پستها
استبداد حاکم بر فلسفه‌ی فسیل‌سوز امروزی دو عملیات روتین را روی سخن‌های نو اجرا می‌کند: اول، تلاش در جهت به خدمت گرفتن؛ و دوم، در صورت عدم «کارآیی»، پاک کردن. کاری که ژولیا کریستوا و بدتر از او، تزوتان تودوروف با میخائیل باختین کردند اجرای عملیات شماره یک بود. این دو بار ارائه گزارشی کوتاه و دلبخواه از نظریه‌های باختین درباره‌ی رمان، چنین وانمود کردند که باختین هم یک فیلسوف غربی جدید است که همه ریشه‌هایش را در کانت و نوکانتی‌های آلمانی دارد. حتی روایتی که هالکوئیست، سال‌ها بعد از ترجمه چند اثر از باختین در غرب، ارائه داده، اثری از ریشه‌های بومی نظریه او ندارد.
حالا باختین در محافل فکری و دانشگاهی غرب به محاقی رفته که تفاوت چندانی با آن سرکوب و تبعید استالینی ندارد.
من، به واسطه علاقه‌ای که به او داشته‌ام و با این باور که حرف‌های او حداقل در مورد شرایط تولید گفتار در ایران راهگشایی‌هایی خوبی دارد، از همان سال 1375 که موضوع پایان نامه‌ام را به او اختصاص دادم تا به حال، همیشه، به هزار ابزار، آخرین گفته‌های درباره‌ی او را رصد کرده‌ام. با همت ترین افراد یک بخش از حرف‌های او را می‌گیرند و اعلام می‌کنند که می‌خواهند دوباره آن را به اثبات برسانند. نه نقدی، نه پیوندی، نه حتی ردّی. من هم در پایان نامه فوق لیسک همین کار را کردم…
باختین با همه خلاقیت و تولید و توانی که دارد هنوز در تبعید است.
امشب در میان همان رصدها به پیش نویس مقاله‌ای برخوردم که می‌تواند راهی برای خروج باختین از این تبعید را نشان دهد:
When Julia Kristeva introduced Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism and interdiscursive semiotics to the Western audience towards the end of the 1960’s, she began a move that has not been pursued in great extent in Western theory and philosophy… This has to do with an aspect that is of greater importance in the history if ideas and the understanding of the world we live in, an idea which has been explored in physics and in metaphysics, but has been left behind by empirical social or cultural studies. This is the idea of non-local causality. It is not really that the idea of non-local causality has been rejected as such; it has just been surpassed, overlooked, or maybe even consciously ignored. I will discuss some possible routes of access to this concept in the light of an improved understanding what we might so far call “meetings”. The first step will be a return to Bakhtin and some of the concepts that were central to his cultural and literary theory.
Where Kristeva’s ideas of voices intersecting one another across time and space could be taken further than the written word, there have been radical problems with adopting this line of thought in Western theories of culture, philosophy, or discourse theory/analysis. What Kristeva introduced to the Western world, having been cut largely off from its influence due to the iron curtain drawn through Europe and the world, was the line of theory expressed mainly by Mikhail M. Bakhtin’s works. I will deal briefly with a few of Bakhtin’s concepts, as they display a way of thinking cultural dynamics and evental meeting points, that contain a richness in conceptuality and an great openness towards complexity and lack of reductionism.
…
Ontological concepts are (almost?) always chronotopic, even in Bakhtin’s full sense. They do not only point at the world, they do not only have an indexical aspect, as Pierce would say. They are truly chronotopic, in the sense that they may construe whole worlds inside of them, just like the chronotopes examined by Bakhtin in literature. …. The interesting aspect here is the potentiality of the concept as chronotope: in ontological chronotopes, we make worlds. These worlds may express connections and relation between time, space, matter, and action, that are out of time (untimely, cf. Nietzsche) – but they may, in their turn, recreate our relation to the dimensions mentioned, and reposition the way we understand time, matter, space, and action. A brief example from Bakhtin may illustrate what I mean.
…
From the extremely brief introduction to a couple of Bakhtinian concepts, I may draw yet a couple of important points. One is the insistence upon a force that works upon the single event of the novel as we see it – or, if we like, upon the event of the meeting between writing and reading, if this is to be preferred as the locus of production of meaning. Is the relation between the ‘fictional events’…There is no ‘holism’ as a total and perhaps totalitarian spirit which would be always present without our looking at it and without any kind of expression taking place. There is whole in the sense that this whole is itself constantly shattered and broken into endless streams and events of local sense.
…
In the local event, the elements that enter the production of sense are themselves tempered with and altered, so as to take on a new form and become expression that seem new and may ignite fascination, sublimation, intuitive reactions, etc. But what disappears into silence in Bakhtin’s own work as well as in later interpretations is the possibility of a dynamics that is not merely psychological. The tendency to ontological individualism has silenced a question that is important: is sense only created by the interpretation of discursive generalities by individual minds – or is there a dynamics taking place, in which singularities express the universal through their unfolding, maybe even one in which the complex and the simple, the folded and the smooth, exist simultaneously and form a non-local causality with its own materiality?
…
Since every element in the meeting changes along the axes of the fold or of God’s self-disclosure, there will be plenty of explanation for the dynamisms of the meeting. However, all of this of course resides on a one-way understanding of causality and determination. The choices available to the human in the pursuit of life towards the ‘return’ are only a matter of what the path of that return will be, what face of God humans will see as they leave this world.
…
What is the point here is that we have the opportunity to enter a dialogue with currents of thought that are open to the idea of there being some kind of a non-locality present in the setting of the meeting.
…
The advantages of such a refolding of the concept of the event and the evental meeting would be obvious: rather than universalising European philosophy, it would be a search to universalise a concept through the adoption of conceptual strands, themselves performing a meeting between Western, Eastern, Northern, and Southern philosophies.
…
But most of the ideas that are present as thoughts and theories in Western science are present in one or another world view of non-scientific character. And likewise, the non-local is present in a series of scientific and philosophical discursivations. The question of course remains how the conceptualisation of a philosophical dialogism may create an opening up of all these many doxa and an invitation into the theorisation within philosophy itself?
…
This journey of understanding of the evental will be my contribution to the circle for the coming years, hoping to draw on the wealth of non-local philosophies and thought worlds.
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر