The essay discloses dimensions of communicative awareness, which are both local and general in the sense that they are recognised in all civilisations and pervade the researches of anthropologists, archeologists and historians. These dimensions are bodily activities composed of six practical orientations: up-down, left-right and forward-backward. Our social architecture, our systems of practical implements, our spaces and times of orientations are inscribed by both, the specific bodily situations and their silent background in all communicative awareness. Even languages are variations on these silent dimensions of activities: we face the future – a forward orientation; we leave the past behind – pertaining to our backward dimension; there are upper and lower social classes, left and right political movements. These silent dimensions are both universal and contingent.
The discussion follows the logic of Western modern metaphysics (mathematical) and ontology (atomistic materialism) in order to demonstrate how scientific discourses assumed a power to construct the environment. A discourse of any discipline is constructed on the basis of its value to be applied on the material, homogeneous environment, to yield desired technical products, including genetic, chemical, electronic, physiological, etc. Thus, each discourse contains the 'power' to remake the environment in accordance with its rules. The result is the following: environment is a discursive construct. Such constructivism is accepted by post-modern writers who claim that all discourses are a power which determines how we understand and treat the environment.
There are various accounts for the war in Ukraine; this essay is not contesting such accounts but, taking the classical understanding of the war between Sparta and Athens, elucidated by Thucydides, there seems to be a "hidden reason". The latter is the declining political significance of Sparta and the expanding importance of Athens. The brief analysis of the war by Thucydides is used to establish a framework for clear understanding of behavior of nations and their leaders when, despite an absense of military threat, they opt for war. Given this context, the question arises why Russia, not being threatened militarily, opts for war against its harmless neighbor. The Soviet Union was a global power equivalent to NATO alliance, and this power was inherited by Russia. The latter could not be afraid of military invasion by the West and yet it opted for war aiming to demonstrate that it is as significant as the West. The difference between Traditional Russian autocracy and modern Western democracy is such that the latter "crosses borders" by attraction and not by military power.
The essay is designed to investigate the foundations of the conjunction of modern/postmodern premises that the world is a construct of discourses and their power. Such premises require the exclusion of the world of perception, including the lived world, and the appearance of the modern subject and its specific interpretation of reality. The question is as follows: how must the modern subject access such reality when it is assumed that such reality is not accessible to direct, perceptual intuition? Here we encounter the way how the subject must construct methodological and theoretical discourses which do not represent, but 'make' modern reality.
The essay explicates the polycentric awareness as a ground of communication with anyone, anytime, to the extent that all communication is a sense making process about something. This makes accessible "Others" from other times, present in texts which open communication through linguistic and cultural media. We read Plato and argue with him about justice, or debate the issue of beginning of the universe with astronomers. These two levels, polycentric and dialogical, is supplemented by a concrete analyses of body as an active and interactive dimension with many contemporary technical media, from film, television, Internet, and smart phones.
Santrauka
Straipsnyje gvildenamas policentrinis potyris kaip komunikacijos pagrindas su bet kuo, bet kada ir tuo lygmeniu, kuriuo bet kokia komunikacija suprantama kaip prasmė, kurianti kokį nors procesą. Dėl to tampa pasiekiami "Kiti" iš kitų laikų, aprašomų tekstuose, atveriančiuose komunikaciją per lingvistines ir kultūrines medijas. Skaitome Platono tekstus ir ginčijamės su juo teisingumo klausimu arba diskutuojame apie visatos pradžią su astronomais. Šie du lygmenys – policentrinis ir dialoginis – papildomi konkrečiais tyrinėjimais, skirtais kūnui kaip aktyviai ir interaktyviai dimensijai, susietai su daugybe šiuolaikinių techninių medijų – pradedant filmais, televizija, internetu ir baigiant išmaniaisiais telefonais.
The author investigates the topic of philosophy of time travel by explicating how awareness of time helps to understand such time travel, the ways we encounter others, speak with them about the world and events in our world and history. The author discusses aspects of pretemporal life of awareness and discloses philosophical time travel in order to engage in a dialogue with others. The argument of this paper makes the following points: a) empirically it is not possible to leave our chronological position; b) human memory is quite limited; c) yet we dialogue with members of our species through times in terms of our "signitive" capacity; d) we read texts that "mean" events, things and others and thus engage in a dialogue with them. All this implies that we are aware of what other said or saw and made accessible "through" the empirical signs prior to asking a question of "when" – this means "atemporally".
Santrauka
Remdamasis filosofiniais argumentais, straipsnyje autorius interpretuoja filosofiją kaip keliones laiku. Aiškina, kaip demėsingumas laikui padeda suprasti šį reiškinį, užmegzti filosofinį dialogą su kitais žmonėmis. Šio teksto argumentai suponuoja tolesnes tezes: a) empiriškai neįmanoma peržengti gyvenamosios dabarties laiko taško; b) žmogaus atminties gebėjimai yra riboti; c) žmogus su savo rūšies atstovais komunikuoja "per laiką", pasitelkdamas savo gebėjimą reikštis; d) žmogus skaito tekstus, kurie "reiškia" įvykius, daiktus ir kitus fenomenus, taip užmezga dialogą su kitais žmonėmis. Tokie komunikaciniai ypatumai reiškia, kad žmogus "patiria" tai, ką kiti regėjo ir komunikavo kaip per empirinius ženklus prieinamą dalyką, dar "prieš" tai, kai buvo iškeltas klausimas "kada", kitaip tariant – belaikiškai.
The article is designed to demonstrate that the Western modern life world is constituted by the reconstruction of the natural environment in accordance with formal logical rules that are not derivable from contingent facts. Logical rules are selected as techniques in terms of their value to fulfill "needs" and hence to shape the environment into a "technical life world" that becomes globalized as "scientific" demanding that the life worlds of the others develop to become modern and technical. This means that the globalized technical life world is not a set of facts but signitive systems of logical, non‐temporal and non‐spacial vectors of "communication" taking precedence over the material‐productive levels of any society.
The question of intellectual responsibility in confrontation with globalization is the philosophical question from Socratic to modern philosophies. In brief, it is impossible to practice philosophy and not to raise this question. It is well known that Socrates stood his ground unto death with the demand that he and others have a duty to interrogate all claims to truth regardless of their origin. Intellectual honesty was for him a requirement to keep open the discursive domain – called the polis – wherein the search for truth could be pursued. This means that the task of philosophy as such is identical with the maintenance of an open polis wherein all theories and propositions can be tested and contested. Hence, when we raise the question of the responsibility of the intellectual, we must recall the task for philosophy set by Socrates. Yet our situation is quite different from that of classical Athens. We are confronted by modern philosophy in its ontological and metaphysical guises that require a serious consideration whether we can even think of the relationship between intellectual and responsibility. It is our task, then, to consider what sort of position will open up for an intellectual that would be worthy of philosophy.
Education, and above all formal education, has been one of the principle components of modernization and globalization. This is to say that the notion of universal participation in human affairs is by now regarded a necessary condition for national and international relationships and understanding. Without education, as a rational condition, such relationships and understanding are hardly possible. The call for extension of democracy and the production of the good life around the globe is constantly premised on the requirements of formal education. It is advisable to disclose what constitutes this modern education and what sort of human being and a type of reality does it require and in fact construct. While the phrase formal education sounds intellectual, indeed enlightening, we want to argue that such a designation has a preunderstanding that frames the modern Western civilizational understanding of sciences and by extension of human sciences. Indeed, it shapes the way in which human beings must become in their concrete, practical interrelationships, whether intra or international.
Education, and above all formal education, has been one of the principle components of modernization and globalization. This is to say that the notion of universal participation in human affairs is by now regarded a necessary condition for national and international relationships and understanding. Without education, as a rational condition, such relationships and understanding are hardly possible. The call for extension of democracy and the production of the good life around the globe is constantly premised on the requirements of formal education. It is advisable to disclose what constitutes this modern education and what sort of human being and a type of reality does it require and in fact construct. While the phrase formal education sounds intellectual, indeed enlightening, we want to argue that such a designation has a preunderstanding that frames the modern Western civilizational understanding of sciences and by extension of human sciences. Indeed, it shapes the way in which human beings must become in their concrete, practical interrelationships, whether intra or international. ; Švietimas, o pirmiausia – formalusis švietimas, yra svarbus modernėjimo ir globalizacijos komponentas. Tai rodo, kad visuotinis žmogiškų problemų sprendimas esti būtina nacionalinių ir tarptautinių santykių supratimo sąlyga. Demokratijos ir gerovės plėtra pasaulyje remiasi formaliojo švietimo reikalavimais. Tiek vadinamosiose išsivysčiusiose Vakarų šalyse, tiek ir siekiančiose tokio išsivystymo visuomenėse esamas švietimo lygmuo pasitelkiamas kaip vertinimo kriterijus. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamos dabartinės teorinės, metodologinės ir civilizacinės švietimo problemos, siejamos su globalizacija. Taip pat svarstomi Vakarų moderniojo mąstymo, kuris laikomas "globalizuojančiu", klausimai, o taip pat aptariamos postmoderniojo multidiskursyvumo galimybės sprendžiant švietimo problemas, kurios atsiranda dėl globalizuojančio modernybės modelio poveikio pedagoginėje praktikoje.
Straipsnyje apmąstomas globalizacijos, intelektualumo ir atsakomybės santykis. Autorius pasirenka itin aktualų minėtos problemos sprendimo atspirties tašką – šiuolaikinį filosofinį diskursą. Intelektinės atsakomybės ir globalizacijos fenomeno santykis postmodernybės sąlygomis reikalauja aptarimo atsigręžiant į geografines filosofijos ištakas – Senovės Graikiją. Intelektinės atsakomybės klausimas glūdi dar Sokrato keltame filosofijai uždavinyje. Globalizacijos kontekste pati intelektinė atsakomybė tampa problemiška, nes šios problemos sprendimas išskiriant vien postmoderniosios situacijos pagrindinius aspektus yra nepakankamas. Globalizacijos fenomeną svarbu apmąstyti bandant įžvelgti jo ontologinį, metafizinį, teologinį, psichologinį pamatus. Diagnozuoti pasaulio homogenizaciją nesigilinant į atskirų tautų ir kultūrų tapatybių raidos tendencijas ir nusistovėjusias tradicijas pernelyg neatsakinga. Todėl būtina prisiminti Sokrato intelektinio kuklumo bei saiko pavyzdį ir nuolat juo remtis apmąstant globalizacijos reiškinį, taip pat nepamiršti Aristotelio akto ir potencijos, Descartes'o sąmonės ir kūno dualizmo, Kanto daikto savaime ir radikaliojo Hegelio principo (esą tapatu yra nebe mintis ir būtis, bet minties ir būties refleksija), marksizmo ir kapitalizmo utopijų. Straipsnyje kvestionuojama homogenizuojanti globalizacijos įtaka, iškeliant skirtingų kultūrinių tapatybių būtinybę. Klausiama, ar globalizacijos logika turi tvirtą metafizinį pagrindą, ar yra tik nepagrįsta pretenzija redukuoti visas kultūras į vieną pasaulinę kultūrą, taip atmetant bet kokią intelektinės atsakomybės galimybę.Reikšminiai žodžiai: homogenizacija, metafizinis globalizacijos pagrindas, ontologinis svarstymas, tapatybė, universalumas.
GLOBALIZATION AND THE RESPONSIBILITYOF THE INTELLECTUALAlgis Mickunas
SummaryThe article analyses the relation between globalization and the responsibility of the intellectual. In the context of globalization the question of the responsibility of the intellectual is problematic. That is why we have to ponder on intellectual modesty and human measure of Socrates trying to analyse the phenomenon of globalization. The author discusses the dualism of the act and potency by Aristotle, that of mind and body by Descartes, the concept of the thing-in-itself by Kant and the radical principle by Hegel, and the utopias of Marxism and Capitalism at the end. The discussion is focused on the following question: does the logic of globalization has metaphysical roots, or it is just untenable claim to reduce all the cultures to the worldwide one without the possibility of the responsibility of the intellectual?Key words: homogeneity, metaphysical foundations of globalization, ontological debate, reflection, identity, universality.
Education, and above all formal education, has been one of the principle components of modernization and globalization. This is to say that the notion of universal participation in human affairs is by now regarded a necessary condition for national and international relationships and understanding. Without education, as a rational condition, such relationships and understanding are hardly possible. The call for extension of democracy and the production of the good life around the globe is constantly premised on the requirements of formal education. It is advisable to disclose what constitutes this modern education and what sort of human being and a type of reality does it require and in fact construct. While the phrase formal education sounds intellectual, indeed enlightening, we want to argue that such a designation has a preunderstanding that frames the modern Western civilizational understanding of sciences and by extension of human sciences. Indeed, it shapes the way in which human beings must become in their concrete, practical interrelationships, whether intra or international.
Education, and above all formal education, has been one of the principle components of modernization and globalization. This is to say that the notion of universal participation in human affairs is by now regarded a necessary condition for national and international relationships and understanding. Without education, as a rational condition, such relationships and understanding are hardly possible. The call for extension of democracy and the production of the good life around the globe is constantly premised on the requirements of formal education. It is advisable to disclose what constitutes this modern education and what sort of human being and a type of reality does it require and in fact construct. While the phrase formal education sounds intellectual, indeed enlightening, we want to argue that such a designation has a preunderstanding that frames the modern Western civilizational understanding of sciences and by extension of human sciences. Indeed, it shapes the way in which human beings must become in their concrete, practical interrelationships, whether intra or international. ; Švietimas, o pirmiausia – formalusis švietimas, yra svarbus modernėjimo ir globalizacijos komponentas. Tai rodo, kad visuotinis žmogiškų problemų sprendimas esti būtina nacionalinių ir tarptautinių santykių supratimo sąlyga. Demokratijos ir gerovės plėtra pasaulyje remiasi formaliojo švietimo reikalavimais. Tiek vadinamosiose išsivysčiusiose Vakarų šalyse, tiek ir siekiančiose tokio išsivystymo visuomenėse esamas švietimo lygmuo pasitelkiamas kaip vertinimo kriterijus. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamos dabartinės teorinės, metodologinės ir civilizacinės švietimo problemos, siejamos su globalizacija. Taip pat svarstomi Vakarų moderniojo mąstymo, kuris laikomas "globalizuojančiu", klausimai, o taip pat aptariamos postmoderniojo multidiskursyvumo galimybės sprendžiant švietimo problemas, kurios atsiranda dėl globalizuojančio modernybės modelio poveikio pedagoginėje praktikoje.
The phenomenon of power is implicit in numerous critiques of modern sciences and their methods, resulting in the crisis of rationality. Our analyses will follow two intentionalities, the vertical and the horizontal, showing that the modern scientific rationality assumes principles which exclude the vertical. By "intentionality" we mean a way of experiencing the world at the exclusion of other ways. Thus, intentionality is not a private affair but can be carried from generation to generations. For example, scientists invariably will say "let us look at the world mathematically," proposing a quantitative mode of perception over poetic, ritualistic, etc. The latter, while equally intentional, will be discarded by science.Thus the scientific conception of mathematical method, as a way of mastering the material world, intimates also a restriction of linguistic sign systems and uses to specific modes, mathematical discourse, at the expense and exclusion of other discursive forms. If not deliberate, there is a specific "bracketing" that was performed by the philosophies and sciences of the modern age that allotted the primacy of all understanding to language, and indeed to a specific language. The result of this development is manifested in the current claims by the semiotics and the deconstructionists that language or discourse is the primary power in all domains of human experience and praxis. While at first sight outlandish, this claim is well justified on the basis of most concrete analyses of modernity, with its ontology and scientific method.Our approach will trace out "bracketing" and show what phenomena become discarded and what phenomena remain in order to be constitutive of power. It is hoped that the result of this investigation will reveal specific formations which belong to no one, are nowhere, and yet comprise the very modalities of our modern awareness. What is meant here by awareness consists of specific noetic practices ruled by, and expressive of, a set of intentionalities. In addition, the noetic practices constitutive of power are also ruled by a specific form of transcendence lending such practices their autonomy. The latter is expressed in numerous ways across various socio-political, economic and scientific formations, aims, and imageries. It lends an appearance of a total transcendental arbitrariness to the noetic practices at all levels. The phrase "noetic practices" encompasses what the human actually does in relationship to the world of objects of whatever type and at whatever level of posited objectivity.
