The Purloined Letter

Playtime Is Over

Thu, 20 May 2010 21:12:00 +0900

Dear, Mr.Asada.

Thank you for your short commentary on Godard’s “Film Socialisme.”

Jean-Luc Godard is passing from the story of Christ into the story of Mediterranean with a view to straightforwardly go back to the early stage of World-History of Hegel—a sign of this phenomenon was in “For Ever Mozart” close to turn out to be explicit; that movie conveyed a kind of Bildungsroman of actress to us, whereas its stage evidently passed from battlefield into seaside and the comparison between war and sea seemingly alluded to the World-History, although Godard rarely reads Hegel’s writings themselves in truth. In the perspective of Hegel, it is the Mediterranean which brought forth Christ. “Film Socialisme” is therefore an extension of his retelling the story of Christ, especially in “Nouvelle vague” and in “Hélas pour moi,” although he would have derived that story from some of Pasolini’s films, such as “Teorema”—“Socialisme” must realize something post-Pasolini in a way, however it seems to allow for the World-History of Hegel. Incidentally, not only Carl Schmitt but later works of Godard, such as “Notre musique,” led myself to apprehend the heart of Hegel, that postmodernists have ever misunderstood. It is about time to, with Godard, affirm the eminence of Hegel and his World-History. The grand story, that at times designates the World-History and at other times Marxism, will be everlasting.

By the way, Marxism might merely refer to a phase of the World-History, namely, the era of industry which caused the divergence between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the modern times. The movement of Marxism was indeed based on that divergence as pointed out by Schmitt. It seems, to me, a great deal doubtful that Marx could have effectively deviated Marxism from the World-History of Hegel in politics.

Not only Hegel but the historical lineage from Jules Michelet to Fernand Braudel partly accounts for the background of Godard’s “Socialisme” as you told; if Roland Barthes is alive today, Godard might have not offered Alain Badiou to act in the movie, for no French theorist in the late 20th century would be more conscious of the maritime than Barthes of whom one of favorite writers was in fact Michelet—however I do not yet know how Godard sets us Badiou in “Socialisme.”

Sea was monstrous in the ancient times everywhere, excluding in the Mediterranean countries, where people were inevitably thrust into a spatial revolution, they awakened to the maritime space; the Mediterranean allowed many countries to easily have intercourse with each other for trade, conquest, and piracy, due to its calmness and was the greatest highway of intercourse by water on earth beyond question. And the peoples who resided in the maritime space appeared in history and turned out to battle at the risk of their own being against the another peoples who were destined to confine themselves within the territorial. Leviathan was bound to conflict with Behemoth. It would denote one of original patterns of state of exception. The state of exception at times happens due to the discrepancy among spatial beings. Geographical conditions formed diverse molds of ideology. Therefore, the Mediterranean came to the first battle field of ideology in human history. Godard’s “Socialisme” supposedly conveys it to us that the war is not over yet. In the Mediterranean Leviathan might have never ceased to struggle against Behemoth; for instance, the Palestinians are tragically desperate to defend their own space. Sea at times supplies war.

The spatial revolution entailed the state of exception. That phenomenon followed that men tempted themselves toward sea, in the Mediterranean countries, and were unbound by land. It caused the antagonism between Behemoth and Leviathan productive of the grand story ‘World-History.’ The two legendary beasts explicitly account not only for Schmitt’s theory of history but for the World-History of Hegel—Schmitt thought of the divergence between Behemoth and Leviathan in history when he got inspiration with regard to geography from Hegel as stated in his “Land und Meer.” The World-History of Hegel, in comparison with Marx, doubtless assumes something notional as you said, but French postmodernism, on the other hand, must remain far more metaphysical and speculative than Hegel for it is devoid of geography, in other words, it by no means takes cognizance of the distinction between the territorial and the maritime when dealing with economy and history.

Marx indeed deepened the World-History of Hegel to the level of economics—subsequently, it might have made a degree of influence on John Hicks’ “A Theory of Economic History,” in which Hicks states that he owes Marx the distinctive style of social science of “Das Kapital”; additionally, this outstanding work of economic history evidently highlights the Mediterranean and depicts why the sea entailed the historical divergence between the Europeans and the Asians as Hegel’s “The Philosophy of History.” I am basically to dismiss postmodernism partly because it raises issues of economy without regard to geography. French postmodernists are by no means as geographical and materialistic as Hegel—the philosophy of Hegel allowed for the political economy of Adam Smith and his own geography was arguably derived from “The Wealth of Nations.” Needlessly to say, it is impossible without Hegel that Marx should have appeared on the scene of philosophy. It will not be meaningless to untimely style myself Hegel’s pupil in order to give a new birth to Marx. It, of course, means to repeat Marx himself. But, if necessary, I can be critical of Marx.

It is necessary to extinguish postmodernism, a worthless and illusory game of philosophy. Purge them. Playtime is over.

Best,
Kim, Yi-Chul

Yet Another Introduction of “the Tale of the Heike”

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:00 +0900

The first paragraph of “the Tale of the Heike,” that is one of the most popular medieval literature works in Japan, would be considered to be representative of an ethics. This very popular paragraph sounds as the statement that every strong power, such as the Heike, the ‘Taira’ samurai clan, is bound to eventually ruin themselves; The sound of Gion Shōja bells echoes the impermanence of all things; the color of sala flowers reveals the truth that the prosperous must decline. The proud do not endure, they are like a dream on a spring night; the mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind [the Tale of the Heike: 1.1]. It will sound to be that nothing is immortal, universal, and permanent, this mortal world appears to be meaningless. Many of Japanese people might see it as an essential ethics peculiar to Japan. They would think that “the Heike” is representative of the ethics. But, according to the form of “the Heike,” it is not absolutely true through the whole of this tale.

There is an introduction book of “the Tale of the Heike” written by Ishimoda Shō, who is Marxist, although he is strongly influenced also by Hegel’s philosophy, and would have been the most influential authority of medieval Japanese history. This introduction, that Ishimoda entitles the same name of “the Tale of the Heike,” finds that authors of “the Heike” — The medieval literature work had been, while handed down, written and rewritten many times by bards, monks, lower-aristocrats, and so on, it must be noted — , as discussed below, unconsciously describe Taira no Kiyomori, the tyranny leader of the Heike, the most powerful villain in this tale, as very attractive one. His own nature seems to be all opposed to the ethics that many of Japanese people would find out in “the Heike.” That the ethics would reside in most of these authors, Ishimoda does not reject, and, it’s certain that he should see it as a remarkable thesis of this epic; It would be shared among people who, through turbulent decades, had survived, says Ishimoda. But, Kiyomori, in the first part of ‘the Heike,’ shines greatly just as one of the main characters, even though they detail severely how wicked and greedy he is — Kiyomori in history was a great politician who, in form, subjected Japan to the Chinese dynasty Song and used Chinese money to build money-oriented-economy. The Taira samurai clan in Japan dominated the sea trade with China. And the opponent clan ‘Minamoto (Genji)’ was based on the agriculture of east Japan. If Carl Schmitt reads ‘the Heike,’ he will find out a conflict between maritime-merchant-capital and territorial-agriculture, namely, that between Leviathan and Behemoth, as his reading of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” did — . These critics against Kiyomori seem to praise his intelligent son, Taira no Shigemori, and describe his personality to be ideal to themselves. Ishimoda would see Shigemori as a representation of the ethics that nobody avoids the inevitable; This historian, to find Kiyomori’s view of death to be completely different from Shigemori’s, prompts his readers; Since Shigemori had made the dire prediction that he and his clan were going to their doom, he, when his death became imminent, refused any treatment and shamanic healing, but Kiyomori is depicted, by the authors, as a character who, until the last second of his life, continued his struggle with ill of fever [(Ishimoda’s) ‘the Tale of the Heike’: 2.I]. It is necessary to find the difference between Kiyomori and Shigemori very clear. And the character of Shigemori is, as pointed out by Ishimoda, so ideological that the authors could not harmonize well him with this epic story; Author , in the matter of literature, often fails in shaping his ideal characters and one such example is Shigemori [(Ishimoda’s) ‘the Heike’: 1.II]. Therefore, the ethics symbolized by Shigemori, “the Heike” seems to fail to complete, and it would not be intended by these authors — This may recall yourself to postmodern criticism in which critic, without being bound by the intention of author, tries to grasp just text itself. He sure thinks that text basically betrays its author. But the theory Ishimoda would not know. It is necessary to note that his own text-critique should stem both from Hegel’s philosophy and from Marxism materialistic interpretation — . By contrast with Shigemori, Kiyomori is, beyond doubt, severely described as a very sinful person, but it seems to result in making this samurai tyrant extraordinarily prominent; Ishimoda says, It will be easy to find that Kiyomori is so carnal, optimistic, and attached to the land of the living that he should appear to be distinct in the whole of “the Tale of the Heike” [(Ishimoda’s) ‘the Heike’: 2.I]. Kiyomori must be beyond the ethical framework of ‘the Heike.’ And Ishimoda draws the conclude shown below:

Any person like Shigemori does not, at all, shape history and he does not make a hero of story. It is not until he does not become fatalistic, he gets attached to his mortal life, that he can become a main character of story, therefore, that “the Tale of the Heike” happens to emphasize Kiyomori who attempts to avoid the inevitable would be a necessary consequence of this story.

(Ishimoda’s) ‘the Tale of the Heike’: 2.I

Kiyomori has a strong presence, it causes that “the Heike” lacks unity, and the lack of unity is considered to be necessary in the term of ‘story.’ The idea ‘story’ — ‘monogatari’ in Japanese — to which Ishimoda refers, it is certain, should be completely combined with ‘history.’ Story is history. It is necessary to consider Ishimoda’s text-critique to be correlate to history. The form of “the Heike” represents the history of medieval Japan; “the Heike” is the first national literature, in his own view of Japanese literature, and “the Tale of Genji,” that some of literature readers consider as the first psychological novel in history, is not. “Genji,” since Motoori Norinaga, has been considered as a great achievement of kana-character-literature. Kana-character is, although originally built from Chinese-character, unique to Japan. Therefore, “Genji” is said to be representative of Japanese own culture and perfectly liberated from the influence of Chinese. Therefore, that we define Genji as the first national literature of Japan, it seems natural, but Ishimoda disagrees. In the first work of Ishimoda “the Formation of the Medieval World (Chūseiteki Sekai no Keisei),” although he takes the building of kana-character-literature highly as well, “Genji” does not perfectly mean the completion of cultural independence from China. The writing style of “Genji” that rejects imported words does not mean that the author could take imported culture objectively. Imported words, Buddhism terms and Chinese words, are effectively used in “the Heike.” The style of “the Heike” does not seem well-organized. This tale has culturally diverse writing styles.

That independence from Chinese culture means the transition that the language unique to this country became a literature language and it is one of the greatest legacies of that period to posterity […] As soon as thought and feeling could be freely expressed with its own language, it rapidly liberated the spirit constructed by men who had ever rather thought in Chinese language than expressed their own ideas in Chinese, and it immediately made a bloom of divers literature forms. “The Great Mirror” followed the form of Chinese history book and the fact meant that its author consciously found himself objective to Chinese history book; When authors could become unbound by Chinese culture, the culture prompted them to new creation. As the result, the delicate and contrasting writing style of Japanese character and the strong and accurate style of the fusion of Japanese and Chinese, that represented the duality of the Heian period aristocrat spirit, had been constructed to make a Japanese-styled-culture. From the later, the unique style of “the Tale of the Heike” should issue, in the term of its nature, it is certain, but the style is more amazingly rich, free, high-toned, and cadent. “The Heike” did not reject imported words, as kana-character-literature did, but positively and effectively used Buddhism terms and Chinese words to create its own writing style and the style highly improved the mixed style of Japanese and Chinese extremely undervalued and represented by “Konjaku Monogatarishū.” That highly development would be not only attributable to the nature peculiar to “the Heike,” but made by the cooperative producers of “the Heike” who consist of its divers class readers and listeners. That is to say, “the Heike” made a medieval literature and could complete the independence from Chinese culture that originated in the later Heian dynasty culture. The revolution of literature language, without the substantial conversion of literature and the critical transition of history, never occurs.

The Formation of the Medieval World: 4.2

“Genji” is, beyond doubt, a great work of kana-character-literature, but it does not prove “Genji” to be completely liberated from Chinese culture. “Genji” would be only an antithesis of Chinese style. But, in contrast, “the Heike” merges also Chinese-styled literature into itself. Here, it is necessary to note that Ishimoda founds his reading on Hegel’s philosophy, it is necessary to consider Chinese-styled literature as a token of the ancient regime of Japan under the influence of China, kana-character-literature as the opposite thesis, and “the Heike” as the sublation — That Hegel’s dialectic must be not only a logic but completely coupled with history as well , we, if referring to his reading of “Antigone” in “the Phenomenology of Mind,” can find. Note that Ishimoda never reduces texts into the grand story ‘history.’ Language has been ever built, destroyed, and rebuilt through human activity creating history. Ishimoda explicitly exposed that nothing distinguished literature language from history. It is necessary to carefully look at his describing many literal fabrics weaved of literature languages to be indivisibly united with history. And it would basically apply also to French text-critique, such as Roland Barthes. Both theorists, even though Ishimoda’s dialectical view of literature is, in many ways, different from Barthes’ view, when weighing language with nationality, certainly refer themselves to history.

Writing(écriture) appears, just when language is nationally constructed to make a kind of negativity, namely, just when, without asking itself the origin of its taboo and its rationalization, language becomes the horizon that makes the distinction between the banned and the allowed. Classical grammarians created super-time grounds to remove all linguistic problems from the French. And that purified language made a writing. That is to say, it made the value in language shown to be universal in response to a variety of historical phase.

Writing Degree Zero: II. the Triumph and Break-up of Bourgeois Writing

When the bourgeois era came to France, its language (or languages?) got strongly regulated down to build a modern national language and the national language made the universal framework of language in modern France, and the obviousness of language, nobody, excluding radical novelists and poets, such as Stéphane Mallarmé, had ever doubted. If nobody tracks language history back to the premodern time when nation was not firmly constructed, national language would appear only taken for granted. The national language framework could become severely criticized, just when the origin of language was historically asked themselves — The view of language and writing advanced by Barthes, even though it is influenced by Maurice Blanchot, sounds partly akin to Martin Heidegger. Of course, it is said that Blanchot’s theory has a lot of common with Heidegger’s, I know — . Barthes, if he knew the history of medieval Japanese literature, would not define “the Heike” as the first national literature in Japan. This textile is weaved of a diverse of writings. But “the Heike” would not be an original pattern of postmodern literature. The authors of “the Heike” do not share modern world with Mallarmé. The poet could be truly scared of white blank pages. His poetry was involved in modern publishing culture that the authors of “the Heike” had never known. It is very difficult to compare modern French literature with medieval Japanese literature in direct. But I can find “the Heike” close to Shakespeare. Shakespeare effectively used imported languages as well. He sometimes seems to feel the Leviathan era coming to Britain as pointed out by Schmitt; “Hamlet” describes the fall of Behemoth in Britain. The Taira clan was a son of Leviathan. You may think that Shakespeare is an original pattern of postmodern literature. I basically agree. But “the Heike” is not. They finally lost at the battle against Behemoth, the Minamoto clan.

The Postmodern Ideology

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0900

Postmodernists, excluding a handful of them — After reading this writing, you’ll find who is sensible among them, although your favorite postmodernists may become all old-fashioned — , have taken the notions, subject, teleology, identity, .., and etc., and, considered that those stereotypes, at most times, arise from G. W. F. Hegel. They would compare Hegel with Friedrich Nietzsche, find those stereotypes in writings of Hegel, and almost become mad with joy. They, it is certain, should follow Nietzsche blindly. They attack those notions very bravely; ‘Subject, teleology, and identity are fictional and metaphysical, therefore, we need to liberate people from those fictional notions and Hegel,’ they, taking the name of Hegel as a sort of derogatory term, would want to say. But they are completely-unaware that they betray Nietzsche’s philosophy.

It is necessary to think how many of postmodernists are, with following Nietzsche, bound to betray his philosophy.

Nietzsche believes only things rooted in this world. God is not in the world. Therefore, God is a conjecture, says Zarathustra. All we can get arises only from this world; God is a conjecture: but I should like your conjecturing restricted to the conceivable. / Could ye CONCEIVE a God? — But let this mean Will to Truth unto you, that everything be transformed into the humanly conceivable, the humanly visible, the humanly sensible! Your own discernment shall ye follow out to the end! [“Zarathustra: II:2:8-9”]. In Nietzsche’s philosophy, every human thought must not be, at all, apart from the world. On the earth, we have no heaven. He never takes any outer-world seriously — The world described in his notable work, “Also Spake Zarathustra,” might be akin to the mathematical theory of Georg Cantor, ‘infinity,’ because both have no outside of themselves; Weariness, which seeketh to get to the ultimate with one leap, with a death-leap; a poor ignorant weariness, unwilling even to will any longer: that created all Gods and backworlds [“Zarathustra: I:2:11-12”]. He, it is certain, should be all tired in backworlds — Zarathustra confessed that he once thought of backworlds beyond human — as an angel , who appeared in a movie of Wim Wenders, he criticizes his former self and backworlds. He would think that all who gets to the ultimate with a death-leap must be ridiculous, although, that young warriors risk their lives in war to save their nation, one philosopher saw it as ideal and beautiful — They would be described as ‘Blonde Beasts’ by Theodor Adorno. According to the critical account of the ultimate given by Nietzsche, we’ll find that nation is all fictional and imaginary, namely, an imagined community as analyzed by Benedict Anderson.

Not a few of postmodernists see nation to be imagined and attack the notion, with following Nietzsche, it seems completely-right. But they, beyond doubt, betray Nietzsche. Nation must be just imagined but it is too influential in the world to reject the fiction. It is all inevitable to us in this world. The fact that people battle for nation, nobody denies. To consider nation only as a fiction would cause a new backworld; In other words, postmodernism would create a new metaphysics — And the metaphysics would not realize itself metaphysical. The fiction has a strong effect upon this world, and, therefore, when one postmodernist criticizes it simply, he, it is certain, should come back to a backworld both unconsciously and carelessly; He, then, must be all unaware of himself apart from this world. It is necessary to recall that the fiction is perfectly-combined with our world. The truth would be invisible to the postmodernist. Compared with Adorno, he is too careless. Adorno, although he often criticized severely Hegel, took Hegel’s philosophy and the dynamics of civil society described by the philosopher very seriously; Hegel’s analysis both of nation and of civil society is still necessary, because he never forgot the simple truth that the world and society has been constructed through labour-work; His spirit had never been headed for the direct world where people grasp all things-themselves without any medium; Adorno says, The verity of Hegel’s philosophy resides in the fact that nobody can leave the world constructed through labour-work for the direct world (“Hegel: Three Studies: I:15”).

Nietzsche’s philosophy never liberates us from this world. It is necessary to find that the world is combined with uncountable numbers of fiction and how these fictions arise from our world; Nation and society have been built through human-activity. Religion, as well. And, that those fictions have never been destroyed only with enlightenment, history proves. Nietzsche gave no answer but the inconclusive problem; In the matter of critics against Hegel, the rejection of backworlds often means that of our-world-itself. This is just the farce that these critics have ever repeated — History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce; They would not see correctly the conflict among Young-Hegelians, their ancestors — I am not a pessimist in any sense, however I love the dictum of Antonio Gramsci; Pessimism of Intellect, Optimism of Will. They would not find why Karl Marx called himself ‘Hegel’s pupil.’ These insensible critics are caricatured fully in the preface of “The German Ideology”.

Hitherto men have constantly made up for themselves false conceptions about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be. They have arranged their relationships according to their ideas of God, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed down before their creations. Let us liberate them from the chimeras, the ideas, dogmas, imaginary beings under the yoke of which they are pining away. Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts. Let us teach men, says one, to exchange these imaginations for thoughts which correspond to the essence of man; says the second, to take up a critical attitude to them; says the third, to knock them out of their heads; and — existing reality will collapse.

Hegel’s philosophy had been attacked many times by Young-Hegelian-philosophers, such as Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Max Stirner. Although it developed Marx’s thought, he named eventually himself ‘Hegel’s pupil.’