Tomas Kačerauskas - Discourse of Globalization. Bios, Technē, And Logos From the Phenomenological...

OriginalPaperUDC165.62:316.42.063.3ReceivedNovember14th,2008

Tomas KačerauskasVilniusGediminasTechnicalUniversity,DepartmentofPhilosophyandPoliticalTheory

Saulėtekioal.11,LT–[email protected]

Discourse of Globalization: Bios, Technē, and Logos from the Phenomenological Point of View

AbstractThis paper conducts an etymological investigation of the key words of globalization – bios, technē and logos. In addition to this, these keyword concepts are interpreted in the context of existential phenomenology. For this purpose not only Heidegger, who is a proponent of the existential interpretation of ancient concepts, but also Husserl, Gadamer, Lévinas, and Bakhtin are invoked. There are three theses presented in the paper: 1) our body is insepa-rable from the spiritual environment, where it matures by gaining the spiritual functions of being spiritualized, named and realised; 2) the spiritual environment is at the same time technological, where technē is to be interpreted as an art of creation of environment’s inter-active component such as the body and the spirit; 3) logos as the word and the name pre-supposes a text, i.e. a book written by our lives and the context, i.e. the interaction of texts as life-stories. The argument is given for the analogous interpretation of bios, technē and logos, i.e. that the three should be interpreted as interactive components of existential crea-tion, which involve different planes of relationships between the spiritual environment and the life-story developing in it. Bios is related to the corporal aspect of existential creation: our life from birth to death is inseparable from the corporal temporal-spatial whole, which is involved in the spiritual environment. Logos reflects the linguistic-scriptural nature of the spiritual context of the environment. Technē is interpreted both as an art of creation of the existential whole and as an art of its inscription into this context. As a result, bios, technē and logos are interpreted in a way alternative to the discourse of globalization.

Key wordsglobalization,bios,technē,logos,existentialphenomenology

Introduction

Bios,technēandlogos arethekeywordsofthediscourseofglobalization.Theconnotationsofbios,technēandlogosareimbuedwithparticularphenomenaofthecontemporarylivingworld,therelationbetweenthehumanbodyandtheenvironment,orour livingwholewhich is influencedby technologicalthinking,wherebythebody’senvironmentrefersalsotovariousprosthesesofthebodyandbody-substitutingrobots.Thequestionsposedtherebyare:howtheroleofourbodyinthisenvironment,transfusedbysimulacra,haschanged;whether thebodycanfunctionandwhetherwecanexistwithouttechnologicalsupport;andfinally,whetherwecanmeditatethebodysepa-ratedfromthemachines,whichsurroundus?Thesequestionspertaintotheinterconnectionsbetweenthebodyandone’senvironmentondifferentlevels,totheinteractionbetweenpartsofthelivingworldintheprocessoflifeandtherebyalsoenvironmentcreation.Furthermore,weareglobalplayersalsointhesensethatourthinkingdependsontheculturedevelopedmanyagesago.Ourlanguage(logos),philosophical

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA48(2/2009)pp.(259–269)

T.Kačerauskas,DiscourseofGlobalization:Bios,Technē,andLogos…260

oneinparticular,hasdevelopedfromancientconcepts,whichiswhymean-ingsandconnotationsoftheancientconceptsofbios,technēandlogos areanalyzedinthispaper.Inthissensethecorrespondencewiththeaspirationsofthebiggestauthorityinexistentialphenomenology,Heidegger,canbenoted.Asitisknown,Heideggerpaidspecialattentiontotheetymologyoftheno-tionsandtotheirancientconnotations.Forinstance,whenanalysingtheis-sueoftechnology1heusesetymologicinvestigationsoftheconcepttechnē:thinkingislisteningtothesensesthathadlayeredinthelanguage,whilethesesenseswere formed in a particular existential environment. Language andexistenceareanalogousastheyinteractbyparticipatinginthebecomingoftheenvironmentanduswithinit.Everyinterpretationarisesfromthecrossingofourtheoreticalandpracticalattitudes.However,thisrefersnotsomuchtoaconflictofinterpretationsastotheinteractionofdifferentplanesofthelivingenvironment(scholasticandexistential).Itpresupposesthemobilityandopennessoftheenvironmentthatisspiritualisedbyus:itincreasestogetherwithouremergenceintheback-ground,whichconsistsoftheculturalsiltstransfusedbylanguage.Cultureisthecultivationofthesesilts,whilewekeepnourishingandrenovatingthemintheperspectiveofourexistentialcreation.Thatiswhytheinterpretationofferedinthispaperisbasedonthephenomenologyofcreation:wecreateourexistentialprojectwhichweexpandundertheinfluenceofphenomenaasapartofthemulti-layeredlivingwhole.Inthissense,whileprojectingourobjectivesintothefuture,wearealwayssimultaneouslydirectedtothepast,whichletsusexpandtheexistentialwhole.Idonot think thearguments that theexistentialphilosophy isdeadarese-rious:philosophyas the loveofwisdomcannot ignore life, i.e.philosophymeditatesexistencepar excellence.Thus,thefocusonetymologydoesnotletphilosophydisregardexistentialcreation,whichisenabledbytheinteractionbetweenwisdom and love.The attention paid to etymologywill thereforeaccompanytheconsiderationsgivenbelow.Weshallseewheretheanalogi-calinterpretationof‘life’(bios),‘technology’(technē)and‘language’(log-os)willleadus.Theanalogy(ana ton logon)presupposestheinteractionofall threecomponents in theexistentialwhole, transfusedby language.The‘whole’orsōs(entire)isetymologicallyconnectedtosōma(thebody).ThisanalysiswillbegivenposteriortoHeidegger’sandHabermas’interpretationsoftechnology.Threemainthesesofthepaperwillbepresented.Thefirstthesisisthatour body is inseparable from the spiritual environment, where it matures by gain-ing spiritual functions, of being spiritualized, named and realised.Thedeval-uedword“spiritual”isnotusedaccidentallyandpsychikos istherebykeptinmind(psychē meansthespirit,psychōmeanstobreathe).Firstly,therearees-sentialetymologicalconnotationsofthebreath,whichsupportslife,regardingthesensitive(corporal)plane.Secondly,expirationisconnectedwithdeath,the endof existence; in otherwords, breath presupposes the possibility ofbeing-towards-death.Thirdly,thisconceptisencouragedtousebyHusserl2(1952),whotalkedaboutthespiritualenvironment(geistige Umwelt).There-fore,thespiritasawholeconsistingofconvictions,attitudes,andobjectivesisnotalientothephenomenologicaltradition.Itisalinguistic(logos)whole:thisassumptiondeems interpretation tobea liveexistentialnarrative.ThisexistentialnarrativeensuesfromnotonlyGadamer’s3hermeneuticalattitudethatlanguageisamediumofunderstandingbutalsothetensionbetweentheauthorandthehero,whichwasconsideredbyBakhtin.4



Thesecondthesisisthatspiritual environment is at the same time technologi-cal, where technē is to be interpreted as an art of creation of the environment’s interactive components (the body and the spirit).Existentialcreation,orlife’sart,emergesasthetensionbetweenthespiritthatisembodied(realised),andthe body that is spiritualised (named).The latter aspect is included in thegravitationalfieldoflogos,whichcoverslinguisticexistence.Logos isbothawordimposedtousandanamecreatedbyus.Therefore,technologyisalife’sartwhichletsusembodyourobjectivesandnameourbodyinthewholeoftheseobjectives.Thethirdthesisisthatlogos as both a word and a name presupposes the text, i.e. the book, which is written with the help of our life and the context, i.e. of interactions of texts as life-stories. Herewith,itincludescreativeinterac-tionbetweensōma(body)andgraphē(script).Ourbodywasinscribedintoalreadycumulatedspiritualenvironment,whichgrowsbecauseoftheexisten-tialnarrativewhichweturnedawayfrom.Therefore,thetaskofthispaperistoanalysetheissueofglobalizationinanindirectway,i.e.toinvestigatesuchkeywordsofglobalizationasbios,technēandlogos bothfromtheetymologicalandphenomenologicalpointofview.ThementionedtheseswillbedevelopedwithmentionsofHeidegger,Hus-serl,Bakhtin,Gadamer,Habermas,5andLévinas.6

Technology and technē

Beforeinterpretingthebodyasafactorofthelivingworld,IwillcontrasttheviewsofHabermasandHeideggerontechnology(Technik).Althoughbothauthorspaya lotofattention to theetymologyof theconcepts, theycomefromdifferenttheoreticalenvironments.Thelattercircumstancewilllateronhelpusnotonlydevelopthesenses(meanings)oftheconcepttechnē,whiletheyemergeintheforgeofthethought’sfight,butalsodefinethelimitsoftheconcepts.Habermasinterpretstechnologyasameans7ofrulingandcontrol,andtech-nocratic consciousness as background ideology (Hintergrundideologie),whichconsidersthescienceasafetish.Rulingandcontrolpresupposevio-lence,whichisrealisedinademocraticenvironmentwiththehelpoftech-nology.ThatiswhyHabermasasks:“Howcouldtheviolenceoftechnologi-caldisposalemergeinthecontractsofcitizens,whoareactingandnegotiat-

1

MartinHeidegger,“DieFragenachderTech-nik”, in:Vorträge und Aufsätze, Gesamtaus-gabe,Bd.7,VittorioKlostermann,Frankfurta.M.2000,pp.5–36.

2

EdmundHusserl,“IdeenzureinenPhänome-nologie und phänomenologischen Philoso-phieII”,in:MarlyBiemel(Hg.),Husserliana IV,MartinusNijhoff,Haag1952.

3

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Meth-ode,Mohr(PaulSiebeck),Tübingen1975.

4

Михаил Бахтин, Автор и герой, Азбука,Санкт-Петербург2000.

5

JürgenHabermas,Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”, Suhrkamp,Frankfurt a.M.1968.

6

Emmanuel Lévinas, Totalité et Infini. Es-sai sur l’Extériorité,MartinusNijhoff,Haag1984.

7

“Wir wollen im folgenden unter ‘Technik’diewissenschaftlichrationalisierteVerfügungübervergegenständlichteProzesseverstehen;damit ist dann das System gemeint, in demForschung und Technik mit Ökonomie undVerwaltungrückgekoppeltsind.”–J.Haber-mas, Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideolo-gie”,p.113.



ing?”8Itcanthusbespokenofatriangleoftechnology(science),violence(ruling)anddemocracy(freemarket).Technologyexpressesnotsomuchtheabatementofworkasthewaytorealizeandtomaterializeauthority.Techno-logyhelpsproducethedemand:reificationisinseparablefromtheincreaseinconsumption.Technology,whichhaddeliveredusfromtheformerslave’swork,turnedusintonewslaves(duetoanoveltyproductiontechnology),ortheslavesoftechnologicalconsciousness.Therefore,insteadofbeingthecreatorsweendupasconsumers.Technologyisnot controlledbyanybody; it isomnipresent in a tornadoof reification,whichrobsusallofourcreativity.ThisinterpretationofHarbermas’sconsid-erationsontechnologyallowsustocomparehimnotonlytoHorkheimerandAdorno9orBaudrillard10 (1990),buteven toHeidegger.The technologicalthoughtoftheEnlightenmentimmersesusintothewaterofdas Man,wherewearecontrolledby“fatalstrategies”,whicharecontrolledbynobody.ItisananonymoussystemofsymbolicchangesforBaudrillard,whereasHeideggerseesitasidletalk(das Gerede).Itcorrespondstotheenvironmentoftheme-dia,inwhichwehavebeenformedbytheratingscomplex11andarereified(verdinglicht)inthatwebecometheconductorsofthemediabysubmittingtothe“fatalstrategies”oftheconsumptionofthings.Notaccidentally,Haber-mas,wheninterpretingHegel,speaksofpeopleasreifiedbywork.12

BeforemovingtoHeidegger’sconceptionoftechnology,Iwouldliketodis-tinguishbetweenreificationandobjectification.Aswehaveseen,reificationisthesubmissiontothe“fatalstrategies”andtotheflowofidletalks.Itex-pressesthelackofdialectical(accordingtoHegelandPlato)orpolyphonic(according toBakhtin) thinking.What ismore, a reifiedenvironment sup-posesstagnationor, tobemoreprecise, technologicalautomatism.Theen-vironment,ourselvesbeingtheparts(notparticipants)ofwhich,becomesarobotwhichproducesourdemandforthings.Despitethefactthatthisrobotworksunflaggingly, it isdead.According toBaudrillard:13wearenotable(andwedonotwant)tochangeitsprocess,becausewearemerelystaffserv-ingit,“humanresources”forthesystemsupport.Iwroteaboutobjectificationinasignificantlydifferentcontext,14whichtacklesrealisation,limitationandcultivation.Objectificationofphenomenapresupposestheirinvolvementintherealityofourmemoryandobjectives,whilethisrealityasawholeinturnchangesourenvironment.Thiswhole,whichIcalled‘existential’onthetraceofHeidegger,gainsitswholenessonlyinthefaceofourdeath.Therefore,thespiritualenvironment,influencedbyourexistentialcreation,wasrebornasananalogousinteractionoflifenarratives.Inthissense,whilebeinginvolvedintheexistentialnarrativesofotherspiritualparticipantsoftheenvironment,wealsogetobjectifiedbutnotreified.LetusgetbacktoHeidegger.Accordingtohim,“theessenceoftechnologyisnot technologicalatall.”15By interpreting thisutterance,weshouldpayrespecttothefactthatHeidegger’sinvestigation16isetymological.Inotherwords,Heideggerisconcernedwiththeoriginoftheconcepttechnē, tobemoreprecise,thespiritualenvironmentofitsuseinancient(classical)times.The attention to the spiritual environment of Plato,whowas criticized byHeidegger,makesustheinterpreters(inter-preto)ofthatenvironment,par-ticipants,whoarebetween(inter)twolivingenvironmentsthatareconnectedbythewholeofourobjectives,purposesandmemories(logos).Weactanalogouslywiththeartists(technēnamelymeansart):wesubordi-nateallhandy(zuhandene,accordingHeidegger)phenomenatothewholeofthenoveltobecreatedwhichisneverinfinite.Ontheonehand,wewriteournovelsledbythephenomenainscribedintoit.Ontheotherhand,ournovels



becomecomponentsofanewinterpretativewholebyexpandingthelivingreality.Theanalogy(ana ton logon)betweennovelandexistenceinrespecttothelivingrealityincreationenablesustospeakabouttheexistentialnovel,which is created in an open spiritual environment (logos). The interpreta-tionoftheancientenvironmentallowsitsinclusionintoourlivingwholeasitscreativecomponentwhichenrichesourreality.Theroleofremembrance(anamnēsis)iscreative:notonlybecauseitemergesfromtheinteractionoftheōria andexsistentiaincreatingthelivingreality,butalsobecauseitmakesour existential environment infinite. Living-and-linguistic environment isexpanding throughcomponents thatare rememberedand interpreted in thecontextoftheenvironmentcreated.17

ThatiswhyHeideggerstatesthat“technēimpliesnotonlyactionsandskillsofcraftsmen,butalsohigherartandfineart.Technēbelongstoup-lift(Her-vor-bringen),poiēsis”.18Heideggerrelatestheup-liftwithrevelation(Entber-gen),unconcealment(alētheia),truth(veritas),whichistobeunderstoodasthedirectednessofrepresentation(Richtigkeit des Vorstellens).19Ihadana-lysedHeidegger’sconceptionsoftruthinanotherpaper20aimedatshowingthattruthemergesasaspiritualenvironment’scomponent,whichdirectsourexistentialcreation.Wecreatetruthaguideofourexistentialprojecttogetherwiththeremembrancesandtheraisedpurposesinscribedinit,whiletheycor-rect(Korrektur)thespiritualenvironmentaswell.Theexistentialconnotationoftruthisconfirmedbytheemergenceofsuchexistential(Existential)asdan-ger(Gefahr),whilemanuncovers(creates)hisorherdestiny(Geschick).21

8

Ibid.,p.114.

9

MaxHorkheimer,TheodorW.Adorno, “Di-alektikderAufklärung”,in:TheodorW.Ador-no,Gesammelte Schriften,Bd.3,Suhrkamp,Frankfurta.M.1984.

10

JeanBaudrillard,L’échange symbolique et la mort,Gallimard,Paris1976.

11

Rephrasing Bourdieu who talked about thethinkingofratingsinSur la télévision.

12

“Hegel[spricht],daßsichSubjektinderAr-beitzumDingmacht.”J.Habermas,Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”,p.26.

13

J. Baudrillard, L’échange symbolique et la mort.

14

T.Kačerauskas,Tikrovė ir kūryba. Kultūros fenomenologijos metmenys,Technika,Vilnius2008,pp.260–269.

15

M.Heidegger,“DieFragenachderTechnik”,p.7.

16

Especially regarding the late period of hiscreation.

17

Habermasdenotesthatetymologyoftheoriahas theological connotations: “theōros wascalled a delegate, which had been sent topublicgames inGreekpoles”(J.Habermas,Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”,p.146),whereas thepublicgameswerea sac-ral process. Therefore, theōros like Hermeswasbetweenthedivinerealityandthehumanpublicity.RemembranceforPlatoistheoreti-cal,becauseitsupposesinborndivineideas.

18

M.Heidegger,“DieFragenachderTechnik”,p.14.

19

“Her-vor-bringen ereignet sich nur, insof-ern Verborgenes ins Unverborgene kommt.DiesesKommenberuhtundschwingtindem,waswirdasEntbergennennen.DieGriechenhaben dafür das Wort alētheia. Die Römerübersetzen es durch ‘veritas’. Wir sagen‘Wahrheit’undverstehensiegewöhnlichalsRichtigkeitdesVorstellens.”Ibid.,p.13.

20

TomasKačerauskas, “Death in the perspec-tiveofexistentialphenomenology”,Santalka17(3/2009),pp.83–91.

21

“[D]er Mensch [ist] aus dem Geschick hergefährdet. das Geschick der Entbergung istalssolchesinjederseinerWeisenunddarumnotwendigGefahr.”Ibid.,27.



Thedangeristoberelatedtotheinfinitenessoftheexistentialwhole:aphe-nomenonhavingbeeninscribedisabletoturnthewhole.Thiscoversbothminor(storyoflife)andmajorexistentialwhole(spiritualenvironment).Asaresult,theiranalogyemergesinanexistentialcoupling,whilewecreateourexistentialstory,whichhasbeeninscribedintospiritualenvironmentthatwascreatedbyus.WhatconnectstheinterpretationsoftechnologybyHabermasandHeidegger?Are theirdiscourses incommensurable? It seems that theconceptsof tech-nologybythese twoGermanphilosophersarecardinallyopposite: it is theunificationofthinkingintheideologicalbackgroundofdemand-supplyforHabermas.This background develops perfectly22 in the conditions of freemarket (capitalism),when themedia serve thedemandproduction, i.e. thereificationofindividuals.Technologyexpressestheconductanceofmedia23channelswheneveryindividualissubordinatedtothefatalstrategiesofrei-fication.Accordingtothisinterpretation,24technologyguaranteesanonymity(thestrategiesarewithoutanauthor)ofourlivingbackground,inwhichwebecomesubstancesofdemandproduction.Heideggeralso talksabout the impersonal“their” (das Man) strategiesbutdoes not relate themwith technē. Conversely, technē for him embodies acreativeexistencethatdevelopsinthespiritualenvironmentandchangesit.Thisisthecreativeprincipleoftheinteractionbetweenapartandthewhole,theauthorandthehero;aprincipledeterminedbyourbeing-towards-death(Sein zum Tode).Herewith it expresses the interaction between corporeal-ity (mortality and sensuality) andwholeness (incorporation in the spiritualwhole).Therefore,technē,unliketechnology,presentsaprincipleofmasteryandcreativeness, theprincipleofcreativeexistence,which transfusesbothcorporallifeandspiritualcomingintobeing.Furtheretymologicalinvestiga-tionwillprobablyshowboth the interconnectionsand the tensionbetweenthebody(sōma)asthewhole(sōs)andspirit(logos)asanenvironmentofitsbecoming.TheparallelismbetweentechnologyasinterpretedbyHabermas,and “they”(das Man) as developed byHeidegger, does not let us conclude that theirways (technai) of philosophising are incommensurable. This is also con-firmedbyfurther investigationsofHabermas,25whoappeals toHeidegger.However, thecomparisonof technologyand technē shows thecoverageofinterpretational(spiritual)background(logos); thebigger it is thehigher isthetensionbetweenthephenomenaitwastointerpret.Inotherwords,ourinterpretationalbackgroundisexpandingduetoaspiritualfight,whichun-folds in it covering the tension between novelty and tradition. It does notmeanthatHeidegger’s thought,directedtowardsancientspiritual tradition,expressesonlyarchaeologicalintentionsorthatHabermas’scontemplationofnewestsocialtendenciesembodiesonlypositivenovelties.Onthecontrary,theywouldonewithouttheotherreducethespiritualbackgroundasanen-vironmentofourexistentialcreation.Wefillthisenvironmentbothwithre-membrancesandexpectations.Allgreatpostmodernistsarefamousinterpret-ersofancientheritage.Here‘famous’meansabletoexchangethetraditionofspiritualenvironmentwiththehelpofcreativeintentions.

Bios: body as a factor of the living world

Letusgetbackto thequestionofbody,which,as itwasmentioned, is in-tertwinedwiththeissuesofwholenessandlife.Despitethefactthatourlife



changesconstantly,ormaybepreciselybecauseofthis,itisawhole.Itsmo-bilityisinseparablefromourcreativeobjectives.Ontheonehand,wecreateourexistentialproject,whichcoversthewayofourthinkingandaction.Ontheotherhand,werealizeourobjectives,whichemergeinthebackgroundoftherealityweexperience.Thispresupposessōs bios,thewholelifeorthewholeof life,whichwe retrieve fromformless“they” (das Man) element,whileweharmonizeitspartsduetoourwork.RephrasingLévinas,withthehelpofworkwecreatetheintimate(i.e.harmoniousinrespecttoourobjec-tivesandsenses)homeenvironment.Theworkisrealizedbyhands,whichembodyitintwoways:bodilycontact(inatactileway)andtheinvolvementofthecreationintothespiritualwhole,whichwasrenewedinthiswayastheenvironmentofourcreation.Notacci-dentallydoesHeideggertalkabouthandiness(Zuhandenheit):handyiswhatistobecultivatedinthewholeofourremembrancesandobjectives.Cultiva-tion refers to two aspects: the incorporation into existentialwhole createdbyusandtheextractionfromtheformlessanonymouselement.Accordingto Lévinas, “a hand delivers the things extracted from the element”26 duetowork themovementofwhich isdirected towardsoneself.27Anonymouselement is faceless28 for Lévinas, i.e. there dominate impersonal relationspurified fromanybodily quality (tactility).Despite the fact that the eroticbodyisinthemediaspotlight(advertising,television,internet),itpresentsastandardnoman’sbody,anonymousandfaceless,inotherwords,bodilessinbothaforementionedsenses.Amediatedbodyisnottobeextractedfromtheanonymouselementandnottobeinvolvedintoourspiritualenvironment,i.e.itisnottobecultivatedintheexistentialwholenamedbyus.Everytimewecreateanewwholeoflifebycultivating,thatistosaybynam-ingandembodying,newphenomena,weinthatwaymakethemthepartici-pantsofthiswholetobeexpandedby“their”.Realisationmeanstheinscrip-tionofthephenomenaintoourlife-story;itunfoldsasinteractionofdifferenttexts.Whilewritinganexistentialnovelbymeansofourwork,werealizeouridentity,whichdoesnotcoincidewiththeidentityoftheauthorinthiscrea-tiveinteractionbetweennoemaandnoesis(accordingtoHusserl).Theinter-actionbetweennoema(thinkablethought)andnoesis(thinking)isanalogoustotheinteractionbetweenactivity(creativity)andpassivity(bodilyquality),intheprocessofourcomingintobeinginourspiritualenvironment.Here-with,itexpressestherecoveryoftheauthor’swholefromtheformlessandfacelesselementbymeansofwork.Inacorporalway(workingwithhands

22

Not accidentally, the beginnings (eidos) ofconceptsidealandideologicalarethesame.

23

Theroleofmediaalsoplaysthelaw,moneyandauthority:“thelawoperatesasthecom-plexmedia,whichisrelatedwithmoneyandpower”.JürgenHabermas,Theorie des komu-nikativen Handelns. Bd. 2. Kritik der funk-tionalistischen Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frank-furta.M.1995.

24

This interpretation isdevelopednotonlybyHabermas and other Frankfurt school’s rep-resentatives(HorkheimerwithAdorno,Mar-cuse),butalsoBaudrillard.

25

J. Habermas, Theorie des komunikativen Handelns.

26

E.Lévinas,Totalité et Infini,p.173.

27

“The primordial intention ofwork is (…) amotiontowardsoneself”,ibid.,p.173.

28

“The work is directed to that, what has noface”,ibid.,p.174.



andcultivatinghandythoughts),werecoveralivingbodyasawholeinthelogos environment,whichchangesunder the influenceof thebecomingofwholeness,whichisanalogoustocorporeality.Spirituallogos environmentisalive(inspirited)duetolifetextscreatedbyusandinscribed(corporal)init.Thisexistentialcreationisaliveduetotherelationshipbetweenthetextandthecontext,whileitpulsatesastheinteractionbetweenbodyandspirit.Exis-tentialanalogy(oftextandcontext,ofbodyandspirit)hereexpressesmutualinteractionofthelogos environment:ana ton logon.Therefore,wefollowBakhtin’sargumentregardingtheauthorandtheheroofthelifetext,i.e.theircreativeinteraction,whentheyconstitutethelivingenvironmentbyformattingeachother–thatisthecontextofexistentialreal-ity.Thiscontextletsusdevelopourlivingwholeevenafterourdeath,whenitgrowstogetherwithobjectivesandsensescreatedbynewauthorsandhe-roes.Therefore, the etymological analysis of the concepts bios, technē, logos, sōma,and graphē bringsustoetymosi.e.totheirreal,authentic(eigentlich–Heidegger)sense.However,wegainunderstandingnotbyrevealingancientsenses.Heidegger’salētheiaorunconcealmentistobeconnectedwithDa-sein,inotherwords,withtheexistentialopenness.Weexistbyexisting(ex-sistus)towardsdeath,i.e.byleavingthelifetextinscribedinthecontextofourspiritualenvironment(logos).Therefore,wegainrealisationbyinvolvingtheancientthoughtintoourlogos,i.e.intoourlifecontext.Inthissensewekeepnamingandcultivatingtheancientthoughtoverandoveragain.Technē asthelivingartisanextensionofourcontextbyancientparadigms,whicharebroughtintothesquareofourviewsandlife:paradeigmatidzō meanstoexposeasshameful.Here,theybecomerealbyparticipatingintheenviron-mentofourinteractionbetweennoesisandnoema,whiletheenvironmentisinturnextendedbythem.Weembodytheancientthoughtbymakingitapartofourexistentialenvironment,inwhichwecreatethetextofourlife.Mobileinteractionofpartsconvertstextintocontextduringcreation;webecometheauthorsandtheheroesofourlife-stories.Thestorywecreateisamobilelivingwhole,thelimitsofwhichchangecon-stantly:metaphoreō.Metaphor(forexample,“thelifesquare”)embodiestheexistentialproject’stechnē,whichcoversthetechnologyoflife-storywriting.Therefore,wehaveapproachedthesenseofancientphilosophyastheartoflife(Lebenskunst,technē ton bion,bio-technē),anotionrebornwithinexis-tentialphilosophy.However,writingisnotpoisonousforeitherremembranceorthought,asstatedbyPlatoinFaedrus andinterpretedbyDerrida. Bywrit-ingwecreateourlifecontext,whichisnamedaslogos.Therefore,wetalkofexistentialbiotechnologyastheart29oflifeinthespiritualenvironment.Itistheartofexistentialgraphics,i.e.oftheinscriptionoflifecontextintoourmobilespiritualcontext.Logosexpressesthelinguistic-scripturalcharacterofcultureasanexistentialcreation:thelivingwholeisrealizedbynamingitthepartofanexistentialtextandinscribingitintothespiritualcontext.Therefore,spiritualizing (expanding the context) is inseparable from the embodiment(handinessbycultivation)intheprocessofwritingourexistentialnovels.

Conclusions

Theetymologicalanalysisoftheconceptsbios, technēandlogos opensthepathtowardstheirancientsenses,intheinterpretationofwhichweexpandour spiritual environment. Interpretation emerges between (inter) remem-



brances and expectations; it changesunder the influenceof our existentialcreation.Welivebycreatinganexistentialwholethatwasinscribedinthespiritualcontextasthemobileenvironmentofourcomingintobeing.Bios, whilebeinginterpreted,expressesboththevitalityofthespiritualenviron-mentandofourlivingcreation.Ittherebyreflectsthecorporalaspectofthespiritualenvironment:existentialcreationisnotonlyconditionedbyourbe-ing-towards-death,butitalsorequirestheeffortsofourbody(cultivationofthehandyphenomena).Body isaparticular sensual (spatialand temporal)whole,whichdistinguishesitselffromtheenvironmentonlybymeansofin-teractionwithotherwholes.Thespatialandtemporalwholeofbody-towards-deathistheexistentialone:itconsistsofthecomponentswhicharehandyinrespecttoexistentialcreation.Therefore,theembodiment(inscriptionintoanexistentialwhole)isintertwinedwithspiritualization(expansionofspiritualenvironment).The latteraspect isexpressedby logos,which is interpretedasthespiritualenvironment,whereourexistentialcreationsarenamedandinscribed.Logos guaranteesthelinguisticco-existenceofexistentialpartici-pantsintheliving(interpretational)context.Technēistobeinterpretedasatwofoldartofboththeexistentialwhole(novel)creationanditsinscriptionintothespiritualcontext.Bios,technēandlogosaretobeinterpretedasanalo-gous (ana ton logon), i.e. interactive componentsof existential creation inbothanarrow(life-story)andabroad(spiritualenvironment)sense.Thus,thediscourseofglobalizationispolyphonic.Etymologicalandphenomenologi-calanalysesofthekeywordsofglobalizationpresupposeacreativeinterac-tionbetweenlocalandglobalplanes.Ontheonehand,thelocalplanecouldbe representedbyboth an individual and a nation.On the other hand, theglobalplanecouldberepresentedbyboththewholeofourlife-storyandthewholeofhumanhistory.Ourcreativeactivityismadepossibleinthetensionbetweenindividualandsociallife.Therefore,globalizationpresentsbothanexistentialdangerandourcreativepossibility.

Literature

Бахтин,Михаил,Автор и герой,Азбука,Санкт-Петербург2000.

Baudrillard,Jean,L’échange symbolique et la mort,Gallimard,Paris1976.

Baudrillard,Jean,Fatal Strategies,Semiotext(e)/Pluto,NewYork–London1990.

Bourdieu,Pierre,Sur la télévision,Raisonsd’agir,Paris1996.

Derrida,Jacques,De la grammatologie,Leseditionsdeminuit,Paris1998.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg,Wahrheit und Methode,Mohr(PaulSiebeck),Tübingen1975.

Habermas,Jürgen, Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”,Suhrkamp,Frankfurta.M.1968.

Habermas,Jürgen,Theorie des komunikativen Handelns.Bd. 2. Kritik der funktionalisti-schen Vernunft,Suhrkamp,Frankfurta.M.1995.

Heidegger,Martin,Sein und Zeit,MaxNiemeyerVerlag,Tübingen1993.

Heidegger,Martin,“DieFragenachderTechnik”,in:Vorträge und Aufsätze, Gesamtaus-gabe,Bd.7,VittorioKlostermann,Frankfurta.M.2000,pp.5–36.

29

I had analysed philosophy as a living art inanother article (Tomas Kačerauskas, “Ex-istential identity and memory of a nation”,Limes1(1/2008),pp.5–14).



Horkheimer,Max;Adorno,TheodorW.,“DialektikderAufklärung”,in:TheodorW.Ador-no,Gesammelte Schriften,Bd.3,Suhrkamp,Frankfurta.M.1984.

Husserl,Edmund,“IdeenzureinenPhänomenologieundphänomenologischenPhiloso-phieII”,in:MarlyBiemel(Hg.)Husserliana IV,MartinusNijhoff,Haag1952.

Kačerauskas,Tomas,“ExistentialIdentityandMemoryofaNation”,Limes1(1/2008),pp.5–14.

Kačerauskas,Tomas,Tikrovė ir kūryba. Kultūros fenomenologijos metmenys,Technika,Vilnius2008.

Kačerauskas,Tomas,“DeathinthePerspectiveofExistentialPhenomenology”,Santalka17(3/2009),pp.83–91.

Lévinas, Emmanuel, Totalité et Infini. Essai sur l’Extériorité, Martinus Nijhoff, Haag1984.

Tomas Kačerauskas

Diskurs globalizacije: bios, technē i logos iz fenomenološke perspektive

SažetakU članku se etimološki istražuju ključne riječi globalizacije: bios, technē i logos, te se dodatno interpretiraju u kontekstu egzistencijalne fenomenologije. U ovu svrhu se poziva samo na Hei-deggera, koji je pokrenuo egzistencijalnu interpretaciju antičkih pojmova, nego i na Husserla, Gadamera, Lévinasa i Bakhtina. Predstavljene su tri teze: 1) naše tijelo je neodvojivo od du-hovnog okoliša, gdje sazrijeva dobivajući duhovne funkcije, tj. poduhovljenjem, imenovanjem i ostvarivanjem; 2) duhovni okoliš je istovremeno tehnološki, gdje se technē treba interpretirati kao umijeće stvaranja interaktivne komponente okoline kao što je tijelo i duh; 3) logos kao riječ i ime pretpostavlja tekst, tj. knjigu koju piše naš život i kontekst tj. interakcija tekstova kao životnih priča. Tvrdi se da se bios, technē i logos trebaju interpretirati analogno, tj. kao interaktivne komponente egzistencijalnog stvaranja, koji uključuju različite nivoe veza između duhovnog okoliša i životne priče koja se razvija u njemu. Bios je povezan s tjelesnim aspektom egzistencijalnog stvaranja: naš je život od rođenja do smrti nerazdvojiv od uključenosti fenome-nâ u tjelesnu vremensku i prostornu cjelinu koja je uključena u duhovni okoliš. Logos odražava lingvističko-skriptualnu narav duhovnog konteksta okoliša. Technē se interpretira istodobno kao čin stvaranja egzistencijalne cjeline i kao čin njezinog zapisa u ovaj kontekst. Kao rezultat toga, bios, technē i logos se interpretiraju alternativno diskursu globalizacije.

Ključne riječiglobalizacija,bios,technē,logos,egzistencijalnafenomenologija

Tomas Kačerauskas

Der Diskurs der Globalisierung: Bios, Technē und Logos aus der phänomenologischen Perspektive

ZusammenfassungIn dem Artikel werden die Schlüsselwörter der Globalisierung – Bios, Technē und Logos – ety-mologisch ergründet, und überdies im Kontext der existenziellen Phänomenologie interpretiert. Zu diesem Zweck beruft man sich nicht nur auf Heidegger, den Beweger existenzieller Interpre-tation antiker Begriffe, sondern auch auf Husserl, Gadamer, Lévinas und Bakhtin. Vorgestellt wurden drei Thesen: 1) Unser Körper ist von der geistigen Umwelt untrennbar, wo er heranreift, indem er geistige Funktionen erlangt, das heißt durch Beseelung, Benennung und Verwirkli-chung. 2) Die geistige Umwelt ist gleichlaufend eine technologische Umwelt, wo die Technē als Kunst der Erschaffung interaktiver Umweltkomponente wie Körper oder Geist auszulegen ist. 3) Der Logos als Wort und Name supponiert den Text bzw. das Buch aus der Feder unseres



Lebens, sowie den Kontext, d. h. die Interaktion der Texte als Lebensgeschichten. Es wird be-hauptet, Bios, Technē und Logos seien analog zu interpretieren, d. h. als interaktive Komponen-ten existenzieller Schöpfung, die differente Verbindungsebenen zwischen der geistigen Umwelt und der darin verlaufenden Lebensgeschichte einbeziehen. Der Bios steht im Zusammenhalt mit dem körperlichen Aspekt existenzieller Schöpfung: Unser Leben ist von Geburt an bis zum Tod untrennbar von der Eingeschlossenheit der Phänomene in die körperliche, zeitliche sowie räumliche Ganzheit, die wiederum in die geistige Umwelt eingegliedert ist. Der Logos reflek-tiert die lingvistisch-skriptuale Natur des geistigen Umweltkontextes. Die Technē wird gleich-zeitig als ein Schöpfungsakt des existenziellen Ganzen interpretiert, sowie als ein Akt seines Einschreibens in den erwähnten Kontext. Daraus resultierend werden Bios, Technē und Logos alternativ zum Globalisierungsdiskurs interpretiert.

SchlüsselwörterGlobalisierung,Bios,Technē,Logos,ExistentiellePhänomenologie

Tomas Kačerauskas

Le discours de la globalisation : bios, technē et logos d’un point de vue phénoménologique

RésuméL’article examine l’étymologie des mots-clés de la globalisation : bios, technē et logos, puis les interprète dans le contexte de la phénoménologie existentielle. À cet effet, il ne s’appuie pas que sur Heidegger, qui a initié l’interprétation existentielle des termes antiques, mais aussi sur Husserl, Gadamer, Lévinas et Bakhtine. Trois propositions sont examinées : 1) notre corps est inséparable de l’environnement spirituel où il mûrit en acquérant des fonctions spirituelles, c’est-à-dire en se spiritualisant, en se nommant et en se réalisant ; 2) l’environnement spirituel est en même temps technologique, où technē doit être interprétée comme l’art de la création de la composante interactive de l’environnement telle que le corps et l’esprit ; 3) logos comme mot et nom suppose un texte, c’est-à-dire un livre écrit par notre vie, ainsi qu’un contexte, c’est-à-dire l’interaction des textes en tant qu’histoires de vie. Il est affirmé que bios, technē et logos doivent être interprétés de façon analogue, c’est-à-dire comme des composantes interactives de la création existentielle qui comportent différents niveaux de liens entre l’environnement spirituel et l’histoire de vie qui s’y déroule. Bios est lié à l’aspect corporel de la création exis-tentielle : notre vie, de la naissance à la mort, est inséparable de l’implication des phénomènes dans l’unité temporelle et spatiale comprise dans l’environnement spirituel. Le logos reflète la nature linguistico-scripturalle du contexte spirituel de l’environnement. Technē est interprétée à la fois comme acte de création de l’unité existentielle et comme acte de son inscription dans ce contexte. En conséquence, bios, technē et logos sont interprétés de manière alternative par rapport au discours de la globalisation.

Mots-clésglobalisation,bios,technē,logos,phénoménologieexistentielle

Tomas Kačerauskas - Discourse of Globalization. Bios, Technē, And Logos From the Phenomenological...

Documents

Transcript of Tomas Kačerauskas - Discourse of Globalization. Bios, Technē, And Logos From the Phenomenological...