ラムズフェルド主義認識論
Rumsfeldian epistemology
ラムズフェルド主義認識論
Rumsfeldian epistemology
"How are we to clarify this elusive difference between Hegel and Freud? Mladen Dolar proposed to read "Hegel is Freud" as the ultimate philosophical infinite judgment, since Hegel and Freud cannot but appear absolute opposites: Absolute Knowing (the unity of the subject and the Absolute) versus the unconscious (the subject not master in his own house); excessive knowledge versus lack of knowledge. The first complication in this simple opposition is that, for Freud and Lacan, the unconscious is not a blind instinctual field but also a kind of knowledge, an unconscious knowledge, a knowledge which does not know itself ("unknown knowns;' in terms of Rumsfeldian epistemology)-so what if Absolute Knowing is to be located into the very tension between the knowledge aware of itself and the unknown knowledge? What if the "absoluteness" of knowing refers not to our access to the divine Absolute-in-itself, or to a total selfreflection through which we would gain full access to our "unknown knowing" and thus achieve subjective self-transparency, but to a much more modest (and all the more difficult to think) overlapping between the lack of our "conscious" knowledge and the lack inscribed into the very heart of our unknown knowledge? It is at this level that one should locate the parallel between Hegel and Freud: if Hegel discovers unreason ( contradiction, the mad dance of opposites which unsettles any rational order) in the heart of reason, Freud discovers reason in the heart of unreason (in slips of tongue, dreams, madness). What they share is the logic of retroactivity: in Hegel, the One is a retroactive effect of its loss, the very return to the lost One constitutes it; and in Freud, repression and the return of the repressed coincide, the repressed is the retroactive effect of its return." Zizek, Less than nothing : Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism, p.484.
「ヘーゲルとフロイトの間のこのとらえどころのない 差異をどのように明らかにすればよいのだろうか。ムラデン・ドラルは、「ヘーゲルはフロイトである」を、ヘーゲルとフロイトが絶対的な相反に見えるしかな いことから、究極の哲学的な無限判断として読むことを提案した。絶対的な知（主体と絶対的なものの一体化）対無意識（自分の家の主人ではない主体）、過剰 な知識対知識の欠如。この単純な対立における最初の複雑さは、フロイトとラカンにとって、無意識は盲目の本能的な場ではなく、一種の知識、無意識の知識、 自分自身を知らない知識（ラムズフェルドの認識論から言えば、「未知の知識」） でもあるということだ。では、絶対的な知が、自分自身を認識している知識と未知の知識の間のまさに緊張に位置しているとしたらどうだろう。もし、知ること の「絶対性」が、神の絶対的存在へのアクセスや、「未知の知」への完全なアクセスを獲得し、それによって主観的な自己透明性を達成するような完全な自己反 省ではなく、我々の「意識的」知識の欠如と我々の未知の知のまさに中心に刻まれた欠如の間のもっと控えめな（そして考えることがもっと難しい）重なりに言 及するとしたらどうだろうか。ヘーゲルが理性の中心で理不尽（矛盾、あらゆる合理的秩序を揺るがす対立の狂騒）を発見するなら、フロイトは理不尽の中心で 理性を（舌禍、夢、狂気の中で）発見するのである。ヘーゲルでは、唯一者はその喪失の遡及的効果であり、失われた唯一者への回帰がまさにそれを構成する。 フロイトでは、抑圧と抑圧されたものの回帰が一致し、抑圧されたものは、その回帰の遡及的効果なのである」- Zizek, Less than nothing : Hegel and the shadow of dialectical materialism, p.484.
★Rumsfeld with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard B. Myers at a Pentagon press conference in February 2002.
"Reports
that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me,
because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know
that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are
things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown
unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."
- Kellogg, Carolyn (January 24, 2011). "Donald Rumsfeld talks
about his upcoming memoir". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 1,
2012. [Source; Known and Unknown: A Memoir]
+++
Links
リンク
文献
その他の情報
