The core of experience cover and chapter 1

 Abdel Hernández San Juan 

The Core of Experience

Self-Perception and Common sense 

in phenomenological sociology

Obra Autoral individual/escritos teóricos

   Abdel Hernández San Juan, teórico, pensador y escritor emigra a estados unidos Texas en mil novecientos noventa y ocho luego de siete años como emigrante en Venezuela desenvolviéndose en estados unidos con su pensamiento teórico y como escritor en el campo de las ciencias sociales. Originalmente artista conceptual, deja el arte para siempre en mil novecientos noventa –con algunas muy esporádicas excepciones colaborativas—para dedicarse desde entonces a sus dos tipos de literatura como escritor, sus obras autorales individuales—libros de pensamiento y creación autoral, y su crítica de arte, textos sobre la obra de otros.

Escuela libre de estudios avanzados en ciencias duras

Pensamiento occidental

Texas, Berkeley, New York, 1998

Contents

Introduction

The Intangible

Being and Monad

El Self y el Acervo

The intramundande horizont

Sobreordination in everyday life

An analysis of transcultural redundancies

The Two Dialectiques of Town: 

Cultural Analysis in Urban Readings

Rethinking intertextuality: a reconstructive analysis

The indeterminist true

The Intangible

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

   Written in English and translated to English 

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

    The Intangible is the aesthetic; this is the proposal i will developed in this essays. What another form must we adjudicate to the intangible than aesthetic? the idea of an spiritual value? And it is not already and precisely, in its moment of intangibility a form of aesthetic? Certainly, aesthetic might result in something intangible at least by a moment. The beauty of a tree, a work of art or a woman fall out it, however, must we define it as another thing than as the intangible of a certain tangible as when we said that something don’t have a prize?. How might something as much intangible to be equivalent to so much tangibility?. 

  In fact, a first form to understand the relation between aesthetic and intangibility is that evolved within saying that we affirm about something it is intangible because its value is not as tangible. In a quotidian activity between persons, in front of an art work, might be aesthetic, meaning, time to contemplate what people are telling us, not as much the said, but the how of the saying, to perceive form as the how and to contemplate it

  Such a time of contemplation might be to the images you have in front, when we made the time to visually contemplate the form in which it is being say, its formal beauty, might be toward what is said, but if there is aesthetic it is because we perceive time in what is being said meaning that we perceive not as much the said but the saying contemplating the beauty of the how and its ethic. Thus, to get ethic if must be aesthetic it must overall entrance to be a part of the intangible time of aesthetic allowing us to see the beauty of the how. Or it might result from the simple contemplation of ourselves in time under it.

   If I am making reference to a quotidian kind of example it is not by any other reason than to criticize the idea which affirm that of course there is aesthetic in art because they always have time to lost their time with intangible things

    Thus to conterargue and at the same time shows that in the more simply quotidian activity, the love of a pear, the relation to our sons, the activities of job, if there is aesthetic it is because there is time to contemplate the how, to perceive the saying in the said, to be presents, besides

   But the same happen with a work of art, a classical music we hear, a concert, a work of painting on the Wall, a beautiful girl, if it results aesthetic it is become ir returns ever to be intangible, although it was in a certain moment, albeit it was a tangible phenomenon it returns to be intangible

   And this is because the concept of intangibility is also related with economy. 

   Undoubtedly aesthetic seems to be understand from economy a form related with a certain intangibility as another kind of market, by the same, what we thus understand as a symbolic and even suntuarious market. It is not only about the existence of aesthetic in economy and the relations of offers and demands, but even that economy itself as activity is located and defined to be between the tangible and the intangible

   The concept of economy has in one of its antipodes a relation with the idea of economizing and this relation with what is economized is seen usually as related as the opposite of the time we need to perception and aesthetic contemplation. But the true is that indeed economy can avoid aesthetic, even in the economy of language and the text, in the more economic economy, this last must be once and again and again related to an exceedent, and such an exceedent return to be again and again, aesthetic and intangible. 

    In a few words, without aesthetic and intangibility economy is itself impossible. Let see it if we want in publicity when it seems to become more obvious.

    A publicity spot, for example, as an announce, a poster, or as something printed on the body of the product, the printed publicity distributed and placed any were in the city, the commercial in television, there nothing a done by effazising the sensuality of bodies, effasizing in it as an image something for example to the body, a cream, to pleasure or enjoyment, a delighted food, something to entertainment, it will for sure accent the beauty

  Thus beside paradoxically in the literal free market its want to sale that product as soon as possible at a hurry velocity, exchanged but its equivalent in prize apparently without a time we need to aesthetic contemplation, there we will find how it is relative, it must be sale as soon as possible, but there an anticipated time for contemplation must be included so that as tangible as it should be as to have a prize as intangible it should be as to be both enjoy in aesthetic contemplation and intangibly value as to have that prize

   Certainly when indeed in a last instance a publicity is not as a work of art a highly exclusive symbolic form but a fast market consisting about sailing it fast we relates aesthetic contemplation under it as just a form of rhetoric seduction

   However, to negate ourselves the enjoyment of this seduction and to the rhetoric is supposed under the market competition to consumers and clients, is a way to negate ourselves that without aesthetic nothing as to identify its intangibility will be distinguished and as such now as consumer and clients it is a way to negate ourselves the needed code as to define if the tangible level evolved within prizes in competition belong to the true value of its intangibility.

   We must argue of course that toward seduction intangibility must be distorted under it, but if we don’t have the simultaneous level of intangibility communication in the market of the image, fashion and symbolic distinction, we can’t recognize the relation between value and prize. In a few words aesthetic is nothing added or aditioned as exogenous to the economic chain, it is instead the true of value, the need dimension of contemplation time leads us to distinguish value and prize

   Whence in its relation with aesthetic and rhetoric we must said that publicity is not only seduction, the idea of seduction focused in that form supposed on the one hand a product and on the other an added strategy of seduction with that product as two exogenous extrinsique things, the idea of encharments instead is developed toward the immediacy world of Sensoriality and sensations of the body in which aesthetic play the role of reducing the separation as to provide an image as comfortable as possible of the world of clients under the world of the image

   Within the anticipation of the time for aesthetic contemplation in publicity we must clearly find the ephicazy of markets under the economy of aesthetic and beyond that even the sensual idea that within consume we must have the time for such contemplation, if we contemplate hos the cream is applied to on the feminine body or the sauce upon the spaghetti we are enjoying quality and exclusivity, however, publicity image, although use the time for aesthetic contemplation inside its efficacy about something that paradoxically must be sale as fast as possible, is nothing that seems or looks to be at least in a first level as our exclusive and suntuarious artifacts of high culture, related with intangibility

    The prizes of the products must be more or less spensive, but will ever be entailed with a market related with offers and demands and as such we use to say that in publicity aesthetic contemplation stay subordinated to the merely rhetorical of that seduction. Although the time of aesthetic contemplation is claimed as to pay attention on beauty and sensuality, an economy of utility seems to regulate it. Thus, only the suntuarious market of high art and culture provided by symbolic exclusive objects seem to be more directly related with intangibility. This intangibility will ever remit directly to aesthetic according to a series of excedents which are never exhausted under the objects itself or the products, but related with values 

  Hence a paradoxical ambivalence goes to the forefront, albeit all that objects of symbolic exclusivity are collected and entailed with feelings of possession of that intangibility under objects, indeed it can never be fixed and coincident with the object as fetish since intangibility itself consist precisely in all that immaterial values outside the object which explain why offer and demand exist, why such spiritual values are alive, beside this is something that will ever be as aesthetic differentiated from the merely utilitarian and of any function entailed with necessity. With all this said we must affirm that aesthetic is nothing else but the intangible once in its sunturarious character the values, spirituals and entailed with time, to memory, culture, beauty or the product exclusivity leads us to the aesthetic of a time in extension increasing its exclusivity related with urban sensibility or to the sense of a certain age so that it can be reduced or exhausted by utility and necessity

   Because utility and necessity, we must remark it, as forms to consume time in the product itself and whence it reduces intangibility. If something is utilitarian, it is tangible and as such I well ever lost and lack intangibility again and again as many times as we consider it. We must thus said that intangibility will ever be what leads aesthetic to the sensible and to a certain another economy of the intangible. This another economy of the intangible paradoxically while on the one hand explain the relation between aesthetic and an exceedent –starting by the exceedent of time need to aesthetic contemplation it self—always ready to be alive again, under such retuning to be intangible again the intangibility of so much tangibility suppose however a certain difference in front of all that which consume time in the object, aesthetic in rhetoric, whence we can firm that such a fiduciary economy of intangibility leads us and our values to another economy

  And although we don’t have to go so far to find that economy between us, including the economy of academic papers as this one full of intangible values or that one of the art works or of antiques and collections of cultural artefacts and material culture, aesthetic and sensibility will ever regulate and translate intangibility in a form that will go beyond a sense of the spensive, in fact, intangibility is not only entailed with the spensive when translated to tangibility, it must also lead us to philanthropy since intangibility entail all that which can’t have a prize so that must be without a prize or valuated by its spiritual values

   It thus connect paradoxically the two poles of aesthetic, on the one hand its relation with an exceedent of time defined as time to contemplate beauty on the other to intangible values so irreducible to any tangibility including here of course that tangibility entailed with the object as fetish or understand as a reified object

   And I would like on this respect to offer some considerations on reifications. When aesthetic leads us not to an open relation with the time of contemplation but instead to reified forms of the taste and of culture, it experience the same which happen in its relation with rhetoric as to consume, it become in nothing else than in social forms of taste, as well as in cultural forms of appearance, meaning, ideologies of appearance that are nothing else than presuppositions according to which  if accepted appearance are as thus under reified aesthetic forms then behind it must be a form of accepted official culture and as such the issue is narrow related with how aesthetic function in the conservative and ortodoxical side of society including the several forms through which orthodoxies sublime and mystify the aesthetic of the former already conservative old avant-garde. 

   In a few words an innovation that is not defined here and now in current time as truly deconstructions albeit it must be addressed as positives and good criticism to the modes and mechanism of reification, ossification and fetishism of official conservative and orthodox culture, meaning deconstruction of adocenamiento and canonization, can’t be expression of the alive avant-garde beyond if it was a former old one