Two Ways of Thinking About the Blindingly Apparent
This title indicates slippage, an aporia. It would seem to point to a kind of irreconcilable contradiction in terms, much like if I wrote, "Two ways to think about the wheel in pre-Columbian civilization." The wheel, of course, didn't exist in pre-Columbian civilizations (by "pre-Columbian" I mean those Central and South Americans civilizations before the European Conquest). So, there's only one way to think about the wheel this context: not to think about the wheel at all.
Perhaps you can see the analogy.
One key aspect of the "apparent" is that it is, well, apparent. It is obvious; it doesn't need any explanation or interpretation. There's only one way to think about the “apparent”: the way it is, the way it appears to us.
Listen to the etymological overtones: "appear" comes from the Latin verb apparere, which simply means "to become manifest," "to become visible," or "to come to presence." This last rendering is the most important. That which appears is that which "comes to presence" or "is presented." Listen, also, to the three meanings hidden in "present." (1) It refers to that which is "present" (i.e., not absent). (2) It refers to "presenting" in the active sense (e.g., "I present this certificate to you..."). (3) It has the sense of a "gift" (as when we say "Christmas presents"). These senses are no doubt related. And here the Germans do a better job than the English. In German, the English existential phrase "There is..." becomes "Es gibt...": literally, "It gives...". So, when we say, "There is a present under the tree," a German would say, "Es gibt ein Geshenck unter dem Baum": "It gives a gift under the tree" or "It presents a present under the tree." We lose the connection between the verbal "to present" and the nominal "present" where the Germans do not.
Taken together, these three meanings of "present" amount to something like this: "The present (gift) is made present (i.e., not absent) by virtue of a presenting (a 'making present')." We can think of the second “present” (not absent) as the region, both spatial and temporal, within which the present/gift is brought to presence.
Now back to "apparent." I said that "appearing" means "coming to presence" or "being presented to." With this in mind, we can now say: "That which appears (i.e., 'the apparent', 'the present') appears (is present rather than absent) by virtue of an 'appearing' (a 'making present')."
This means that we shouldn't confuse my sense of "appear" with the common philosophical distinction between "appearance" and "reality." That which appears is simply that which comes to presence, that which presents itself for us to "see" (though not necessarily with the physical eye). So, if there is a distinction between appearance and reality, then we only have access to appearance. For as soon as something other than "appearance" appears, it is immediately transformed into "appearance"--that which appears, that which presents itself to us.
Now, a thought-experiment: what would happen if the present (i.e., the gift, that which is presented) did not fit within the present (i.e., the region where the present/gift is presented), but rather overflowed it? What, in other words, if we had a present/gift that exceeded the boundaries of the present--that exceeded the boundaries of the spatio-temporal region in which it is to be brought to presence?
In that case, the present/gift would certainly “appear,” but it would, at the same time, paradoxically, disappear--as, for example, when light, which is supposed to make things visible, is so bright that it blinds us and thus renders them invisible.
Thus it happens that that which makes appearing possible also makes it impossible. And, in such a case, the excess presence of the present/gift would also signify its absence.
That is what I mean by “the blindingly apparent”: the apparent that is brought to presence with such intensity that it exceeds the very region (the spatio-temporal present) in which it is supposed to appear, thus making itself invisible.
All this by way of a preamble: Of course, I still haven’t said what I think is “blindly obvious” or what the “two ways” of thinking about it are. And to that extent my title is a bit misleading. But more to come soon. I I think you’ll find the second part less technical--though, perhaps, less interesting as well.
Perhaps you can see the analogy.
One key aspect of the "apparent" is that it is, well, apparent. It is obvious; it doesn't need any explanation or interpretation. There's only one way to think about the “apparent”: the way it is, the way it appears to us.
Listen to the etymological overtones: "appear" comes from the Latin verb apparere, which simply means "to become manifest," "to become visible," or "to come to presence." This last rendering is the most important. That which appears is that which "comes to presence" or "is presented." Listen, also, to the three meanings hidden in "present." (1) It refers to that which is "present" (i.e., not absent). (2) It refers to "presenting" in the active sense (e.g., "I present this certificate to you..."). (3) It has the sense of a "gift" (as when we say "Christmas presents"). These senses are no doubt related. And here the Germans do a better job than the English. In German, the English existential phrase "There is..." becomes "Es gibt...": literally, "It gives...". So, when we say, "There is a present under the tree," a German would say, "Es gibt ein Geshenck unter dem Baum": "It gives a gift under the tree" or "It presents a present under the tree." We lose the connection between the verbal "to present" and the nominal "present" where the Germans do not.
Taken together, these three meanings of "present" amount to something like this: "The present (gift) is made present (i.e., not absent) by virtue of a presenting (a 'making present')." We can think of the second “present” (not absent) as the region, both spatial and temporal, within which the present/gift is brought to presence.
Now back to "apparent." I said that "appearing" means "coming to presence" or "being presented to." With this in mind, we can now say: "That which appears (i.e., 'the apparent', 'the present') appears (is present rather than absent) by virtue of an 'appearing' (a 'making present')."
This means that we shouldn't confuse my sense of "appear" with the common philosophical distinction between "appearance" and "reality." That which appears is simply that which comes to presence, that which presents itself for us to "see" (though not necessarily with the physical eye). So, if there is a distinction between appearance and reality, then we only have access to appearance. For as soon as something other than "appearance" appears, it is immediately transformed into "appearance"--that which appears, that which presents itself to us.
Now, a thought-experiment: what would happen if the present (i.e., the gift, that which is presented) did not fit within the present (i.e., the region where the present/gift is presented), but rather overflowed it? What, in other words, if we had a present/gift that exceeded the boundaries of the present--that exceeded the boundaries of the spatio-temporal region in which it is to be brought to presence?
In that case, the present/gift would certainly “appear,” but it would, at the same time, paradoxically, disappear--as, for example, when light, which is supposed to make things visible, is so bright that it blinds us and thus renders them invisible.
Thus it happens that that which makes appearing possible also makes it impossible. And, in such a case, the excess presence of the present/gift would also signify its absence.
That is what I mean by “the blindingly apparent”: the apparent that is brought to presence with such intensity that it exceeds the very region (the spatio-temporal present) in which it is supposed to appear, thus making itself invisible.
All this by way of a preamble: Of course, I still haven’t said what I think is “blindly obvious” or what the “two ways” of thinking about it are. And to that extent my title is a bit misleading. But more to come soon. I I think you’ll find the second part less technical--though, perhaps, less interesting as well.
posted by Adam at 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home