Note 44

Speech is an act. Political and psychological; and an idea is a process in it's development. An identification expresses a motivation to transcend the categories which have given rise to the identification.

The context in which words are embedded transcends the words themselves. Development is the unfolding of context, not of words. Words are the residuals, not the ideas. Identifications are steps in the trajectory of the transcendence of the categories which give rise to those identities.

For instance, at the mention of the concept of God, (as a representative for the politicization of the relation between subject and object) one has already laid the framework for the possibility of the transcendence of this category of relation, and for radical freedom, and so on. Hence it is a negation, and a temporary absence of another set of principles. But in doing so, one recognised the fundamental bottleneck - the schism between subject and object, or better, freedom and truth. The point is that these underlying dualities remain insofar as the conditions that give rise to the contradiction, or tradeoffs, of the prescriptions of the two remain. The advent of the reconciliation is the advent of a new set of problems with their own tradeoffs, and so on.

One understands the problem by understanding the context which gave rise to this problem. To say that something is true is to adopt a representational approach. It expresses the possibility not only of the truth being untrue, but of the epistemic conditions of truth telling being variable (but also the absence of an alternative). Freedom, then, is but the context which forms an assumption of the context in which the problem is expressed. In doing so, it is playing it's part in a language game. Freedom<>structure of representation<>truth.

The space of conceptual possibility is continually expanding, due to the development of mental and material possibilities, and a society and it's institutions and structures will attempt to incorporate effectively the ideas available for use according to it's internally defined mandates, ie, its values.

But note that this is an explanation of things as they are, not things as they could possibly be. That is, a thing which cannot be thought is, while a thing which can be thought, cannot be, for it lies within its possibilities (which is self-negating, and seeks self-transcendence), not within itself.