Thinking science chapter 3

 

The Restauration of World

©By Abdel Hernández san Juan

Written in english and translated to english 

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

    I want to tie up a series of reflections addressed to articulate analysis and propositions on the relation between what I would like to propose as restauration of world and the idea of plenum presence understanded in the present of the present of presence as well as to come across discussing in contrast with plenum presence  several forms of differed presences albeit as well as in relation to appearance, absence, difference and a chain of concepts among which the idea of presence usually braiding need to be unbraided until focusing what must be understanded and I will attempt to discuss as phenomenological genesis of the sign.

   All this are things implicit in the first chapter of this book but without focus on it, the effort now will consist about calling it to the forefront to be afforded. 

   The issue in question revolves as follows, considered as a language matter, meaning, as something inside of language, speech suppose the plenum presence of the others in front of us, a well centered subject with their own intentionality of saying and another one audience counter-enunciations equally plenum in present, while instead writing presuppose the proffered nature of the others absence, differed presence. 

   But this is so simple yet. The issue of the differences between plenum presence and differed presences is highly complex than that and evolve a whole phenomenological discussion on the several forms of presence.

   Before and outside language, within the eidetic and noetic evolved within pre-expressive and expressive levels, meaning the universe located before the taking shape of tangible language while toward it which include the unsaid and unformed, intentionality of sense and wishes to said, we have many complex stratus’s involved in conscience before conscience arrival to acquire presence to us and in front of us, this stratus’s contains themselves phenomenologically several levels of presence, while outside language yet but with conscience already arrived to have presence in front of us, meaning us in front our own conscience as result of the idealization process which create the flour of interiorization, we again have severals forms of presence differents in between, finally we also have forms of presence when the conscience acquire form in front of us but now exteriorized in language as signs outside our idealized interior world of subjectivity.

   All this forms of presence from noetic and eidetical pre-expresive levels, to expressive, from the idealization creates the flour of interiority in conscience to conscience exteriorized in signs are stratified forms of presence generally however tangle, embroil, enmesh, ensnase or to put is more clearly undiferiented and by that reasons diffuse with the idea of differed presences in severals forms. 

   I will define this undiferiented diffusion as an skein and I will attempt to commit myself with to disentangle it. 

   The general reason for me to do this unbending below is related with the fact that I have realized as major to made differences between plenum presences and differed presences since on the one hand my purposiveness is not as much focused on saying what we already know that speech suppose a certain form of plenum presence but to reestablish and demonstrate the need of a full restauration of world under presence outside language as well, meaning as intramundane horizont quotidian world of life, and on the other hand I have realized as pivotal to differentiate several stratus’s of non-plenum presence in between them which are not always forms of differed presences and or different forms of the differed. 

   My objective is to give plenty of deeper theorization on an issue as sustained above embroiled needed to disentangle the skeins of presence as to comply with renewed language the comprehension of the former. 

    To articulate this analysis I will choice as point of references the Jacques Derrida interpretation on Hegel in two of his essays one on the relation between the vulgar conception of time in Aristoteles physics and the continuation of it under Hegel and Heidegger including Kant, the question of Aristotle’s about if time is a constitutive part of ontas and ontology and the elucidation of it around time and space from the perspective of the right now of time, the present of the present and the issue of the relation between the presence of the present and the nun.

  Another essay focused in the pass by of the exterior world into the process of idealization which interiorize it and how under it we may recognize as implicit the presence of conscience to us, meaning the presence of conscience in front of ourselves in the phenomenology of the sprit the so-called, according to Derrida, semiology of Hegel. 

   The reason to focus my attention on this last issue is defined by proposing that what Derrida have discussed around the signs as the first form in which we have an exteriorized image of our conscience in front of us as language, should be theorized and understanded in term of the discussion of presence as a phenomenological genesis of the sign. 

   At the same time I want to carry out the challenge of demonstrating nor only that this Derrida assumption of the sign as a first from of presence of us in front of us as an exteriorized form of conscience is nothing else but a phenomenological genesis of the sign, but also that this is not the only genesis of the sign. In fact, we should aside several forms of the genesis of the sign and to increase our theoretical distinctions in between.

   Let just then do it. 

   To attain this analysis, we should first seize the sense of appearance from which all the forms of presence source and arise. We should leads the core of the phenomenology of any presence, presence itself in fact is nothing else but a side and an stratus of appearance and appearance is the phenomena or to get it better the phenomenic that which made presence to us, thus we must recognize a chain of related notions so nears and sometimes moments of the same, phenomena, appearance, form and finally presence.

    Beyond the former distinctions we had aside as differentiated this several forms of presence in between, this are sometimes stratified, meaning not always immediately in all its sides simultaneously present to us, from plenum presence to presences of us in front of us from the mirror to how the conscience itself is a form of self presence both as an idealization of the interiority and as exteriorized in our signs and languages, listening our voice or reading our writings, to presence as the otherness of absence or as the to be of a mark defined differentially by what it is not, as in the differences between signs that made the presence of each one, all forms of presence are nothing else than appearance and phenomena.

   Before presence appear or as through it in a same simultaneous dimension presence looks like, it is yet diluted, distributed, apportioned, allot or disseminated inside appearance, thus it is not a full presence, no yet but only appearance or presence as a form of the sameness of mere appearance undiferiented yet from it, a moment of what made appearance one with itself, of the identity of appearance by all its sides.

   Thus understanded the idea of presence is first an expression of a former relation between appearance and phenomena, appearance is itself another name of phenomena and in reverse phenomena another name of appearance.

   But the exposition of appearance as the source and rise of presence suppose stratus and stratifications, a subtract which will ever be to be find behind it since presence as a form of appearance evolves that something is not present in all its sides, something is making presence and nothing can be assure on everything about it but only about how it made presence, if this is making presence we can’t knowledge everything about it. 

   We know, of course, about the existence of things about which nothing is needed to be fund behind, and we even have sometimes doubt about if something must be looked for behind such like for example an essence never fully retained under its phenomenal form or some kind of thing out of just how it made presence, but even in such cases which are seldom as for example in certain form of technologies, beauty, fashion and aesthetics, our knowledge is not fully filled, often our duty is to attain the core by immersing  us in a deeper or profound dimension like for example in knowing a person we share with an intersubjective relation of friendship, nothing is given to us by just the mere presence or appearance, or in knowing a new city, a new language or a culture, something is always behind the first impressions and claim to recognize successive stratus’s of explicitations, interpretation and understanding.

   However, the paradox is about that even in cases as the former, all we must and may know will ever be available to us each time again by a next form of appearance and presence, in a few words we can’t never advance to successive levels and stratus’s of senses, knowledge and understanding than ever through phenomena’s, the world to be known is available to us always and only again and again through forms, phenomena’s, appearances and forms of presence.

  And it is in this sense that we must say that there is nothing to be find behind presence but that all we will ever know will always be through forms of the presence. By this reason the idea of stratus or stratification is not like it happen with the opposite relation between presence and absent, a relation between a surface defined by forms and appearances and a kind of non-formal deeper kind of unpresented or absent dimension, stratus and stratification are nothing else but always new levels of the phenomena itself. 

  This allow us to understand that everything is beside and aside not necessarily behind and hidden or absent, it is instead under and in the phenomenic of presence but not available in one time. Like for example interpreting the saying of someone addressing us we must elucidate it progresibly making sense of it gradually by successive stratus of hermeneutic.

 Or in cooking something from a first level of flavor of the elements to the mixing of it to successive stratus of flavor, this is a way to said that even when we are speaking on forms, the core goes and arrive always through nexts forms of appearance, the substrate in fact is nothing else but the form of becoming of the phenomena, it is in appearance and presence itself making it identical with itself.

   To get it fully we should abandon the idea of form and contents as separated and or divided things, there is not a content without form nor a form without contents, the first content of appearance and of presence as form of appearance is defined by its own identity, the stratus arrive through and joined with the phenomena within its own forms of appearing, presence in a few words is a moment of the identity of appearance, form and phenomena and it is appearance itself what is stratified, the sameness and coincidence of appearance is itself the supposed to be essence or deeper and one thing is inseparable from the other, both are moments of the same.

   Now, after this general deliberation on appearance as the source of any form of presence let be back in the several differentiated forms of presence committing our task and let attempt to attain the taking shape of each one, its consistency and its consequences. To do so we must have to seize the specific senses of each one and to examine in the light of clear delimitations what should we seeks or not around each one, what must we foreseen in recognizing their differences, when to hesitate to entail and when to entail, what and to what points.

    Can we assume the idea of presence at the eidetic and noematic level?, this level as we know is fully dominated by pre-expressive and expressive issues, all that zone related with experience which take place and happen before the taking shape of a tangible language while toward it, by this reason everything at this level revolves around intentionality, motivations and wishes to say as pre-expressive and expressive moments of experience before the tangible arrival to language, we have in a certain level what the subject might say on such an experience, if we are ourselves the subject in question, we must assume that we are the same subject who both have before and remember later the experience, but if we are thinking in another subject we don’t have the enough to comply and accede to it, while even being ourselves, how to made presence of such an stratified level of pre-expressive and expressive moments?, certainly, both levels are always related with a language to come and in that sense we might say that there is from before acceding to a tangible language a previous ontological relation between eidos and morphe, meaning form, if we are ready to bring something to language in the process of taking shape of it all about the non-discourse pre-expressive and expressive level indeed which are rise to be weaved with morphe as a mise in regard of language, from this perspective we can assure agree with Jacques derrida that there is within form a level of presence, according to derrida, in fact, form itself is the ultimate and primer ontological dimension of presence, everything that made presence take shape of it under forms, however, the kind of presence we are here speaking about is intangible and disseminated through a texere between the non-discursive and the discursive, between experience—non language yet and language, this is in a few word, a concept of presence related both with appearing –as the appearing of something in form language—the discursive, and the stratified levels of wishes to say, intentionality and motivation between experience and the mise in regard of form as expressed between eidos and morphe, this kind of presence usually work weaved with both the unsaid and the memories of the wishes to say and allow us to think about that the subject is making presence to himself in a certain form but in an stratified manner.

  At this point the task consist indeed about recognizing to what level the subject might have a language ---before the effective born of a final language—to speak on such a non-discourse level of experience, if he or she can recognize pre-expressive and expressive concern in between eidos-noetic and an idealized anticipated idea of form, since form is not yet formed but anticipated from the mise in regard –morphe--and if only in form we may speak on presence such texere of non-discursive issues, need to be recognized in a simultaneous language, a language of process so to speak.

  In a few words under eidetic and noetic levels the idea of presence is tangle under complicated stratus, there is certainly presence in form as form is presence itself but eidetic and noetic level of experience as soon as always born toward and addressing to form a language, to take shape under form, it is before the arrival of a final form, and in this sense the subject may recognize the relation between such pre-expressive and expressive contents of motivations, intentionality and wishes to say only as eidetic and noetic source in a memory weaved with a morphe, eidos-morphe, ontologically.

    Now, we should recognize this idea of tangle presence as completely different to the kind of presence that we have in the idealization process creates the flour of interiority when conscience may be recognized in front of us through self-conscience. 

   In the idea of presence we have in self-conscience we have endowed conscience of a sense of a whole of a totality system that reflect another level of reflection, conscience itself is a repetition through reflection of the sensorial levels, and conscience of conscience evolves a seize of sense of the former conscience reflected endowing it with a sense of a whole. Here the idea of presence is regarded to how in self-conscience our conscience made presence in front of us, the relation between wishes to say, intentionality and motivation toward a language is here out of date not in consideration, instead of operating by fragments of experience as in pre-expressive and expressive eidetic, noetic and morphemic level when everything regarding the interiority of conscience by the relation between the animation of discourse from non-discursive contents, here presence is not a considered under the relation form-presence, morphe-mise in regard, but by the totalizing activity within which conscience appear as a representational whole whereas more or less outside objects and or insides reflections of substitutions.

   At the noetic-eidetic level presence is stratified and considered according to morphe and form as alive presence in between the weaves of experience and language, the non-discursive and the discursive, while at the self-conscience level presence is reflected, it is not about world itself but about a reflected world when representation and perception dominates the field of presence. 

     Forth we have another dimension of presence that derrida have regarded as sign, when such an idealization process creates the flour of interiority that creates the sense of conscience in front of us turn to be outside making presence in front of us but now as a language, as sign, according to Derrida the sign in the first objective form through which we have an external images of the interiority of our conscience now outside us as a sign, this time presence is nothing else but a tangible ousia and gramme as Derrida called it, another name of the substance of expression, sign as presence itself.

   We have yet in examination three additional ideas of presence completely diferents to the formers, presence in relation to absence, presence as mark in the system of difference and our main focus, plenum presence but let set it seizing the whole sense of our discussion.

   We choiced to identified the idea of subtract and stratus between other reasons because the sameness with itself of appearance seen substantially meaning an essence suppose that appearance is itself a form or a moment of essence and we want to reserve an space to phenomena’s needed to distinguish appearance from essence to get the true of appearance as the true of phenomena to which we need to distinguish between world itself and the phenomenological world, because even when both are moments of the same or sides or faces of the same, we also have non-substantive and non-substantial levels when everything’s is inmaterialized and dematerialized like for example in the idea of sensibility considered beyond palpable sensoriality as a form of the spiritual and the soul or moreover when in conscience and the spirit we have another true of form like for example in aesthetics. To do so we deployed the idea of empty forms or forms without contents as merely form since form retains the time and temporality of sensibility, a sensibility far to what derrida defined as insensible sensible, the so-called sensible multiplicity as another name of reality or as pure exteriority of spatiality.

   As discussed above everything that made presence in front of ourselves, presence of conscience to us or considered outer as sign made it appearing and appearance presuppose the analysis of phenomena when it is not yet the phenomenic of conscience, before this genesis side, outside and before conscience as éter or inmaterialized, idealized interiority of sprit, soul and subjectivity, something simply appear. 

   This issue seems to bring us back to perception returning to sensible multiplicities from which everything made presence to us through our five datas of senses and its impressions and by the way the principle of reality itself, but while near to perception this sense of the appearing basis appearance as the source of any presence is doubtless needed of the gaze and the gaze is presupposed under it.

   Before understanding presence as a mark inscribed or fixed as an image as well as before recognizing presence versus absence distinguishing it as light on the backgrounds of shadows, before distinguishing absence as the otherness of presence or as non-presence and of identifying what something is in its own identity in difference with what it is not, a sign defined in its own identity by another sign it is not or by the empty space or the sense of nothing mediate in between them as marks, there is a rise and source more general phenomenological sense of presence in general appearance and if certainly this general sense return us to sensible multiplicities, palpable sensorialities and even the principle of reality, this general phenomenological sense of presence allow us to distinguish that there is thanks to reality buy beyond mere reality a plenum presence.

   In fact the idea of reality itself following Hegel is nothing else but accident and phenomenic contingency and as such even when less than when considering eidetic and noetic issues, it is yet an idea of presence highly stratified, the idea of reality and reality itself being a pure phenomenon is affected by complex stratifications as I discussed it in my paper "stratus confines" when we can’t separate stratus from progressive hermeneusis.   

    Certainly to figure out plenum presence a world and a universe is needed to be restaurated, we need the restauration of a micrototality which will be itself beyond reality, even when reality will ever be also inside it, plenum presence need to attain the core of a meaningful world, a world whose stratus’s we already know, a meaningful world is a world that is considered not as seen by first time, not a subjected to the scrutinization and measures of phenomenological perception, but a world which have already signified something to us, a world plenty of sense to us, a world we don’t have to comply by differencing what is real according to several stratus, reality in fact, what is reality?, a world of imagination and fancy in existence under a social reality such as for example the symbols of religions, ceremonies and icons is real without doubt but is it at the same time pure symbol and fancy, fiction for example occur under reality while it is non-real according to defining reality as ontology while real in another sense, reality itself is a concept fully stratified, in difference to that a plenum presence addresses us toward a restored world and universe, an intramundane horizont in which everything is already meaningful to us, a world about which all the stratus must be already knowed to us.

   A meaningful world of plenum presence is not a world of countless objects we there fore assign meaning one by one, it is not about meaning something itself, for example, in recognizing perception distinguishing it from the image perceived, the object of perception we usually recognize its separation, perception as something itself and the perceived as independent to perception, an object of perception, the image outside of it, however we seldom note that separation and the reason is because the meaningfulness of the world leads us integrate both things, we abides with the objects of our perceptions as if everything fall out in a chrysalis without ledges or perhaps we integrated ourselves with all that made sense to us, we stricken perception under sensibility to acomply a plenty of meanings.

    It is from this perspective that I discussed in the first chapter of this book that separating signs even when it helps our understanding on codes and communication seems to be itself a neurotic activity seen from the hermeneusis that weaves and texere our phenomenological universe of daily life, under the intramundane horizont hermeneutic and phenomenology are integrated to the level of taking shape of its own ontology, a plenum presence allow us to understand that  we disallows separations of perception and objects, signs and hermeneusis because things are meaningful to us, hence more than a one by one meaning, meaning in general  increase our capacity to disentangle as well as to integrate what is set aside. 

   It is in general an strong argument to us in phenomenological sociology and hermeneutic to recognize a core issue, the fact that during centuries we in order to know best separated everything, we dissected and operated dislocations of things in elements to the point of the atom as well as we produced an exaggerated disjunction between the observer and the observed, we already know both the positive result and well as the desbastation consequences of such a neurotic procedure, the task of phenomenological sociology and of modern hermeneutic is about to reintegrated again what was excesibly disintegrated, a world of plenum presence is thus by necessity a world of restauration of world and universes of experiences and plenty meaningfully horizonts over reality.

   We already know what plenum presence is like, let know attain to discuss its differences and relations with another forms of presence such as presence under difference and presence versus absence. This is not at all as obvious presence as mark, nor a presence thus seen as something by what it is not, nor presence according to difference, neither presence cutted as something according to absence or a sense of nothing, presence according to absence, being versus nothing, A versus no A as difference to B. both kind of presence are figure out negatibly, what is affirmed as presence is defined as such because it is not its opposite, nor a nothing, nor an absence nor a nonidentity which define identity, it is presence figured out according to the thinking of differences and plenum presence is not affected by differences not reduced to the game of the identical versus the non-identical because all its sides around and in its surrounding are restaurated, the substantial relations that made the game of identity as the coincidence with itself of something, as the sameness of something versus what it is not as the system of differences from which the identity receive its affirmation is already  ravine, gully, break, smash, crush, annul, bend, fail, bankrupt, we already know in fact as Hegel brilliantly sustained that the game of identity and difference  is breaked in diversity, an identity is as such because it is different to another identity, so that it opposite antithesis is already inside it breaking it own supposed to be unity or self-coincidence, a difference might be something as such because it is an identity different to another one and as such it is itself breaked by identity as its own negation and both are breaked and disseminated in diversity. 

    The game of identity and difference is one of substantialized entities to remember again Bourdieu constant insistence of the necessity to be critics against substantialism.    

   At the same time the game of pure difference without identity indeed overflows in the relation between mark and the unconcient as Derrida sustained, it is not only breaked in diversity since identity sake the weakening and weariness of difference and difference the one of identity, but as a substantial’s force it also entails the realm of the unconcient, whence it is nothing else but the definition of differed presence paradigmatically defined, the opposite of plenum presence. 

   This is not a way to negates or say that nothing is yet already to be discussed according to differences, but nothing less than presence correspond to the asistem of difference, what have difference of course around several kinds of issues, for example, difference is a sin equanon to the contemporary discussion on economies  overall when we are thinking about capitalized relations as it is almost impossible to figure out the contemporary virtualization of the financial and credits system of economics in capitalism without understanding how difference made under it the form to conceive time and so on, but this is not casual or hazard that difference appear precisely around matters of absence, the idea of differed presences is highly connected with it and is one of the reasons for derrida to connect writing and difference, there are difference in many things, we can’t for example, erase difference when we need difference to be productives or to creates new sense over previous assigned senses to things, but the asistem of difference is always related with emptiness epistemologically, something is needed to be given as empty, difference in a few words is highly weaved with nothingness, absent and affected by marks toward us to think about non-presence or differed and proffered presences.

  On the other hand if we attempt to attain in any case to relate difference with presence we will obtain nor only differed forms of presence but also we will recognize us again back to the idea of presence diluted and or not yet separated from appearance since thinking presence according to difference reduced everything to the moment of something appearing, to apparition itself, an certainly, we should recognize that to a certain point any thought on genesis is need nor only of structure but also of a certain difference, so that as soon as the idea of presence is considered within eidetic and noetic levels, pre-expressive and expressive wishes to say toward language as well as under presence in self conscience and in sign as exteriorized image of ourselves in front of us, a certain level of difference is yet there not as much as when difference is stablished as the realm from which everything revolves around negatives forms to define presence according to absences and identities according to non-identities.

   There is also under the idea of difference a certain naiveté and a so simple idea of negation. Let just figure out this simplicity by recognizing how a more complex and rich idea of negation such as that evolved within Hegel negation of negation easily demonstrate the general futility of difference and overall the inferiority of the unconscious realm of difference in front of plenum presence by remembering a beautiful paragraph of Derrida when claiming the idea of alive presence as the more transcendental level of thought, the present of the present, discussed a more refined way to understand the superation of difference negation under the relation between negation of negation and the restauration of spacialities. Derrida sustained:

    "Pure spatiality determine itself in negating the indetermination that constitute it, I mean, negating itself. Negating itself, this negation must be a negation determined, negation of the space by the space. The first spatial negation of space is the dot. The dote is the space without occupying space, a place without a place, it suppresses and substitute places occupying the place of space which at the same time negate and consevate. It negates spatiality the space but at the same time the dote goes to be in contact with itself, meaning, with another dot, and this is a first negation of negation, the spatial negation of the dote is the line, the dot retains and extend, it is sustained substituted by the line which constitute its true, but this negation is in a second level spatial, the dote is the line, the first being other, meaning, the spatial being of the dote. According to the same process of negation of negation the true of the line is the surface but this true of being other is a negation of negation again. The line become a surface which on the one hand is a determination in respect to lines and dotes, in this sense surface in general but which according with the same retained negation suppressed of the space it is at the same time the restauration of the totality of the space, of a space as a whole, the space have become then concrete and in reverse we must demonstrate the opposite that such a movement of producing the surfaces concrete totality of the space is a full circle and reversible. We can demonstrate that a line is composed of negated dots and the suffice of negated lines"

    We are now concerned with the issue of the genesis of the sign by set up in the Forefront the question about if we may assume several simultaneous genesis of the sign.

    On the one hand doubtedly the quest of the idealization by which the external pass by to the interiority of conscience and sprit in Hegel is a quest of a certain form of the sign as Derrida did, the sign itself is already in Aristoteles and later in Hegel, but I will attempt to demonstrate that such a form discussed by derrida as first form of presence of us in front of us as an exteriorized image of conscience might be elucidated as one of the phenomenological genesis of the signs.

    We are here of course speaking on a certain kind of sign that one originated from the interiority universe of subjectivity and expression while at the same time in saying genesis we are at the same time recognizing a moment in which the sign is not yet as much a sign, the sign is nothing here with its own status yet it is unformed and or undiferiented yet.

  On the one hand it is disseminated under conscience as presence of conscience in front of itself, something like saying that a sign is almost a reflected dimension or a repetition of the sensible multiplicity in another level of representation like conscience itself, recognizing the sign under it by identifying the exteriorized level of being inscribed in sound and writing outside the usual immateriality of conscience and or by identifying it among conscience as levels of signing something out is of course an undoubtedly wortly of derrida, while not without recognizing that over there sign is not fully already and not yet a sign, it is neither itself neither not itself, but it is borning, arising, rise, takin shape in its source.

   Doubtedly this is an entery phenomenological issue and under an specific form of phenomenology that one revolves around conscience when the sign is diluted among what it is not and discovered within which it is ready to source to rise disseminated yet before and after. It is even less a sign yet when we quest for it within noetic and eidetic levels of stratus in experience.

 We may of course do a move of revisiting all this zones after semiology and semiotics arises and merged as science of the sign and in that sense we might give try to work under that zones as if by using our well defined sense of what a sign is revisiting its zones of original phenomenological genesis.

   But this is not the only genesis of the sign as soon as we are investigating and discussing the need to renew semiotic in a less separated idea of sign from hermeneusis we should quest for a balance.

  Now well, the sign in pierce, also a theoretician based and inspired in Hegel is not as Derrida have assumed the idealization process that creates the flour of interiority, the sign in Peirce is not arising from there, not around conscience and self-confidence, not defined as a form to made presence in front of us, nor an exteriorized form to conscience to perceive itself exteriorized outside as language, this is not the way Peirce choiced and unveiled to seize and rise his theory of sign, far to this way the sign in peirce is unrelated with the progressive process of substitution of the sensible multiplicies and palpable sensoriality to perception, representation, conscience and the i, it is instead figure out according to the relation between language and reality.

   According to peirce a sign can be something even physical meaning an object outside our conscience and interior subjectivity for example in identifying indicial signs we have many levels of signs outside subjectivity.

   On the other hand he identified how language name the qualities of things and how the relation between names and substance helps to recognize and difference objects in between, his attention was cognitive and as such focused in the coordination process that relates language with reality.

  Certainly and Peirce defined it a sign is something in the place of another thing but it doesn’t have to be a word in regard to its referential object, it may be an ordinary object which is in the place of another thing signalizing it.

   We have then through peirce another genesis of the sign different to that assigned to Hegel by derrida in defining Hegel system as a semiology.

  For example a form of plenum presence in which we have signs in the physical sense Natural and social signs are of major meaning here, for example, a person who I am now earing outside my door through the stairs is to me inside home a sign of someone who will probably call in my door or who will continue through the stair to another flour like a neighbour.

   However, I will recognize a wortly to Derrida way to interpret Hegel, according to me and my understanding on this issue, Derrida discussion on Hegel may help to anticipate a well needed philosophical reconstruction today–In habermas sense of the use of this notion—of philosophical anthropology recalling from a new and renewed perspective Cassirer earlier efforts.

 In fact, to me, what I am defining here as a phenomenological genesis of the sign might be considered in this book on new avenues between philosophy and sociology as a further possibility for philosophical anthropology.

In Derrida words

"Conscience, the phenomenological is thus the true of the soul, meaning of what constitute precisely the object of anthropology, conscience is the true of man, phenomenology is the true of anthropology"

bibliography

Habermas Junger, Ciencias Constructivas y Reconstructivas: conciencia Moral y Acción comunicativa

Hegel, ciencia de la Lógica, Hachete 

Derrida Jacques, La Pirámide y el Pozo: Introducción a la semiología de Hegel, catedra

Derrida Jacques, Ousia and Gramme: Notes on Zeit and seit, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, Form and Wishes to Say: Notes on the phenomenology of language, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, The ginebra Linguistic Circle, margins of philosophy, the university of Chicago press

Derrida Jacques, The Supplements of the couple: Philosophy in front of linguistic, margins philosophy, the university of Chicago press