26 Jan 2011
by L.M. Zapata
in Academia, Anthropology, Commentary, Critique, Eastern Philosophy, Epistemology, History, Ontology, Philology, Philosophy, Social Theory, Theory, Uncategorized, Writing
Tags: Chinese culture and thought, Eastern philosphy, Epistemology, Francois Jullien, Ontology, Philology, Philosophy, Shi, The Propensity of Things
The purpose of this blog is to keep a journal of sorts. Not a traditional daily journal of the mundane, but of reading and its associated pleasures, such as writing, thinking, and learning. This is a living journal, however. It is a journal of the reading process and will share my thoughts and impressions as I read, including the ways that a book and an imagination or system of thought can permeate our lives, unbeknownst to us at times. (P.S.: Check out my other blogs at history current and The Back Room Bookshelf!)
I suppose this first entry is different from any future ones, if only because it is an introduction–to the blog, to me, to the strategy of writing and my ultimate goal: an essay on thought. For this reason, I believe the book with which this blog begins is ideal: The Propensity of Things, a book of philosophical, epistemological, philological, and ontological inquiry (ah, so many ‘ologies’!), written by French philosopher and Sinologist Francois Jullien. As the subtitle of the book implies, “Toward a History of Efficacy in China,” this is a historical essay as well. In particular, this is an essay on the history of a notion (in the Hegelian sense, though Jullien will suggest we otherwise remove ourselves from Western philosophy when possible.)–the notion of efficacy.
What does this mean, this notion of efficacy, we may ask? And how can someone write a history of such a thing? In our everyday lives, efficacy is merely another word for effectiveness, but it also has other meanings. It can also mean the expected and intended effectiveness of something, something designed. Additionally, it can mean the knowledge of a thing’s effectiveness. Therefore, efficacy means the following: effectiveness, in general; the designed effect that we expect of an object–the effect for which it was created; it can mean the effectiveness that we experience and accept as inherent to a thing simply because we already know about the effectiveness of the thing. Efficacy is, in short, a multiplicitous notion of effectiveness as result, process, and concept.
This conceptualization as a multiplicity necessitates an understanding of relationships as exhibiting simultaneous sameness and difference, which is what makes the relationship a whole, a unit, even while it is composed of separate and diverse parts. Two individuals, maybe lovers or friends, neighbors, twins or whatever, they form a unit through their relationship, yet they remain each themselves despite the commonalities, transactions, or interactions between them. However, their separate identities are still associated with the other as a part of their social presence as a pair. When together they are the pair in form; when they are separate, they are the pair by association. Between them in separation or together is the sameness and difference of the character of their relationship that acts to make them a pair in the first place, and it is the in-between substances that are the loci of all the multiple faces or essences of their pairness. Likes or dislikes, names and families, education and knowledge, jobs, communities, language, culture, arguments–everything that the individuals of the pair have in common or do not have in common establishes the character of their pairness by which the rest of us will perceive them. It is this in-between space, this liminal essence, that multiplicity inhabits, and from this place we must approach the notion of ‘efficacy’ that Jullien presents.
For Jullien, efficacy is not necessarily dependent on human intervention; instead, it is a capacity inherent to objects as we encounter them. We do not imbue efficacy, rather objects imbue it upon our needs or actions. As translator Janet Lloyd notes, Jullien is discussing ‘disposition’ of an object–its inherent capacity. She explains that Jullien writes of two things: disposition and dispositif:
“Dispositif referes to the efficacy of a disposition, its capacity to function spontaneously and inexhaustibly. Every configuration or disposition possesses an inherent potential or propensity that is fulfilled by its dispositif,” its efficacy. (Jullien 1995, 9)
We can understand disposition best by the word ‘configuration,’ which Jullien derives from Foucalt’s The Order of Things, which suggests structure and condition. Configuration (a term also translated as ‘constellations’ in American editions of Foucault) establishes form as inherent to the object and as relational to its placement or environment. The disposition of the thing is thus “static and dynamic.” It exists as a singular object, but also as a thing that affects its surroundings and acquires a sense of function. This idea recalls Derrida, who suggested that ”what disrupts the totality is the condition for the relation to the other.” (Derrida 1994, 13) The object, perceived in this way, exists simultaneously as single and relationship unit, thus its dynamic quality exists within the efficacy of the relationship, which is the in-between space we discussed earlier.
The Propensity of Things explores these concepts surrounding the meaning and use of the word shi, translated as “position” or “circumstances,” or “power” and “potential.” For Jullien, the word is emblematic of what he terms “imprecisions in Chinese thought,” by which he means words or phrases that have no fixed meaning even during use, but which implicitly refer to multiple meanings, multiple understandings. I thought upon reading this remark that perhaps Jullien meant “ambiguity” when he said “imprecision,” implying vagueness either on the part of the word, the thought, or Jullien’s understanding as a Western philosopher. However, reading further, I came to understand his point with greater clarity. He did not mean ambiguity at all–he meant “ambivalence.”
This shocked me at first, because I could not fathom intially why he would use that word. How can he mean ambivalent–how can a word be ambivalent? Moreover, how could the meaning of the word relate to his notion of imprecision? I read further, and then reread an earlier paragraph, and, sure enough, his meaning became clear. Of course, he meant ambivalence. Shi would naturally be ambivalent. Why, you ask? Well, it struck me then that shi, is ‘potential,’ it is propensity. It is vague–yes; it is also multi-faceted. Through potential, efficacy derives the probability of its actions, processes, and results. The certainty of an instance of an effect is in fact the next step, or consequence of potential becoming kinetic, while still maintaining the propensity for further potential, as its disposition permits or encourages. Thus, ambivalence rejects the notion of “either or” and establishes a notion of mutually potent alternatives that could happen at any time–except at the time when one actually happens (the kinetic moment).
Ambivalence has no favorites, thus no vagueness–it embraces all potential equally, which makes the potential of each outcome equally possible. The “logic of shi” that Jullien imparts is adaptation. As the author writes, “The intuition of efficacy entails that we resist the urge to separate conceptual fields that we customarily set in opposition because those very oppositions help to structure our thought.” (Jullien, 16) The concept is dialogic, and thus necessitates the potential for multiple potentialities, multiple outcomes. However, the disposition of the object determines three important factors: its potential, its efficacy, and its tendency.
The tendency of the object is the expected efficacy learned from experience. Depending on the thing’s position (a battlefield, a chessboard, a frying pan), there may be expected outcomes, expected potential (strategic placement, sheer chance of placement, such as the location of a tree). Depending on the object’s placement, it may have different potentials, yet maintain each one as the whole of its potential, as if it could be anywhere, but only happens to be where it is at a particular moment. We are dealing with the manifestation of the object as implicitly associated and actually a part of determining the meaning and co-potentials of other objects and of its environment as a whole. Thus the potential of the one, actually represents the potential of the many, as the multiplicities of their potential, their propensity, intersect and imbue each other with both meaning and efficacy. Their tendencies are thus co-determined and dependent on the intersections of their environment, which determine when potential becomes something implemented.
That is enough for tonight. I will pick up again another time. Same book, possibly in conjunction with other reading. I believe I would like to explore this book while considering chess, as well as basic Actor-Network Theory and Game Theory. Ah, well, enough for tonight. I sign off here.
The Propensity of Things
26 Jan 2011 Leave a Comment
by L.M. Zapata in Academia, Anthropology, Commentary, Critique, Eastern Philosophy, Epistemology, History, Ontology, Philology, Philosophy, Social Theory, Theory, Uncategorized, Writing Tags: Chinese culture and thought, Eastern philosphy, Epistemology, Francois Jullien, Ontology, Philology, Philosophy, Shi, The Propensity of Things
The purpose of this blog is to keep a journal of sorts. Not a traditional daily journal of the mundane, but of reading and its associated pleasures, such as writing, thinking, and learning. This is a living journal, however. It is a journal of the reading process and will share my thoughts and impressions as I read, including the ways that a book and an imagination or system of thought can permeate our lives, unbeknownst to us at times. (P.S.: Check out my other blogs at history current and The Back Room Bookshelf!)
I suppose this first entry is different from any future ones, if only because it is an introduction–to the blog, to me, to the strategy of writing and my ultimate goal: an essay on thought. For this reason, I believe the book with which this blog begins is ideal: The Propensity of Things, a book of philosophical, epistemological, philological, and ontological inquiry (ah, so many ‘ologies’!), written by French philosopher and Sinologist Francois Jullien. As the subtitle of the book implies, “Toward a History of Efficacy in China,” this is a historical essay as well. In particular, this is an essay on the history of a notion (in the Hegelian sense, though Jullien will suggest we otherwise remove ourselves from Western philosophy when possible.)–the notion of efficacy.
What does this mean, this notion of efficacy, we may ask? And how can someone write a history of such a thing? In our everyday lives, efficacy is merely another word for effectiveness, but it also has other meanings. It can also mean the expected and intended effectiveness of something, something designed. Additionally, it can mean the knowledge of a thing’s effectiveness. Therefore, efficacy means the following: effectiveness, in general; the designed effect that we expect of an object–the effect for which it was created; it can mean the effectiveness that we experience and accept as inherent to a thing simply because we already know about the effectiveness of the thing. Efficacy is, in short, a multiplicitous notion of effectiveness as result, process, and concept.
This conceptualization as a multiplicity necessitates an understanding of relationships as exhibiting simultaneous sameness and difference, which is what makes the relationship a whole, a unit, even while it is composed of separate and diverse parts. Two individuals, maybe lovers or friends, neighbors, twins or whatever, they form a unit through their relationship, yet they remain each themselves despite the commonalities, transactions, or interactions between them. However, their separate identities are still associated with the other as a part of their social presence as a pair. When together they are the pair in form; when they are separate, they are the pair by association. Between them in separation or together is the sameness and difference of the character of their relationship that acts to make them a pair in the first place, and it is the in-between substances that are the loci of all the multiple faces or essences of their pairness. Likes or dislikes, names and families, education and knowledge, jobs, communities, language, culture, arguments–everything that the individuals of the pair have in common or do not have in common establishes the character of their pairness by which the rest of us will perceive them. It is this in-between space, this liminal essence, that multiplicity inhabits, and from this place we must approach the notion of ‘efficacy’ that Jullien presents.
For Jullien, efficacy is not necessarily dependent on human intervention; instead, it is a capacity inherent to objects as we encounter them. We do not imbue efficacy, rather objects imbue it upon our needs or actions. As translator Janet Lloyd notes, Jullien is discussing ‘disposition’ of an object–its inherent capacity. She explains that Jullien writes of two things: disposition and dispositif:
“Dispositif referes to the efficacy of a disposition, its capacity to function spontaneously and inexhaustibly. Every configuration or disposition possesses an inherent potential or propensity that is fulfilled by its dispositif,” its efficacy. (Jullien 1995, 9)
We can understand disposition best by the word ‘configuration,’ which Jullien derives from Foucalt’s The Order of Things, which suggests structure and condition. Configuration (a term also translated as ‘constellations’ in American editions of Foucault) establishes form as inherent to the object and as relational to its placement or environment. The disposition of the thing is thus “static and dynamic.” It exists as a singular object, but also as a thing that affects its surroundings and acquires a sense of function. This idea recalls Derrida, who suggested that ”what disrupts the totality is the condition for the relation to the other.” (Derrida 1994, 13) The object, perceived in this way, exists simultaneously as single and relationship unit, thus its dynamic quality exists within the efficacy of the relationship, which is the in-between space we discussed earlier.
The Propensity of Things explores these concepts surrounding the meaning and use of the word shi, translated as “position” or “circumstances,” or “power” and “potential.” For Jullien, the word is emblematic of what he terms “imprecisions in Chinese thought,” by which he means words or phrases that have no fixed meaning even during use, but which implicitly refer to multiple meanings, multiple understandings. I thought upon reading this remark that perhaps Jullien meant “ambiguity” when he said “imprecision,” implying vagueness either on the part of the word, the thought, or Jullien’s understanding as a Western philosopher. However, reading further, I came to understand his point with greater clarity. He did not mean ambiguity at all–he meant “ambivalence.”
This shocked me at first, because I could not fathom intially why he would use that word. How can he mean ambivalent–how can a word be ambivalent? Moreover, how could the meaning of the word relate to his notion of imprecision? I read further, and then reread an earlier paragraph, and, sure enough, his meaning became clear. Of course, he meant ambivalence. Shi would naturally be ambivalent. Why, you ask? Well, it struck me then that shi, is ‘potential,’ it is propensity. It is vague–yes; it is also multi-faceted. Through potential, efficacy derives the probability of its actions, processes, and results. The certainty of an instance of an effect is in fact the next step, or consequence of potential becoming kinetic, while still maintaining the propensity for further potential, as its disposition permits or encourages. Thus, ambivalence rejects the notion of “either or” and establishes a notion of mutually potent alternatives that could happen at any time–except at the time when one actually happens (the kinetic moment).
Ambivalence has no favorites, thus no vagueness–it embraces all potential equally, which makes the potential of each outcome equally possible. The “logic of shi” that Jullien imparts is adaptation. As the author writes, “The intuition of efficacy entails that we resist the urge to separate conceptual fields that we customarily set in opposition because those very oppositions help to structure our thought.” (Jullien, 16) The concept is dialogic, and thus necessitates the potential for multiple potentialities, multiple outcomes. However, the disposition of the object determines three important factors: its potential, its efficacy, and its tendency.
The tendency of the object is the expected efficacy learned from experience. Depending on the thing’s position (a battlefield, a chessboard, a frying pan), there may be expected outcomes, expected potential (strategic placement, sheer chance of placement, such as the location of a tree). Depending on the object’s placement, it may have different potentials, yet maintain each one as the whole of its potential, as if it could be anywhere, but only happens to be where it is at a particular moment. We are dealing with the manifestation of the object as implicitly associated and actually a part of determining the meaning and co-potentials of other objects and of its environment as a whole. Thus the potential of the one, actually represents the potential of the many, as the multiplicities of their potential, their propensity, intersect and imbue each other with both meaning and efficacy. Their tendencies are thus co-determined and dependent on the intersections of their environment, which determine when potential becomes something implemented.
That is enough for tonight. I will pick up again another time. Same book, possibly in conjunction with other reading. I believe I would like to explore this book while considering chess, as well as basic Actor-Network Theory and Game Theory. Ah, well, enough for tonight. I sign off here.