Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

tru democrafliile moderne. – În esenflæ, drepturile omului øi contractul social(în diversele lui ipostaze 1 ). Adicæ ficfliunile regulative a cæror restaurarea fost, tocmai, cæutatæ (mai mult sau mai puflin obscur, naiv), dupæ „alterarea“lor de cætre comunism (care nici el, în ficfliunea juridicæ a funcflionæriisale normalizate, nu le abrogase, et pour cause!). Cu alte cuvinte, acea fondarece nu ne poate institui ca subiecflii autonomi (deplini, autodeterminaflietc.) ce trebuie, cu necesitate, sæ fim pentru a ne fructifica existenfla (Dasein/Mitdaseinøi In-der-Welt-sein) în forma ei modernæ – pe orice laturæ asa am dori s-o luæm: eticæ, juridicæ, politicæ, economicæ, dezirantæ, libidinalæ,culturalæ etc. –, altfel decît luîndu-ne în paza ei ca membri deja adulfli, prindefiniflie, indiferent de vîrsta naturalæ – abia aøa existæ drepturi øi ale copilului2 –, ai unor corpuri sociale, productive, civile øi, bineînfleles, politice constituiteeminamente „terestru“, pur „omeneøte“. Acestea rejecteazæ astfel,prin naturæ, paternajul transcendent (delegitimînd de asemenea, în sînul lor,orice pretenflie de autoritate ce s-ar înfæfliøa ca pur paternæ ori paternalistæ)øi tind deci sæ videze de eficienflæ (ca øi de sens) orice garanflie surplombantæa realitæflii forflelor øi lianflilor ce le agregæ. (Asta nu înseamnæ, bineînfleles,cæ forclusul nu se poate întoarce, tocmai, ca exterioritatea cea mai puræ.)Øi tot de aceea, nici eliberarea (în sensul normativ al libertæflii, niciodatæ suficientpentru animalul deopotrivæ narcisic øi gregar ce sîntem: de partaj færædistribuflie al ei, prin care sîntem astfel „legafli“ unii de ceilalfli exact în mæsuraîn care nu depindem personal de aceøtia) øi nici, mai ales, emanciparea (ase citi „majoratul“) nu-i sînt în genere accesibile omului modern decît cu unprefl sever. Poate chiar exorbitant, însæ de neocolit. Acela al asumærii faptuluicæ el, omul modernitæflii, nu e, în ultimæ instanflæ, decît „orfanul“ (færæde pærinte al) propriei condiflii.E una din consecinflele ineluctabile ale descinderii lui – ale configurærii lui catip de umanitate (cum ar zice Husserl) – înainte de orice din propria lui formæ(formulæ) de existenflæ; aøadar, din propria lui lume istoricæ øi moralæ: aceeacare îl postuleazæ din capul locului ca adult care se face singur øi care, la rîndullui, n-o repetæ în sine øi n-o poartæ mai departe (n-o „înmulfleøte“ øin-o desfæøoaræ: structural, ca timp, ca spaflii) decît pe aceasta. Avîndu-øi propriaexistenflæ ca „pærinte“, el n-o perpetueazæ, n-o reproduce decît pe eaøi tot doar pe ea o „moøteneøte“. (În acest sens, el se moøteneøte, în fond,numai pe sine, precizîndu-øi astfel øi dezvæluindu-øi doar mai bine felul dea fi, ce „are“ mai propriu, pe mæsuræ ce ea îl expune mai amænunflit, maidepliat – în vreme ce el, la rîndul sæu, o desfæøoaræ –, iar ambii îøi actualizeazæpotenflialitæflile, împlinindu-se în tandem, cæci, la fel ca lumea lor, temporalitatea,respectiv istoricitatea lor e una øi aceeaøi.) În felul acesta,„matur(iz)area“ sa (deopotrivæ în/ca istoria lumii øi în cea a multiplicærii saleindividuate), devenirea sa subiect, adicæ modul de a „se (presu)pune“ careel este deja, prin destin(are) – øi aici vorbim deja de subiectul efectiv, singular,al propriei sale existenfle (je meines: „de fiecare datæ al meu“), øi al existenfleica atare (cel ce era întrucîtva mistificat prin ficfliunea originaræ care-iprescrie inserfliile, nici ele nemæsluite, în ordinea istorico-empiricæ a lumii:prin aceea cæ-l voia nu doar adult, ci øi desævîrøit, complet autodeterminat,perfect ajuns la sine) –, nu este altceva decît integrarea pe parcursul viefliifiecæruia a acestei condiflii orfeline: învæflarea ei (învæflarea cu ea). (Din rafliunide concizie, simplific desigur desenul argumentului øi merg drept la flintæ.Bunæoaræ, atunci cînd mæ refer la singularitatea de existenflæ care e fiecare/oricaredintre noi – revelatoare, în plus, de traseu istoric condensînd însine o lungæ emergenflæ de epocæ –, asta nu înseamnæ nici solipsism, niciending – under the guillotine – of the despot’s felony towards the genuinesovereign uprisen to reclaim his usurped right), but even from the “negative(political) theology” inherent to the fiction which is the immanent ground forthe rights and liberties constitutive of modern democracies. – In essence,human rights and the social contract (in its various hypostases 1 ), namely theregulative fictions whose restoration was looked for, on purpose (although notwithout confusion), after they were “altered” by communism (which hadn’tabolished them either, in the juridical fiction of its normal activity, et pourcause!). In other words, the foundation which can institute us as the autonomoussubjects (complete, self-determined, etc.) we necessarily have to be,in order to fructify our existence (Dasein/Mitdasein and In-der-Welt-sein) in itsmodern form – in any of its aspects that we approach: ethical, juridical, political,economical, desiring, libidinal, cultural, etc. –, in a single way: by takingus in its care as already adult members, regardless of our natural age – that’sthe only way there are children rights, as well 2 – of social, productive, civil and,of course, political bodies established pre-eminently in a “terrestrial”, purely“human” way. So all these reject, by nature, any transcendent fatherhood(and also de-legitimatize, intrinsically, any claim of authority made as merelypaternal or paternalist); moreover, they tend then to remove the efficiency(and meaning), too, from any overlooking guarantees for the realityof the forces and the bonding which aggregates them. (That doesn’t mean, ofcourse, that the forclosed cannot return precisely as the purest exteriority.)And for the same reason, neither the liberation (in the normative sense offreedom, never sufficient for the narcissistic and gregarious animal that weare: as partaking without sharing it, by which we are “tied” to each other inasmuchas we don’t personally depend on the others), and especially not theemancipation (or “coming of age”) are, generically, accessible to the modernman but at a high cost. Perhaps exorbitant, but unavoidable: acknowledging– that is assuming – the fact that, in the last resort, modernity’s human being,is nothing but “the orphan” (with no parent) of his own condition.It is one of the ineluctable consequences of his descent – of his configurationas a type of humanity (as Husserl would say) – before anything from its ownform (formula) of existence; therefore from his own historical and moral world:the one that postulates him from the very beginning as an adult making himselfand who, in his turn, doesn’t replicate and doesn’t carry further (doesn’t“multiply” and doesn’t unfold: structurally, as time, as spaces) but this one.With his own existence as a “parent”, he doesn’t perpetuate, doesn’t reproducebut this one, and it is this one that he “inherits”, too. (In this respect,he only inherits himself, thus asserting and uncovering better his way ofbeing, that what he most properly “has”, as its existence exposes him in moredetail, more openly – while he unfolds it –, and both actuate their potentialities,coming to fruition as a tandem, because, like their world, both their temporalityand their history are one and the same.) This way, his “growing up”,both in (as) the world’s history and in every single one, his becoming-a-subject,that is the manner of self-(pre)supposing he already is, by destinality– and here we are already talking about the effective, singular subject of itsown existence (je meines: “mine, each time”) and of existence as such (theone, at the same time, rather mystified through the original fiction which prescribes,not without some forgery, his insertions in the historical-empiricalorder of the world: by the fact that it not only wanted him to be an adult,but also a total, a completely self-determined, perfectly self-attained one) – isnothing else but the integration, during everyone’s life, of this orphan condition:learning (to be with) it. (For reasons of concision, I simplify, of course,the design of the argument and go straight to the point. For instance, when110