by the mysterious, churning flows of organic codes that produce mixed bodies of unknowable intention. What is the intention of this alien presence in what seems to be a swamp somewhere on the Florida coast of the Gulf of Mexico? Maybe, it doesn't have one. Join us as we think about the human proclivity for self-destruction, the ambiguity of identity, and how the intentions of organic bodies arise from the non-intention of inorganic processes.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →Hermeneutic Circles: Jesus is Tested
3w ago01:02:41Tap to summarizeI post this crossover episode as an example of the possibilities for hermeneutic circles as a religious practice. And as a reminder that our only freedom is the open and even playful interpretation of being. And I always love pointing out to people that if they want to follow Jesus, they would do well to adopt the curiosity about the meaning of being that led him out into the wilderness to have a conversation with Satan, and which led him to reinterpret scriptures according to his hermeneutic of love. It is often pointed out that Jesus would have be considered a poor interpreter of the bible in the light of modern Biblical scholarship, and that much to the chagrin of modern "Biblical Literalists," neither he nor any of his interlocutors held to such a limiting and deluded principle, except for maybe Satan, but that his open relation to his tradition allowed for him to understand himself and religious community in a new way. True followers of Christ seek to "make all things new."https://youtu.be/Fgjqb6bKJ_sMy Uncle Father Herb, my Dad Bob, and I discuss Jesus's testing in the desert. I chose the passage this time. It has always spoken to me about how we are left to interpret the Word of God for ourselves but as a community of interpreters. There will be no one "absolute" interpretation that excludes all the others. However, there will be interpretations that cannot withstand the practices of a hermeneutic circle of responsible interpreters. A hermeneutic circle tests possible interpretations against a set of criteria, which for our circle of Biblical interpreters includes: historical-critical techniques and scholarly information, the history of the theological interpretations of the Church, and our own experiences of trying to apply Biblical teachings and narratives to our lives. But the most important principle for the interpretive practices of those who seek the God of love is love, which is sometimes called the interpretive practice of "Christ the Key" in the Church's tradition of Biblical interpretation. Our faith is that the histories, mythologies and even the laws of the Bible must be interpreted, which means they are open, except for those interpretations that would close one off to hope or love. Unloving Biblical interpretation is without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is what proliferates most rampantly today. This is the consequence of both our fallenness and our freedom to interpret without love's lure. Love is revealed anew throughout ours lives as it has historically been reveled through out the lives of those who have sought it, but it is always a lure to love and never compulsory because love according to its nature must be freely chosen. Even when things seem dark or evil, it is our faith that God is still speaking as the lure to love. Jesus's test in the desert reveals His ministry and is character to Himself and to those that would follow Him. Satan's job as God's "prosecuting attorney," is to test and reveal. In the desert Jesus reinterprets the figure of the "Messiah" from his Jewish tradition and scripture according to the law of love, so that it becomes a figure not of power but of weakness as love does not overpower or control. Jesus passes His test by refusing to test, which is to choose the revelation of love over whatever revelation is given by tests of strength.If you want to check this episode out on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Fgjqb6bKJ_shttps://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →Season 3: Making All Things New
4w ago01:09:18Tap to summarizeThis season will be focussed on how we can reinterpret our inheritance to make it new through the practice of interpretation. Nothing that is given to us from the past can be received without interpretation. The practice of interpretation is called "Hermeneutics" after the Greek messenger god Hermes. Interpretation can close, but only retroactively since the present is always open to a reinterpretation of the past, which means to change one's relation to the past, and thus, change the relations of the past. Closing on a particular interpretation is to determine or objectify, but every determination or realization of possibility actuates more open possibility. AN Whitehead explained that each "Actual Occasion," which was something like a spatiotemporal slice or droplet of experience was comprised of at least three essential elements: one, an intention for novel experience or for novel affect, which was often embodied in the body of the creature or "Superject" that chose what to ingress into an Actual Occasion; two, the "physical pole," which was the concrescences or concrete forms, whether material or conceptual, that were ingressed from the past; and three, the "mental pole," or open virtuality of actualized possibility that was yet to be fully realized, including the "Eternal Ideas" localized in the Actual Occasion as the transcendent yet imminent "Mind of God." Interpretation is possible because of the incomplete determination of the mental pole. This incomplete determination allowed the Superject access to actual possibility through the process of conceptualization, which might be thought of as making what has already beed determined or concresced less determinate, or as intervening in the causal chain by determining some of the incompletely determined causality. Determination is a retroactive closure that is always reopened in the present by the mental pole's access to virtuality and the Superject's intention for novel affect, concepts, and experience.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →Season 2 Final
Apr 1600:46:33Tap to summarizeWe have been working through the idea that the unresolved contradiction of binary oppositions is a structural description of how the world appears to us and, perhaps, is also how it is in-itself. Every possible reduction of experience to knowable identities or definitions cannot completely account for or make intentional all of what is given by our experience, which is the "too-much givenness" of phenomenology, to objective or whole phenomena or concepts. The classical phenomenology of Edmund Husserl attempted to eliminate the mediating concepts of perception via the "Eidetic Reduction," so that what appears might appear from its own initiative, or so that phenomena may appear in-themselves, as themselves, and from themselves, stripped of the obscuring mediation of concepts. But this return to some sort of primary naivete has proven elusive because the conceptual mediation of experience seems to be the ground of any possible experience, even though Kantian categories aren't really concepts but the internalization of the natural laws, which ground whatever appears. Raw or unmediated percepts have to be copulated with other percepts to be perceived, which means that at least the categories of relation and difference are necessary mediators of whatever appears as given. The primary relation, or category, of cause to effect is given by the relation of space-time to matter-energy according to the categories of the natural laws. But causes cannot be directly observed, as David Hume famously pointed out, and effects, especially those considered as what appears as the phenomena of the world, cannot be reduced in total to material causality as is demonstrated in the work of Jean-Luc Marion by his concept of "Saturated Phenomena." The too-much givenness of Saturated Phenomena leaves any possible reduction to physical causality or to conceptual reasons constitutively incomplete, and therefore, they produce the non-objects of "Counter-Experience," rather than the objects of the material reduction or to the phenomena of the Eidetic reduction. This incompleteness, which Marion describes as the mismatch between intuition and intention or between what is given as affective, or felt, phenomena and what can be reduced to causes, leaves room for the virtual space of the subjunctive Imaginary in which possibilities can be actuated and realized, but also in which these realizations actualize more open possibility, which Deleuze thought of as the difference given by a repetition without a concept and Meister Eckhart thought of as God's revealing by withdrawing deeper into His infinite depths. This is the infinitely open, constantly multiplying possibility that does not mean a hermeneutics of anything-goes, but rather of a dialectic with the creative processes of being's becoming other than itself in the relation of identity to difference or self to other or interior to exterior or the One to the many, and so on. Hermeneutics is then where we will turn to next in season three because it is how we participate in creation by making being eternally new.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →Too Much Givenness
Mar 3101:00:15Tap to summarizeThe Hegelian dialectical, double negation does not resolve into a synthesis. There is always a remainder of irreducible ambiguity, so that all phenomena are saturated in Jean-Luc Marion's sense that too much has been given to intuition to reduce to the phenomenal and conceptual objects of the intention. Being is too excessive to be reduced to intentional phenomena and conceptualizations. No matter how many intentional percepts we may copulate with percepts, or percepts with concepts, or concepts with concepts, we will never reduce being to either the perceivable nor to the knowable because what being is becoming isn't determined. The indeterminacy of nonbeing cracks open being's becoming in being's procession into the entropic abyss of space-time, while concurrently, the abyss speaks "on" and "in" the matter of determinate being's energetic resistance to it as the binary opposition of the impermanent, material somethings, on the one hand, and the nothing of pure potential, on the other. The One becomes many in a glorious failure to contain itself, like Beckett's "incontinent void" or Paul Valéry's "blemish on the perfection of nonbeing." Perhaps, nonbeing's victory will eventually be absolute in its ultimate, self-defeating, heat death. But until then, the void will speak in the deformations and clumpy configurations wrought in matter's inconsistent dispersal into the abyss that birthed it. For now, being's excess coincides with its lack, which is its lack of oneness, or its inability to unify all of its multiplicity under a single intention. The One that "fails to be at one with itself" is being's intimacy with the nonbeing endemic to it. Let all things be made new in the continual baptism of the dialectic of love, in which the beautiful, sublime, and horrific erotically twist around each other in Blakesque songs of experience.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →What Is Seen as Unseeable
Mar 2700:55:03Tap to summarizeLacanian excessive enjoyment, or "jouissance," is enjoying what is unenjoyable. The excessive part of excessive enjoyment refers to the irreducibility of jouissace to mere enjoyment or pleasure. The ground of whatever there is, is contradiction. The contradiction of dialectical, binary opposition doesn't resolve into a third thing or object, but into a third non-object. Jean-Luc Marion wrote that the subject of "Counter-Experience" was the irresolvable ambiguity of the counter-object or of the non-object. The non-object is that which lacks objectification because of its excess, or because Saturated Phenomena produce too much intuition or affect to reduce to intentional objectification or conceptualization. The subject of jouissance is also the non-object, which is formed by the Lacanian "non-relation." Binary oppositions such as visible and invisible or darkness and light or enjoyable and unenjoyable constitute each other in a mystical co-arising from their ground in the absolute contradiction of binary opposition, which is the absolute resistance of the Lacanian Real to representation. It is the irresolvablity of this primordial double negation that produces the excess of lack inherent to jouissance.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →What Withdraws from Identity?
Mar 2300:56:13Tap to summarizeAn identity is a type of interpretation. An interpretation is a type of closer. Ludwig Wittgenstein's famous obsession with the duck / rabbit figure was how he demonstrated that there was no solid ground from which to render a final judgment about what something was because any possible ground for a judgement was itself incomplete, which Lacan put as "There is no metalanguage," and Leotard put as "There is no meta-narrative." For Deleuze, any interpretive closure, like a phenomenological objectification or an intentional conceptualization, contained the illusion of wholeness given by the appearance of a repetition, which was the illusion of "resemblance," but there was no true repetition because resemblance was the imposition of a transcendent identity onto what was ultimately immanent difference, which for Deleuze was the differential background that underlay all reality and any possible foregrounding of an objective unification. Lacan saw the projection of the virtual object, which he called "Objet-Petit-a" in a similar manner, as a fantasy projection of wholeness onto what was essentially incomplete, disunified, and ambiguous, like Deleuze's differential background from which any temporary repetition emerged, which Deleuze called, "Difference-in-itself." Lacan's phenomenology can be said to be that of object-small-a because it was a fantasy projection that unified a multiplicity or positivized a lack of oneness as if a one, which was the oneness imagined in Lacan's register of the Imaginary. Badiou, referring to the work of Meillassoux, called this projection of oneness the "take-as-one" function of Set Theory, in which oneness is imposed by defining what belongs in the set and what doesn't. The outside definition of a set, or its externally given intention, functions as a classical substance because it defines what it contains like a substance used to contain its attributes. In Kant's phenomenology, the subjective intention "synthesizes" objective phenomena via intuitive categories, and then projects these objectifications as what appears as the objective, exterior world. This intuitive synthesis accords with the general structure of the take-as-one unification because it synthesizes a one from perceptual difference, as in Whitehead's definition of a perception or a conceptualization as at least two percepts joined together according to a rule. However, this synthesis isn't complete as Hegel showed in his dialectical double negation, which didn't resolve into a synthesis but was always left with an irresolvable remainder, which could be called "irreducible ambiguity." Irreducible ambiguity might be thought of as a contradiction that cannot be resolved into a synthesis, but a nonetheless, productive irresolution. If irreducible ambiguity is what withdraws from any interpretation, then, perhaps, it is a productive withdrawal, just as the Lacanian Real is what resists symbolic identification but is also the ground of the Symbolic, or as the void is the negation whose inability to negate itself produces whatever appears as the world.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →Do We have Essences?
Mar 1900:56:37Tap to summarizeGraham Harmon has helpfully outlined the problems with both what AN Whitehead called "substance ontology" and the lack of substances in Whiteheadian Process Philosophy and Saussarean Structuralism. In most contemporary philosophy there are no essences or "natural kinds" as there once were in classical philosophy, but substances are hard to get rid of entirely, probably because the "natural stance" of our subjective experience categorizes the world, or divides it up into discreet objects, which seem to reflect "real" divisions of types of things. However, these "clear" borders between types are growing confused as the intrusions of the Lacanian "Real" cause the identities of things to fail. It is hard to ignore how traditional categories no longer work, as the particularly predominate example of gender shows. In the US a nostalgic longing for the return of easily identifiable types has played no small part in the return of authoritarian populism. The desire for the "Big Other" to tell us what we are is strong here, which is the desire for repression and control that is imagined as the return of the lost Eden of a once great America.But this Eden in which "men were men and women and minorities knew there place," like all other fantasy, lost objects never really was. There has never been a time when the categories of the "Big Other" didn't encounter their failure in the Real. It is just that the repression of this failure has been more or less successful, and with the distance of time, it becomes easier to imagine through the lens of nostalgia that there was a halcyon time when the world knew what it was. But what about the a priori categories that Kant taught were necessary to have even our most basic perceptions? Do those internalizations of the natural laws also fail? Harmon shows that something is lost in what he calls the "overmining" of Structuralism and Process Philosophy, which is for him the withdrawal of the "thing-in-itself" from the relations of symbolic difference so essential for language users to make a world through the copulation of the signifiers and concepts of the Symbolic with percepts. The thing-in-itself also famously withdrew from the pre-conceptual, or intuitive, perceptions of Kant's phenomenal representation in the subjective intention, which he saw as the synthesis of the things that appear to us from the intuitive relations of the categories and the noumenal things-in-themselves. This "withdrawal" at the level of the natural laws had been the focus of much of Zizek's recent work on Quantum indeterminacy in which the causal categories of perception fail to determine the things-in-themselves. This failure at the level of the internalized natural laws is mostly due to the unavoidability of the most basic category of cause and effect and its basis in space-time for perception, which is sometimes described as the "observer effect." Quantum fields do not seem to be determined by causes in the same way that the macro level of reality is, which means that they do not seem to be in space-time in the same way either. How can observers totally dependent on causality to either perceive or conceive, know anything about a thing-in-itself that withdraws beyond the a priori categories of quantity, quality, mode, and relation? Let's get into it.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →Kant's Intuition and the Lacan's Imaginary
Feb 1800:46:44Tap to summarizeKant's use of the term "intuition" was different than how we might normally think of it. By intuition we usually mean something like having been registered affectively in the body but unanalyzed or without conceptualization. We often intuit a situation as an affective whole before we have analyzed it rationally. However, Kant meant the synthesis of whatever is "before" our perception of the world that makes the world appear as if given in immediacy, even though this immediacy is given by the mediation of his a priori categories. Kantian intuition and phenomenological intention in general, are the largely unconscious processes of consciousness, or of how phenomena appear as the world to us by "filtering" the "noumenal" realm, or what Kant called the "things-in-themselves," through the physical laws often lumped together under the general groupings of quantity, quality, relation, and mode. This filter is not learned but given as the "transcendental subjectivity," or evolutionary interface, that allows us to learn about and construct ourselves and the world through the binary opposition of an internal self to an external other, or the world of phenomenal objectifications. The interface of the subjective screen is the natural laws, or at least those that are relevant to our instrumental interactions with the Universe, internalized as the categories by which the world appears to us.The Lacanian Imaginary register does something similar because it is what makes the whole and complete objects of the phenomenological world that appear on our intentional screen. However, the perceptual or conceptual unity of a "natural" category according to the physical laws or of a virtual category according to the dictates of the concepts of a given Symbolic are projected into the noumenal realm in the Imaginary register, this unification covers over a fundamental lack of oneness constitutive of the "inconsistent multiplicity" of whatever is "before" this imaginary projection, which is how the fundamental binary opposition of indeterminacy, or space, and the determinations of the physical laws on matter / energy "synthesize" whatever there is, or the Universe as a whole. However, there is no complete synthesis, or determination, of being because being isn't a one, except in the imaginary "take as one" function of Set Theory. The Lacanian Real is the inconsistent multiplicity, or the deferential background, of any possible foregrounding of an objective whole in the Imaginary register. The Real exposes that both the wholes of the Kantian intuition as well as the Lacanian Imaginary and the signifiers of the Symbolic are incomplete, which means that the noumenal is the differential background that is always breaking through and warping the foregrounded phenomenal "world." Joan Copjec calls the warped phenomenal objects of the subjective intuition "object-small-a's" because they are the incomplete "wholes" that Lacan outlined as his "abject-petite-a."https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →There Is No "Before" of Binary Oppositions
Feb 300:52:58Tap to summarizeThere is no thing without the dialectic of some-thing and no-thing. Whatever was before the binary opposition of something and nothing, was neither something nor nothing. When this primordial non-thing, perhaps an "inconsistent multiplicity," or an absolutely unified, absolute nothing, was separated into something and nothing, then binary oppositions gave us everything that is, which is just like saying being is a relation to nonbeing and not a thing-in-itself. However, this cut into the primordial void didn't accomplish a complete dichotomization of differential relations because it couldn't entirely eliminate whatever ambiguity was "before" this separation. The incompletion of this separation reflects the inherent incompletion of the determination of being into either the positivity of presence or the negativity of absence. The irreducible ambiguity of what is, is that it also "isn't," which is reflected in such bizarre quantum phenomena as "interposition" and "non-locality," as well as in macro level phenomena described best by Jean-Luc Marion's adumbration of "Saturated Phenomena." Saturated Phenomena produce indeterminable hermeneutics from this irreducible ambiguity that resists determination because it resists separation into the most basic categories of being and nonbeing. Binary oppositions give whatever there is to being's self-knowing, but the resistance to knowing in the Lacanian register of the Real allows that self-relation to move. Becoming's continual movement through the dialectical relation of difference is without complete separation, so that knowing, like the being it represents, is a flow, rather than a static determination.https://www.martinessig.comBaddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.cohttps://www.jamesreevesco.com
Transcribe →