Thinking science chapter 5

 

The Dialectique of evocation

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

 Written in English and translated to English by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

  Evocation is a dialectique concept. It belongs to the kind of logical pairs which are at the same time sameness and opposites each one containing the other it is own identity.  It is articulated between a logical pair and a thirst element which is outside it and in respect to what the pair logically go and return from the dyadic to the triadic.

   However, evocation is a dialectique concept not in the sense of materialist dialectique as it is immaterial neither in the sense of a negative dialectique since as Stephen a Tyler said it is nothing entail with positive neither with negative things in respect to an essence or an identity.

     If we pay attention to how Stephen A Tyler discussed it we will seen that according to him evocation habilitate language as that without which representation, tropes and writing wouldn’t be impossible. Seen in this sense, evocation is on the side of the genesis of language, on the other hand asking about if evocation pertain or belong to patters or structures susceptible to be manipulated by our concient action he answered that yes and not at the same time, yes because since it habilitate language is located on the side of making possible something to work with and the effective working with it, meaning the genesis of representation, writings and tropes, while not from the moment such languages are always in defect, they are more, to much and excessive or less, to little and limited in respect to what it means to substitute or express on our thoughts, evocation in fact  do more than such languages since it flood the silences between the speakers and the nonlinear trajectories of sintagms and paradigms.

   Stephen recommend evocation as the necessary mean to work with my concept of non-repetitive repetitions.

   Seen in this perspective it is at the same time structure and genesis in regard to such lacks and excess of languages, but on the other side, it is the logical pair of representation, each one, representation and evocation contains the other as inclusive in its own identity, evocation is evocation because it is not representation and representation is as such because it is not evocation, but no one of each can be itself without the other one.

   Corresponding to a logic of triadic principles it work in between the pair evocation-representation and a thirst element in between that is external to both, on the one side, the referential horizont evolving things, objects, realities or anything denoted and or connoted such as the objects by which the signs are substitutes and on the other the general sense evolved within the elucidation of it by subjects.

   But how can evocation pertain at the same time to the genesis habilitate language and to the effective work with meanwhile it flood the silence of speakers and the linear trajectories of sintagms and paradigms?.

    We should yet untangle more in regard to the skein tangle evocation in a comprehensive manner.

    Let see it as follow.

     The former brings us to differentiate between substantive, adjective, verb and subject distinguishing evocation, from to evoque, the evocative and the evocated.

    The last one is in fact an effect not a sake itself, it is an effect of a former sake if we are in front of effective evoqued things.   

       I am not so addict to think in terms of sakes and effects since it is a logical pair evolving immanence’s and as such related with the physical, chemical and substantial universe defined by sequential relations of essentialism usually not pertinent in the world of language, society and culture, but certainly when defined as substantive it is evocation without a defined time, it is atemporal or intemporal and as such it inhabits all the forms of time and neither one, while considered as adjective it is evocative such as empirically regarding the datas of our senses needed of experiencing something evocative so that the a temporal and intemporal is ready to cede to an effect, in this sense evocation need to be experienced, lived and known as result of a motivated language inside communication or as relations between objects, images or things unmotivated but evocative to a subject from the mode of activating relations through remembering, memory or a more or less complex sense of association.

  With this say we may explicit that evocation pertains to the universe of sense, it is maybe not a significants or a meaning, but a relation of senses, to be evocative something has to make a certain sense to us, hence, a sense needed to be evocative or consisting in an evocation.

   Considered in this form related with sense, evocation belong to semantiques, but if we ask about what semantique is, the isotopies or trajectories of congruence’s by the mean of which we explicitate things, even regarded to that relations evolved in making sense such as differential relations between significants and significante or the interpretants we realize that evocation presupposes a form of sense nor always reduced to and or originated as source in signs, significants and interpretants while sometimes yes as well.

    A sign might be evocative as well as a significant, but they are not evocation themselves thus this last one belong to a more immaterial order of sense irreducible to an specific matter of expression, it is not reducible to lexical, acoustic and graphic forms of inscription and is neither on the side of well precise and or delimited meanings, evocation is an open form of producing sense, a more indeterminate one instead of a highly codified message but at the same time it is irreducible to full openness and indeterminations since evoquing suppose a constellations of sense relatibly constrained by the evoqued and at least in that sense unrelated with entropy, zero degree of codification, polysemy’s and disseminations of senses and meanings.

    Such another form of the sense nor limited to a highly codified circumscribed meanings neither to its opposite, entropy, polysemy, etc. allow us to understand that evocation empirically speaking can travel from very concrete mundane things, including sensoritality and sensibility, to very abstracts constellations of sense such as those needed by concepts.

    Concepts work under a field of sense ever but at the same time as abstractions they are opens and indeterminated than an ordinary word at the dictionary by which signs means one thing instead of another, beside more closed is the field of senses suggested by a word or relations between words less evocative it results, but at the same time although open and indeterminate evocation is not like polysemy or dissemination when sense is near to approximate zero or diluted within entropy, rather evocation evolve a range of measurable senses constrained by what is evoqued even when indeed we may really ask ourselves to what point can we avoid the fact the any relation of sense is itself always evocation.

  Evocation in this sense according to which certain forms of sense are near to than others is an effect instead of a sake which regard us no to simple unities such as the sign, the icon or the meaning, but to more complex relations of senses taking shape from grammars of much related elements.

   But the unique of evocation within the richness of its own field of discussion, is about how it might travel from very conceptual complex and theoretical forms of knowledge to sensorial, sensible and even aesthetics ones forms of communication evolving some time plots and how it can travel from pure languages to non or less linguistics phenomena’s such as those defined by images and objects relations far to be ordered according to intentionality, purposiveness or motivational forms of discourses as for example when the associative links of remembering and memory evoques to us or when we relates natural things the effect of raining in front of us through the window and the city perceived behind the waters, or simply when we see a face in the middle of the city and it evoques to us the seize of the sense of a face or gesture we seen some when before, a situation that evoques something to us or a groups of photos as evocation of something experienced.

    In this sense evocation inhabit all the moments of form without be reduced or constrained by form as its source.

   Undoubtedly being sense evocation is not form nor an specific manifestation of form, but neither, following the logical pairs Hegel assigned to form, essence or content in one or another side. Not absent from representation, writing and tropes as mentioned above the otherness of evocation, its more near pair, its alterity and it opposite is nothing else than representation, it is art and part with evocation, even figuring out any matter vehicle for evocation to have a form, whether in the active form of a builded and composed language of intentionality or either in the passive form of relating things as already given, in both cases something, a language or a non-language such as images, object or extra verbal things must act as representation, meaningful substitution or cuasi representation. A relation of elements, images, objects, etc. as given to us in nature or reality is not representation itself but such as we relates those things in between in a form that evolves associative links of evocation, something act as a vehicle by which another things result evoqued, something has taked the place of another thing evoquing it or thought it, it may happen calling moments of our emotive memory, sensorial memory, from our experience or as Stephen defined it from our semantic and episodic forms of memory.

   So that whether in the active form of remembering or in the passive form of memory thus as in memory as a totality which contrains what Stephen defined as zetesis, the logical pair of evocation is representation whether understand in the sense of perception and mimesis when representation is seen as form of reflect or imitations of the real, evocation bring inside itself a relation between an interpretant and a world or reality while without being reduced to the game of the interpretants less originated or source in it.

   This is what I called the three thresholds of time according to which evocation can’t be retained nor in one neither in another, past, present or future but inhabiting the three dimensions at the same time something Stephen identified as a principle without sake, telos or origin so dispensing of time and space while working through it, something that undoubtedly link evocation with the main characteristiques of sense, I will even attempt to demonstrate that evocation and sense are almost the same, aspects of the same or nothing else than another name to the same with the exception to recognize that all the forms of sense are not always evocative, while it is difficult to avoid the fact that the idea of sense in itself is a form of evocation and that evocation is nothing else than sense.

    Thus evocation is a general form of sense irreducible however to isotopies and semantique explicitation in general even when all this is impossible without evocation, albeit at the end, from the side of language manipulation, evocative sense are obtained from isotopic and semantique explicitations.

    Being a form of sense I define as open and indeterminated but capable of traveling between very abstracts and theoretical concepts and very weaved forms of plots in the modes of references to worlds, and being the logical pair of representation, its other, its alter, etc, ti brings us on the one hand to the relation between form and immaterialities characterize the process of meaning while far to the close meanings of a single sign, on the other, to the relations between image and reality, language and reality related to perception and representation in respect to principles by which representation and perception are no longer capable to work with as it is at the same time related, from the side of intentional composition of languages with the relation between part and whole.

  All this bring us to the issue of antinomies, on one side the Kantian antinomies between the composed and the simple, between time and space, but also to semantic antinomies and antinomies of representation and it is from this side that my concept of non-repetitive repetitions take shape and grow which Stephen quoted and discussed.

   Let then go more deeper on the discussion of this issue.

   As a substantive evocation remit us to concepts as what it must be itself, meaning, in its state of thing itself abstracted must be a sense of concepts to be elucidated, as adjective evocation design a being of something, we has passed by then from the concepts to being as soon as asking about it as substantive and as adjective, one time it is a concept, another time, it is a form of being, as a concept evocation is static, intemporal or atemporal, but as a being it is a temporality of being so in the becoming, but as verb it is an action, to evoque, meaning, relating things in a certain form in language composing with elements or relations between parts and wholes.

   In some cases indeed we find forms of evocation without a verb as in the case when a relation between things already given in nature or reality are evocatives to us but even in cases as such, we associate things.

     From this perspective evocation arises from the usual relations Hegel examined to logic between concept and being, form and contents, but with an additional exclusive and unique characteristic, the fact that evocation differently to the usual logical relations is not about identity or essence nor in a positive nor in a negative and ti is in this specific sense that evocation is related with my concept of non-repetitive repetitions.

   As Stephen sustained, representation is itself a repetition under which what is repited is not equal to the represented meaning a nonidentity but at the same time, as repetition, representation supposes the repetition of an identity and a presupposition of identity between representation and the represented , evocation in this sense, encompass and seize in a more complex and richness form the nonidentity evolved within that repetition instead of being in defect as representation in respect to the represented, evocation synchronize an adequative way to work with such non-repetitive repetitions.

    Quoting Stephen, 

     "in fact, I think that you are describing our current situation, evocation is the necessary mean to try and work with your concept of non-repetitive repletion or repetitions without identities and it recommend itself according to reasons I will call the pluralization of discourse".

       

      Now well, precisely by that reason, the discussion of evocation is not limited to only the logical pair with representation, if evocation is the necessary mean to work with non-repetitive repetitions it is related with representation in the sense that representation is itself beyond its illusion of repiting the identity of the represented in it, a non-repetitive repetition without identity in that repetition but without adecuation to that principle which is under representation exceeded and limites.

   While in this form, evocation is the opposite of representation, evocation remark the non adecuation of representation to the synchronicity and simultaneity define the principle of non-repetitive repetition and work itself as the only way to mean that adecuation as that which representation can’t solve something according to which it is the opposite of all the mendacity described by Stephen about the current situation.

   And in this form evocation is indeed depperly related with the issue of true, understand in the sense of the philosophy of sciences this is about the quest of true both epistemologically as well as ontologically, even methodologically and ontologically, ethically. 

   Being the habilitation of language evocation need as concept a theoretical more depper reconstruction an effort, endeavor and attain started by Stephen and me in our philosophical dialogue. Why to think that evocation is related with true or at least to consider it more near and adequate to work with it?.

   This is not an easy question to answer precisely in the context and by the reasons discussed by Stephen between other things the separation between reason, common sense, aesthetics and politics relativized by rhetoric.

    It seems to be obvious that evoquing senses presuppose a relation with contents and meanings less controlled, less authoritarian and linear and certainly of rhetoric had relativized the autonomy of reason, common sense, aesthetics and politic as separated worlds it was because the ideology of contents and meanings, stereotypes and prejudices about what to mean or say has imposed itself over the open spirit of quest, true and the humble sense of learning evolved within heuristics and research, whence evocation since being the otherness and alterity of representation it had avenue the possibility to stop representation showing its limits usually related with dominating, evocation instead free the non-coincidence and solves the inadequacy not in the form of perfecting representation but all the opposite, reestablishing other ways around, ways by which things are not substituted by its representation and the last one is considered inadequate to what it represent.

      Under evocation we hesitate and discard the repetition of reality in representation we even discard repiting reality outside it as an identity or a substitution of the world by a language or a delegation, rather, we attaint to seize reality itself and beyond it, considering that reality it self is yet as Hegel sustained contingent and accidental, we attempt to go over reality to find synchronicity and simultaneity as well as what Stephen defined as a sublime of daily life, but even on the side of language, located between genesis and structure, we attempt to seize with evocation another forms of relation between the parts and the wholes of our texts exploring what is proper of evocation, the relations of sense, but evocation is itself sense at the same time and in this respect it is also about the ontology of world and reality itself, evocation return to the identity of repetition while this repetition is already non-repetitive what Stephen defined as the suppression of difference that the fiction of identity suppose.

  And see in this sense evocation seems to be on the side of synchronicity and simultaneity also in a form evolving a certain sense of the ritual something brings us to what is experienced and alive habilitating under it our common sense languages as well.

   Evocation thus yet need of an immense theoretical effort around epistemology, method, telos.

   Evocation is not only a dialectical concept, but also a comprehensive one concept which have adequacy as its main potential.

    If an evocation is a form of sense which habilitate language located between genesis and structure and between the part and the whole of an effective language composition its relation with true is whence concerning with the entails between representation and the objects of it and to how we deliver the relation of part and whole in our compositions and discourses, so it concerns with the classical trues rise being, concept, phenomena, appearance, reality, genesis, dialectique, etc.

  According to Hegel true is that which can’t be separed from its opposites something derrida defined in regard to Hegel as the true of true, Hegel called true only that which identity and coincidence with itself can’t be comprehended without its opposite, for example, he said, we cant understand what the world is itself without understanding what a reflected and a phenomenological world is and in reverse, to understand the reflected phenomenological world e need to understand how world itself is under it and both are moments of the same while being opposites, is impossible, and to get this duplicitous sense is nothing else but the true.

  A father can’t be a father without a son, if we remove the son, the father disappear it become a general man and in reverse, what is upon is upon because some is below if we remover one or the other then upon and belows disappear becoming places in general, this is what true is like.

   But representation as the otherness or opposite of evocation is in the same way explained in the former needed for evocation to be and evocation need for representation to be if we remove one or the other both disappear.

   Now one thing is to understand representation as a reflected dimension meaning a perceptive related with sensible multiplicities and the datas of our senses and its physiological implications and another thing is representation considered as a language more or less near to what it represents in the form of various modalities of realism in respect to reality, the antinomies of realism so to speak.

   In respect to the mere datas of the sense as palpable sensoriality the implications of evocation in front of representation are of distinct results, given that with evocation we are not speaking on substitution or the replacement evolved within referential representation in respect to the objects’ and things evocation adecuation focusses about that it is a process of synchronies and simultaneities irreducible to the linearity’s and sequential characterize the form of representation to reflect it.

  In a few words evocation is more sensible and perceptible to the differences, this what is suppose to be reflect in fact are nothing else than evocations itself, the relation between for example a concrete data of the sense, a flavor, a taste, a touch, a sound, there is being itself in palpable sensoriality at the biological sense as well as a kind of retained memory of it under a certain spectral or specular imagine which co-inhabit the mere biological feeling, but in this form ti is only an evocation like when we later differentiate it under a memory. 

   In this sense the so-called reflects of the senses bring within itself a certain repetition or memory which is itself as alive memory evocation.

       Seen in this form evocation comes here to overline that such a repetition is not already the first stimule while it is lively conservated, but an image of a such non-identical to the stimulus itself, something about which we can only evocate, evocation then capture the two senses at the same time, on the one hand the lively nature of it less replaced by something else, and on the other, that the alive spectral memory start a difference from which the illusion of representation as mimesis reflect goes exceeded to a linear form of substitutions, while through synchronic and simultaneity, it is not replaced but different staying however as difference at the level of experience instead of its linear repetition, this another form of repetition start the travel on the way to concepts instead that on the way to the chain of perception, reflects, conscience, and so on, evocation in this sense travel from the avenues of subject and object toward the concept as already discussed in this book.

    This is not a way to say that there is not a certain level of representation under it and there is evocation in the ways for representation to be more or less adequate, but to say that the moments of repetition are less representational exactly as the chain sensible multiplicities, object, concept, subject are both at the same time more abstract and less reflected than the chain of the series, perception, representation, reflect, conscience.

   Logical pairs need each other, they are inclusives, each one contains the other in its own identity while they eliminate each other too, meaning that without evocation in the repetition from palpable sensoriality to representation, representation itself is eliminated, as Stephen expressed, representation depend on evocation, but the opposite is certain too, without representation inside evocation, evocation stay eliminated.

   But only in the separation we perceive the importance of each one and later the mutual need. Within representation we believe in the fiction that the illusion of identity between representation and the represented creates hence believing it as if getting reality in representation when it is an effects of the production of the effects of reality buy the manipulation and control of the special effects of representation, we believe to get reality by indistinguishing imitation with identity, while the illusion of identity created by the effects of imitative mimesis suppress the difference as Stephen sustained, well, evocation we might say is specialized in understanding this difference or in being adecuated to it.

    In the reverse sense without a certain percent of representation evocation alone may derive in a drift without retention since being an open and indeterminate form of sense, all that which made codification possible and the constrains of meanings habilitate forms of communication subjected to pragmatic endeavors of reality can be loosed.

References

Derrida Jacques, Génesis y estructura, de la Fenomenologia, Antropos

Hegel, ciencias de la lógica, Hachete

Tyler A Stephen, Evocation, the Unwriteable, a response to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, sep 9, rice university, 1997

Notas

  

   1-tranlations of Hegel, derrida and spinoza within the book are also mine

   2- I would like to express here my especial acknowledgements and infinite gratitude to Surpik angelini to whom I assign and recognize my learning of English, her translations of several of my essays was major and pivotal to reading her translation learn and interiorize in a more depper form English, while also listening her during several years was pivotal to me, of course, I later continue a more depper learning first as an emigrant in the community of Houston as well as in the usa academy alone without translation during many years, but the Surpik first years was major

  3-On Austin performativies I specially recomend the discussion of the issue by habermas at interludio primero, acción comunicativa y actividad teleológica in teoría de la acción comunicativa, Taurus and Jacques Derrida communication on Austin at Margins of philosophy, the university of chicago press y en márgenes de la filosofía, catedra

   4-I am agree with quetzil Eugenio development and discussion on the relation beween performativity and fieldwork, undoubtedly the possibilities of performativity theory in fieldwork theory and research is plenty in possibilities both theoretical and empirical, see quetzil Eugenio, the invisible theater of ethnography: performative principles of fieldwork, anthropology quarterly and the open school of anthropology and ethnography, also published at the edition los mil y un textos, introduced and distributed by desiderio navarro

   5-Como he dicho en otra parte la teoría de la Performatividad aunque necesaria no es suficiente. Es cierto que ella tiene importancia crítica e inferencial para la teoría del campo como ha sostenido Quetzil Eugenio en su ensayo basado en mi teoría de la Performatividad, asi como también en lo que Quetzil llama la ontología del trabajo de campo. 

    6-As discussesd in my book the world correalte, cultural theory as i have conceibed it is a new science developed under clasical philosophy and phenomenological sociology.