紀要論文

紀要論文

text

大阪大学大学院人間科学研究科紀要. 2025, 51, p. 145-167

日本語

text

2025-03-18

This article is the fifth (Part V) of a series of six to eight parts. Alloying philosophy, psychoanalysis, and cultural studies, this series seeks to articulate a relationship between the essential nature of Western philosophyʼs metaphysical method of dialectics and the structure of memory in human beings. Covering Western philosophers from ancient to modern, such as Plato, Socrates, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Hegel, Lacan, Derrida, and Jakobson, and quoting social, cultural, and psychopathological materials such as Sarashina Diary (the daughter of Sugawara no Takasue in 11c Japan), Funes the Memorious (Jorge Luis Borges), Norwegian Wood (Haruki Murakami), 1984 (Apple Computer television commercial), autism spectrum disorder, late capitalism, and even the Quest Atlantis boom, this series endeavors to elucidate the nature of memory in the neurotypical (NT), the socalled normal, most human beings. The so-called normal can be defined only by comparing it with the so-called abnormal. In conclusion, the author elucidates that it is the being of ʻthe othernessʼ that Always and already permeates the normal and stable working of memory. It is that which frames the structure and content of the ego. In particular, the heteronomous nature of memory and imagination capabilities of typically developed individuals is depicted. Part I traces the position of imagination from Augustine to Descartes and, Part II, its position in Kant and Heidegger. Part III examines Hegelʼs theory of imagination with precision. Hegel transforms the Kantian productive imagination into one that makes “sign.” Part IV closely examines what “sign” and “mechanical memory” are in Hegel and discusses the enigma of the synchronized function of “signmaking fantasy.” In Part V, I work on the riddle of “sign-making fantasy” and discuss the theoretical possibility of a “pseudo-synchronic circuit” that synchronizes our fantasies, using Contemporary linguistics and psychology. Compared with Kantʼs visual imagination, Hegelʼs imagination is phonetic. Hegel considered voice to be the medium that connects intuition and language. Voice is a physical existence, but it also has the property of disappearing. The voice of another person enters oneʼs inner self. Oneʼs voice can be superimposed on othersʼ voices. Voices can be superimposed on letters and images. Due to its nature as a transparent medium, voice produces a “sign.” However, Hegel also states that the negativity of voice, which denies the directness of intuition, is still “abstract negativity.” The “concrete negativity” of truth, which transforms linguistic symbols into something internal, is the intellect. However, Hegel does not explain concrete negativity. This “concrete negativity” transforms recollection into memory. It is a component that accompanies speech and a force that enables us to overwrite the voices of others on our own, internalize othersʼ language, and simultaneously retain it within ourselves as an external object. It is the light that could rescue “Funes the Memorious” from the darkness of recollectionʼs fullness and drag him out to the dialogue with others. In Part VI, we will examine the nature of this “concrete negativity” mentioned by Hegel, based on the distinction between metaphor and metonymy in Jakobsonʼs famous paper on two types of aphasia.

10.18910/100822

100822

声と時間と弁証法 : 記憶と想像力の政治経済学批判序説〈5〉

野尻, 英一

大阪大学大学院人間科学研究科

日本語

2025-03-18

大阪大学大学院人間科学研究科紀要

51

145

167

https://hdl.handle.net/11094/100822

10.18910/100822

https://doi.org/10.18910/100822