Master and possessor

Man wants to be, in Descartes' famous phrase, “Master and owner” of the universe. But does he all he wants, his 'kingdom' will never ever be but a floating 'bubble'.

The sin against the ecosystem of the breath was to deny its essential opening. We believed to be able to make it function in closing, contracted on itself, buckled in schizoid self-producing autonomy. We wanted to be main and owners of the total system itself. Much more, Masters and owners also of his hot source and of its cold well. Masters and owners, therefore, of all its potential difference, that is of all its creative spiritual energy.

From now on the constituent totality is not given any more absolutely. A 'bubble' is constituted ex nihilo. It is buckled in finiteness. It floats in a vacuum without recourse. The real objectivity was wiped out; remains an objectified subjectivity. The constituted sense is identified with the constituent sense. The effects are made autonomous. The method gets more important than the bonds.

.

From now on man is responsible for man. Radically. Without recourse and guarantor other than man himself. But if man is responsible without recourse, who will forgive us? How can man be able to be justified? There remains the refuge in the sublime illusion of the impeccable man or the infantile reflex to reject the fault out of oneself. We believed to keep divine disproportion by refusing its source, the Alliance, which gives it sense. Man become 'supreme' has to invent man, a task of Sisyphus to invent man unceasingly! He has to bear the responsibility of being a radical creator and founder of truth, of existing, of value, of rights, of duties, of sense. Of sense especially! But where to start and where to stop between the beautiful 'idea' of Man and the 'reality' of historic atrocities? How will man give himself a genealogy? How will he find again his virginity? How will man build his 'bubble' for survival? Where will it get the sense from? You have to play or to fight. To play by closing the eyes on the contractual arrangements of the play. Or to fight to agree on conventions. But in the name of which convention can you agree on conventions?

Where can you link the chain from? The first link of anchoring of Descartes' 'long chains of reasons'? You have to start with the vacuum. Methodologically the doubt has to be so metaphysics can get its absolute base. Since all starts from man. Master from now on not only of the significances but also of substance and causality. Genesis become completely anthropocentric. 'At the beginning' there is the 'poietes' (creator) not the divine one any more but the human one. At the beginning will be the DOUBT.

From the divine absolute towards the anthropocentric absolute in immanence. In the place of the Verb of God who lights any man, constituent light of any light, there is the self-illuminating verb of man. Through the murder of the Father and the conscious will of rejection of Judeo-Christian values. But unconsciously these values are included in the autonomy of the 'secular' fence, but, alas! out of the total sense, out of the Value guaranteeing their values.

Progress? The 'trans' in immanence, invested in the temporal project of a going beyond and ahead towards 'more', becoming `Progress'. The ideology of progressivism. A new belief. A new 'religion'. The ideology of triumphing schizoid self-creation. With its continuation. Atheism. Materialism. To some extent the middle-class 'reason' which promotes ideologically its well-being. The 'schizoid reason' with its totalitarian speech outside of which it became impossible to get any more a 'good conscience' nor a 'good appearance'.

The impassable horizon… The expression is of Jean-Paul Sartre, the great specialist of our enclosures, but the idea was in (almost) all heads. It is about the Marxism which then occupied largely the intellectual field and nourished the Speech of the Master thinkers of that time. Nobody wanted to miss the train of history and remain on the margin of the messianism of modern times. Quintessence of 'modernity', the Marxism is then identified with hope itself. The hope beyond which no hope could never find a place. The impassable horizon of our modernity.

goto