Sunday, August 2, 2009
Why Do I Look Fatter Around The Time Of My Period
José Ignacio López Soria
As noted in the introductory note, currently characterize the doubts and issues with respect to modernity, the need to test it and make a inventory of their accomplishments and unresolved dilemmas, and the urgency of bearings in a world made of a plurality of complex spaces and temporalities. It is evident that the plurality of spaces and temporalities as societal environment or questions regarding the basics (epistemological, axiological, representative and practical) of the modern project they were familiar to those in the 20's of last century, founded among us critical thinking, modern style and still are now a source of inspiration for critical procedures and pathologies of modernity.
I have for me, as develop in the essays that follow, think today that Peru needs unpinned from the 20, say goodbye, even if it hurts, the founders of modern cutting critical thinking because that thought is no longer possible clues to reread the past, knowing what to expect in the present or imagine the future.
From this conviction, it is not uncommon, with the risk of being misunderstood, has made this collection of essays entitled Goodbye Mariátegui. Because if anyone in Peru represents no reconciliation with reality, critical thinking and proactive, understood as a "heroic creation" and not "copy or replica" or opportunistic compromises, "is precisely that to which we have been taught remembered as "the Amauta." In proposing that we say goodbye to Mariátegui I am honoring her memory because I consider it as the ultimate founder of the critical spirit of modern style. This title is also intended to leave Mariátegui understatement to say goodbye, when what you looking for "new thinking" as say David Sobral-new avenues for proactive criticality, implies a fortiori to say goodbye to those who, in their own, participated in the foundation of critical from a modern perspective. I refer of course to the modern, Haya de la Torre or Basadre, to draw the most prominent, and in no way critical but who were also seeking to reconstruct past mansions. Of these, whom Riva-Agüero is the most conspicuous representative is not necessary to say goodbye. Society and thought they were fired from several decades ago.
But I have to clarify immediately that saying goodbye does not mean forget or erase from memory those who came before us. I am convinced, with Heidegger, that memory is the source from which the thought (2). Thanks to memory we cherish, we collect and congregate the past and we do this remembering, that is going to pass through the heart. So the memory and the memory are related to the devotion rather than cold accumulation of the past. Memory, and here we are concerned, there is a repository of information about something or someone. Memory and re-sane feed links and loyalties, facilitate a-sane and "present" the past. This presentation challenges us, invites us, not force us to introduce us to the past to establish a dialogical relationship with him that gives and dignity presentiality back in time and substance and historical depth to our thinking today.
history, since it lost its status as narrative to mingle with science, is no longer meditation and fervent congregation of the past to become accumulation of facts that is rational, when you know it, organizing processes. As a "representation" scientific, rooted in the Cartesian dichotomy between res cogitans and res extensa, the story gets to talk with coherence and consistency about the past, but not "submission" to dialogue with him. So historical science does not promote permanent loyalties and deep links, or get link he mean by thinking. For the talk is related to thinking needs to be understood not as a tool language to say something about something, as does science, but as a horizon of meaning that surrounds us, which we talked and we can tell ourselves and dialogue with the past of our own present. When we interact with the past through historical science speak "of" past, but we do not talk "with" him with the past do not establish a relationship of dialogue, meditation and congregation.
I should add, however, that the relationship with the past, to be truly dialogic, assumes an attitude elective-elect the past and are chosen by him, which is free from all apologetic lost paradises and any consideration of the past as the sole source of mandate and legitimacy to this.
Away from me, of course, considering that historical science is unimportant. Has the same importance of other branches of science: to help build the modern world, but we've finished building or in the process of building a world hardly habitable.
A first rationale for the need of parting is the "fact" that, having changed the variables that make up the reality, when compared to those that arose in the founding moment of critical thinking, "it is necessary to develop new theoretical perspectives and methodological tools to understand the present. This is true and necessary to do science (modern) "on" today. But if I stuck exclusively to this consideration as the basis for my dismissal, would be trapped by that subject / object dichotomy, which, incidentally, can do science but not thinking. The foundation of my departure is, rather, on the consideration that modernity and their lifetimes, no matter how updated they are, constitute the history of our own present, but we serve and to know what to expect, we think to ourselves , currently exercise thought and theory and practice seriously critical and proactive role. If the foundation was in critical thinking mers on the horizon of meaning of the modern project, saying goodbye to that thought e-merger means that timeframe not to talk differently "on" Peru but to think.
The set of essays collected in this book are an attempt to e-mergency to think Peru from a post-modern perspective, which is aware of his condition "after" and that, therefore, rooted known, although not chained to that of what you say goodbye. It is this inextricable relationship between rooting and dismissed what brings us together to think, what more needs to think, if we are to ourselves and live decently together and not a nation state of modern cut, as the founders dreamed of critical thinking, but a way of living is assumed to itself as a continuation of the past of our own present and as a rupture that makes possible the joyful meeting of the diversities that we inhabit and the appropriation of human wealth.
This form of coexistence is conceivable if the roots find their way on the bounce and bounce on rooting. I have for me as one of those convictions which he spoke at first, that the "we" that we have been looking for from Garcilaso and Guaman Poma is on settling in the rooting / bounce. That "us" with us, hiding from old, but because we were right to uncover or understand the terms rooting / bounce as antithetical positions facing each other, and we are well placed with an alternative that requires us to choose or one thing or another, or watch them from the perspective of mestizaje, which, in the best, think the "we" in terms of a harmonious fusion of one or the other.
But what is at stake when it comes to thinking of ourselves, bipolarity is neither irreconcilable nor diffuse conciliation but the need for a unconcealment call us understand from a rooting farewell calls, from a farewell calls to the roots. This is, in my view, the most deserving and least thought we thought. But art and literature, perhaps because they are not tied to the rationale provided, have leaned to the problem and have uncover hiding. A good example of this approach is "knowledge of non-knowledge" of The Black Heralds of Vallejo.
I think that same inextricable relationship between rooting and fired, even if not explicitly thematized, is what underlies, is at the same time position and blind- to community understanding of Peru and decaying (M. González Prada), nation formation (JC Mariátegui), meeting and mixing (VA Belaunde), understanding between doing and thinking (R. Haya de la Torre), possible coexistence of mixed (Arguedas), Storm in the Andes (LE Valcarcel), promise realizable (J. Basadre), finding the letter in which pain was born (C. Vallejo), wide world outside (C. Joy) . The same relationship is at the base, without manifest, the theory of dominance (A. Salazar Bondy), the revolutionary humanism (F. Miro-Quesada), the popular overflow state (J. Matos Mar) liberation theology (G. Gutierrez), the coloniality of power (Quijano A.), the search of an Inca (A. Flores Galindo), popular modernity (H. de Soto and C. Franco), the praise of heterogeneity (A. Cornejo Polar), the country's medium to do (M. Vargas Llosa), the general cholificación (H. Neira), the search for truth and reconciliation (S. Lerner Febres), the centrality of ethics (J. Abugattás), the commitment to transparency (Master P), the policy etización (V. Santuca), to rethink the philosophical tradition (D. Sobral), the search for wings and roots (M. Giusti) , attention to diversity (F. Tubino) the exploration of new sensitivities (R. Nugent) ... And I know I left many other approaches in the inkwell.
In one way or another, but always without saying, the various attempts to think (in the sense of presenting) Peru roaming accent but as transient condition that can and should be overcome. Why promote a commitment to what (the roots) or the other (the dismissal), or opt for the confusing mix of one and the other is known as mestizaje. Try, with the best intentions, we uncover the lies we, even germinally, but fail to hide it. Precisely why they deserve to be taken seriously, because no matter aware of their intentions and their ethical and political commitments, that his permanent move from concealment unconcealment and vice versa, reveals something essential about ourselves: that roaming is not temporary but permanent condition, there is a contingency that we can and must overcome, but a way of life that leaves us "installed" in the ongoing "mobility" between rooting and farewell.
these reflections do not claim to have been right to think Peru. If so, if indeed he had discovered the path to think that way do not actually lead to the submission of Peru, but their representation, to an objectification paralyze the dialogue and become quiet roaming. What I was presenting my farewell to understand that the farewell calls to rooting and rooting at the farewell.
Notes (1) Published in: Soria López, José Ignacio. Goodbye Mariátegui. Thinking Peru in postmodern perspective. Lima: Fondo Editorial Congress of Peru, 2007, p. 19-27.
(2) Heidegger, Martin. What is thinking? Madrid, Trotta, 2005, p. 22 .. Trad. Raul Gabás.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment