The second issue that I would like to offer, in part due to previous. I would like to point out that, beginning with Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, the activity of interpretation becomes infinite. However, it was endless and in the XVI century, but then the signs were sent to each other only because the ratio of similarity is always limited. Since the nineteenth century, the signs are interwoven in an endless chain, also infinite, but not because they are based on no limited similarities, but because there is a kind of fatal openness, gaping. The incompleteness of interpretation, its fragmentation, that she always hangs in limbo on the edge itself, found in Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, I think, in a similar way: in the form of waiver of search start. The refusal of the "Robinson Crusoe" in Marx, which is so essential to Nietzsche the differences between "beginning" and "origin", always unfinished the analytical steps from Freud. Nietzsche and Freud especially, in lesser extent, Marx, manifested experience which I think is very important to modern hermeneutics: the farther we move in interpretation, the closer we become to the absolutely dangerous region, where interpretation is not simply forced to turn back, but where is she disappears as such as interpretation, until the disappearance of the interpreter. The point of the absolute, which always seeks the interpretation is at the same time, and the point of rupture. It is well known in the work of Freud gradually found this structurally open, structurally gaping character of interpretation. First, in "The interpretation of dreams," in implicit and allusive manner, as there Freud, analyzing his own dreams, resorted to stop himself, for reasons of shame, to the inadmissibility of disclosure of personal secrets.
The second issue that I would like to offer, in part due to
ReplyDeleteprevious. I would like to point out that, beginning with Marx, Nietzsche and
Freud, the activity of interpretation becomes infinite.
However, it was endless and in the XVI century, but then the signs were sent
to each other only because the ratio of similarity is always
limited. Since the nineteenth century, the signs are interwoven in an endless chain,
also infinite, but not because they are based on no limited
similarities, but because there is a kind of fatal openness, gaping.
The incompleteness of interpretation, its fragmentation, that she always
hangs in limbo on the edge itself, found in Marx,
Nietzsche and Freud, I think, in a similar way: in the form of waiver of search
start. The refusal of the "Robinson Crusoe" in Marx, which is so essential to Nietzsche
the differences between "beginning" and "origin", always unfinished
the analytical steps from Freud. Nietzsche and Freud especially, in
lesser extent, Marx, manifested experience which I think is very
important to modern hermeneutics: the farther we move in
interpretation, the closer we become to the absolutely dangerous region,
where interpretation is not simply forced to turn back, but where is she
disappears as such as interpretation, until the disappearance of the
interpreter. The point of the absolute, which always seeks the interpretation
is at the same time, and the point of rupture.
It is well known in the work of Freud gradually found this
structurally open, structurally gaping character of interpretation. First, in
"The interpretation of dreams," in implicit and allusive manner, as there
Freud, analyzing his own dreams, resorted to stop
himself, for reasons of shame, to the inadmissibility of disclosure of personal
secrets.