Anxiety and Documentation
Today was like most days, the sun came out, the wind blew across the tall field grass like a grooming comb, and everything made sense or kept to its order. That was at least until I stepped outside to follow my own daily routine. Disruption after disruption followed and all that I could think about how I was the cause, no wait, the outcome of my many mistakes. How could I begin to forge a path for myself when the chaos left behind me was so damaging to so many? Why was I unable to write? There is perhaps nothing more desirable that I have felt in the last few years than the urge to write. This is no desire isolated to myself but rather it is a compulsion outside nuance of an āIā that must grapple with the trust of understanding, to contribute in some way to a specific area of knowledge. But so far I have done nothing and even more have wasted the time of my professors and colleges.
I am brought here today to consider what Emmanuel Kant wrote about ethics and yet I cannot draw myself to write it down. I am unsure whether what I say is right or whether I am simply fooling myself. There seems to be no lack of ideas, for when I speak they seem to flow out abundantly but there is something about the documentation of those thoughts that worries me. What enormous consequence is contained within a document, it is sentenced forever to reproduce itself again and again, the resonance of history eternally present. And yet, here I am, documenting, nonetheless playing a role in the creation of a perpetual past that can be rediscovered in its imperfections and idiosyncrasies.
What I then venture to say is only apart of that creation, but what is it exactly that is in the process, what state of mind such that it is reflective of a future that has yet to present itself - for what other reason does one have to document than to preserve for the future. What a being this must be who desires to document! What of the anxiety to do so? How can we account for this? Is it a being that knows all too well the consequence of documentation, which regards it with care or denies entry into the walls surrounding its present past? If only we could come to some conclusions about this being that is fearful of documentation and have it recognize the possibilities of understanding that it opens up regardless of its ability to express it.
I am brought here today to consider what Emmanuel Kant wrote about ethics and yet I cannot draw myself to write it down. I am unsure whether what I say is right or whether I am simply fooling myself. There seems to be no lack of ideas, for when I speak they seem to flow out abundantly but there is something about the documentation of those thoughts that worries me. What enormous consequence is contained within a document, it is sentenced forever to reproduce itself again and again, the resonance of history eternally present. And yet, here I am, documenting, nonetheless playing a role in the creation of a perpetual past that can be rediscovered in its imperfections and idiosyncrasies.
What I then venture to say is only apart of that creation, but what is it exactly that is in the process, what state of mind such that it is reflective of a future that has yet to present itself - for what other reason does one have to document than to preserve for the future. What a being this must be who desires to document! What of the anxiety to do so? How can we account for this? Is it a being that knows all too well the consequence of documentation, which regards it with care or denies entry into the walls surrounding its present past? If only we could come to some conclusions about this being that is fearful of documentation and have it recognize the possibilities of understanding that it opens up regardless of its ability to express it.


2 Comments:
Good Morning Jordaan, I was browsing through the Google catalogue for ontology and I came across you. I have read a few of your entries and they reveal a hesitatingly intense, sometimes lyrical philosophical mind (Oh my!), but I was unable to "pin down" just what your philosophy really is. Yes, I know that that is an awkward way to ask you to tell me more of your closest ideas, but it will do. I am Gary Smith www.theontologicalboy.blogspot.com and I really am interested in such matters.
Dear Gary Smith,
Thank you for your comment. I was not expecting anyone to actually take notice of my blog, but it is also encouraging to see that you have such a curious mind. As for my "quote on quote" philosophy, I would have to say that the "Streams of conscious Reflection" was never intended to be such a structured forum. Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, argued for a critical perspective intrinsic to consciousness that had the capacity to regard the "thing in itself" without any prejudgment or prejudice. In other words, such an experience would be a priori and require no qualification of its pragmatic application or compliance with conventional understanding. The disciplining of knowledge, in any of its various forms, is based on a presupposition of a constructed subject that is in opposition to non-subject. If you were to look at my other blog - Regurgitations ad nauseum (http://regurgitationsadnauseum.blogspot.com/) - you may find a much more coherently structured form of argument.
Although I don't intend to shrink away from your comment, nor will I make the lazy claim of subjective autonomy, I do respectfully offer that what I am writing has no satisfactory point of reference. What I am interested in doing is pointing out peculiarities, the moments when the influence of structure is unstable.
Specifically, in my post titled "Anxiety and Documentation" I was most interested in pointing out the conflict between temporality (subject that is existing and prone change and error) and permanency (which precedes the transition into non-existence). The destabilization in structure is when I, existentially, am anxious - I am not simply reserved for a fate but am invested in it. If what I am anxious for is permanence what does it say about my relationship to it? Is it a permanent question or is it renewed only by my inquiry?
I take it that might not be a concretely stable answer, however it is the only one I can provide that does not infer too much upon my capacities as a structured project. I would offer that it is more of an attempt to provide a description of consciousness as an event as it is taking place but it is also an account for what must be in place in order for such dialog to occur. Although I don't have any reservations about whether I've done this successfully or not, that is an entirely other question.
Thanks for the comment!
Jordaan
Post a Comment
<< Home