Weaving post-ecocidal cultures of transpositions capitalizes upon all those philosophical insights and approaches that promise to keep human —not least Western/ized practices— embedded within the dynamics of Tellus; or which, alternatively, point to ways of restoring the embodiment of threatened embodiments such as Arctic glaciers and the carbon-cycling capacity of Tellus herself. In this respect, weaving post-ecocidal cultures of transpositions is a characteristically syncretic endeavour. Each conglomerate of ideas leads to a neologism.
In this section, I provide a glossary of the neologisms at issue so far, which at the same time conform to transpositions to some degree.
GIVEN THE ECLECTIC BACKGROUND ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED...
each transposition is highly syncretic
Constrained-Engaged Immanent Continuum:
Authors in the post-Kantian critique of reason that have dealt with the issue of immanence (chiefly amongst whom Gilles Deleuze, a number of scholars that revolved around the structuralist Marxist Louis Althusser, and, to a lesser degree, Antonio Negri) have treated the latter as a static, immovable plane. Contrastingly, it is professed that the plane of immanence, when fully delinked from Western metaphysical residues, manifests itself upon a continuum variously hampered or facilitated by instrumenta movendi (fossilizations) andloci standi (manufactures of culture), respectively. These specific contexts lead to regimes of constrained-engaged immanence to some degree.
A commonly assumed hyposition-hyposement—binary pair—in the Western metaphysical tradition is that of nature/culture. The present book contrastingly sustains that this only conforms to an apparenthyposition-hyposement —binary pair. Culture is the active space that synthesizes—and therefore transmutes, transposes—the quintessence of both realism—that view which assumes the existence of an objective reality which enjoys a life of its own even available in the absence of subjective relations with it—and constructivism—that position which largely denies the extant reality only to emphasize the politically tainted interpretations of the latter. In signifying the active undertaking of attention, cultivation, respect and worship, culture is both an extant reality and subjectively worked upon. It is therefore presented as conforming to the self-same transposition-transposementof the nature/culture hyposition-hyposement. As a result, it is assumed as the apt receptacle for the numberless relations which the rubric “environment” has been identified to be saturated with.
More technically, culture comes to be named cultural matrix, grid or structure. Let us note the etymological root of matrix. It emanates from the homonymous Latin noun matrice, “reproductive female,” “womb,” which itself derives from the noun mater, “mother.” The cultural matrix corresponds, that is, to the womb of Tellus, our Mother Earth.It is a leading transposition-transposement in that it shelters the remaining transpositions-transposements. It can be put upon a par with the central role that “writing” plays in Derrida’s philosophical body.When circulated in its bosom, culture automatically metamorphoses oldhypositions-hyposements while, in turn, engendering newtranspositions-transposements. This matrix, qua a transpositional-transposemental operator, mediates transitivities. It attests to thelogic of in-transitivity defended in the present book as opposed to both binary logic and the logic of supplementarity.
Cultus (sing)/Culti (pl):
Cultus is a Latin word which means “cult.” Whilst culture or the cultural matrix allows for the whole gamut of possibilities, cultus is that which is actually paid cult to, worshipped, cultivated. A cultusconforms to the actual number of worshipped elements. In line with the building blocks of the present book, those elements are mainly characterized as loci standi versus instrumenta movendi. It is in this respect that in the present day we must distinguish between culti of Tellus and the cultus of Leviathan.
Culti of Tellus:
Culti of Tellus conform to those culti across the globe that cultivate loci standi—for they worship Tellus, Mother Earth. As such, they are independent bastions—such as those made up by aboriginal peoples—that don’t interfere with the issues of their neighbouring areas. Contrastingly, culti of Tellus are interfered by the cultus of Leviathan.
Cultus of Leviathan:
The cultus of Leviathan largely conforms to the Western and Westernizing part of the globe. In cultivating instrumenta movendi, this cultus requires constant expansion. As a result, it is constantly annexing, absorbing neighbouring territories or culti of Tellus.
Disposition or layout corresponds to the actual arrangement of elements. The present book pays heed to the way that the constituents of reality combine together. The endorsed metaphor of religare, true to its etymological meaning as “to bind strongly,” “to put together,”“to assemble” disperses disembodied and disembedded approaches such as Hegel’s spirit of the times, Michel Foucault’s fascination with the ethos, milieu of the Enlightenment, Foucault’s own exaltation of discourse as well as Patrick Curry’s steady focus on a non-modern sensibility. The literal meta-physics of religion endorsed by the present book pays attention to the layout of the elements of reality, a layout which is always embodied, embedded and contextualized. The uncompromising politics of religare take issue with the various ways in which this contextualized layout—disposition—is arranged.
These are instrumenta movendi regarded as low- middle- and high-cultural entities at one and the same time. As opposed tomanufacturers of culture, fossilizations constrain immanence. They form regimes of mediated, engaged immanence. It is for that matter that we say that fossilizations mark a pasus—“step,” breaking thereby the cycles of the oikos and creating a passed track or past; a linear continuum as opposed to a cyclical one. Fossilizations abound in thecultus of Leviathan. Our Common Future, or Brundtland Report is presented as a fossilization. High-culturally, it homogenizes plural worldviews under the placard of secular materialism. Middle-culturally, it sanctions the state as the standard political unit.Low-culturally, it promises but rationalized industrial production. The International Climate Change Regime (ICCR), which includes the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund, and various emissions trading schemes conforms to another fossilization. To be sure, the ICCR is far from a regime designed for the abatement of carbon emissions. Rather, middle-culturally it conspicuously emerges as an economic contract geared at the low-cultural liberalization of soil in peripheral areas and the high-cultural protectionism of the “centres of expertise” steered by thecultus of Leviathan.
High-culture is that part of culture that deals with our cognitively contextualised condition. Sound processes of knowledge-production are autochthonously arranged. In keeping, we say that high-culture is contextualized to the extent that worldviews emanate from a cultus of Tellus. Contrastingly, a high-culture is decontextualized when the philosophies that inform it are foreign to the ecoregion where acultus belongs. The Kyoto Protocol is a decontextualized contract to all culti of Tellus. It enforces foreign concepts such as the centralized state, the environment as a mere resourceful backdrop, ecology as ecocratic management and basic needs based upon industrial production.
Hyperbolic immanence corresponds to that immanence that exceedssituated immanence—the regimes of constrained-engaged immanence—in two reciprocal directions. First, it goes beyond excesses and extravagances. It polices the denials of engaged immanence that follow from an overabundance of low- middle- and high-cultural instrumenta movendi put to circulation, and their resulting fossilizations. Second, it endeavours a transposition-transposement towards a higher degree of engaged immanence so that the immoderations that follow from the unrestrained proliferation of instrumenta movendi may be surpassed. There are thus two moments to hyperbolic immanence. The first one registers hyperbolas or regimes with an exaggerated degree of constrained immanence. The second one addresses the hyperbolas at issue by exceeding them with the restoration of loci standi. The World Social Forum, the movement of movements, is, for instance, fairly good at the first moment of hyperbolic immanence, at registering the shortcomings of the world today on many fronts. However, it appears weaker at the second moment, at the consolidation of change. Similarly, the Durban Group for Climate Justice is very powerful at the analytical level and at the declaration of intentions. However, it is—understandably—less powerful when it comes to actual change.
In the hyposition-hyposement—binary logic—a hypo-positioncorresponds to the downgraded element. The position—subject, productivity—complements itself by way of the hypo-position—object, sustainable development.
As to the form it must be said the following. Cartesianism attributes to the res cogitans—subject—the ability to actively issue ontological predicates while limiting the res extensa—object—to the passive position of stoically receiving these ontological narratives. Yet what transposes is both transposing—active—and transposed—passive. The suffix “-tion” is added to verbs to denote activity; it refers to an instance of the verbal process. The suffix “—ment,” by contrast, denotes both activity (transposing, hyposing) and passivity (transposed, hyposed); it refers to both an instance and result of the verbal process at issue. To thoroughly corrode the Cartesian chasm, we need to appositely rename “transposition” “transposement” and “hyposing” “hyposement.” However, to mark the subjected, passive voice to which the dichotomous pole of the hyposition-hyposement is put use, we must turn the hypo-position into “hypo-posed,” an exercise duly undertaken as of Chapter Eight.
Hyposition is another name for binary pair, a highly common phenomenon in the epistemological tradition. It engulfs both the initial position—subject, productivity—and its hierarchizing pole orhypo-position-hypo-posed—object, sustainable development.
Cartesianism attributes to the res cogitans—subject—the ability to actively issue ontological predicates while limiting the res extensa—object—the passive position of stoically receiving these ontological narratives. Yet what transposes is both transposing—active—and transposed—passive. The suffix “-tion” is added to verbs to denote activity; it refers to an instance of the verbal process. The suffix “–ment,” by contrast, denotes both activity (hyposing) and passivity (hyposed); it refers to both an instance and result of the verbal process at issue. To thoroughly corrode the Cartesian chasm, we need to appositely rename “hyposition” “hyposement,” just as we rename “transposition” “transposement,” an exercise duly undertaken as of Chapter Eight.
Etymologically the word is made up of the Latin prefix in, “in,” “inside” and a noun derivation of the verb manere, “to remain.” As a result, the rubric “immanence” has been routinely pitted against that of transcendence to refer to the Weltanschauung that sustains that all philosophical (or/and religious) elements are innerwordly. In the context of this book I however sustain that immanence, far from conforming to the hypo-position-hypo-posed—or downgraded element—of transcendence, is its transposition-transposement or third figure. The latter incorporates the former as in my philosophical proposal there are no external elements. Once the case is made in favour of an innerwordly worldview, the cultural matrix (Chapter Four) is rendered the repository of immanence—being therefore exchangeable with the latter.
Instrumentum Movendi (sing) /Instrumenta Movendi (pl):
Instrumenta movendi are loci standi destabilizing counterparts. They must be historically registered as of the Neolithic Revolution and a fortiori with the advent of metallurgy. These are double-edged devices. On the one hand, this Latin signifying banner is translated as “tool of addition mobility” to the one afforded by loci standi. On the other, it is read as “instrument of agitation” also in relation toloci standi. A genetic modified seed, an instance of low-culturalinstrumentum movendi, provides an additional possibility to that of its counter-part loci standi, the organic seed; the former appears indeed as a tool of additional mobility—possibilities—vis-à-vis the latter. Yet the genetically-modified seed is simultaneously destabilizing of the former. When we modify and use such an altered seed we are deferring, delaying, postponing the possibilities of the organic one; the former emerges as an instrument of agitation of the latter.
This altering and deferring effect upon the part of instrumenta movendi over loci standi is called différance, following Derrida’s neologism. Différance exhibits how instrumenta movendi gain their embodiment, embeddedness and contextualization by disembodying, disembedding and decontextualizing loci standi. To put it reversely,instrumenta movendi alter loci standi in a creative manner but they simultaneously deform the latter in a destructive way.
Some further examples of low-cultural instrumenta movendi are automobiles such as cars and trucks. Middle-cultural instances are centralized—in contrast with federal and a fortiori bioregional—forms of governance such as state governments, central banks, the European Union, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. High-culturalforms of instrumenta movendi are ideologies with ecumenical intentions such as liberalism, Marxism, Islam and Christianity; all concepts, idealizations definitory of philosophy and science as epistēmē such as subjective idealism, hypositions, namely, coercive hierarchies appear as another form of high-cultural instrumentum movendi.
Kultur is the ideal state of culture, namely, it is culture in aregime of engaged immanence. It occurs when indeed manufacturers of culture engage their intrinsic immanence or low- middle- and high-cultural loci standi.
Relatedly, philosophy and science as Kultur is pitted against philosophy and science as epistēmē to refer to the fact that in the former case claims to truth are made when in contact with loci standiwhile in the latter case in contact with instrumenta movendi. An instance of philosophy and science as Kultur is when Goethe claims that blue and red are two basic colours—an assertion grounded upon cosmic phenomena. When Newton had earlier asserted that all colours emanate out of a disembodied white colour, we say that this is an instance of science as epistēmē.
Locus standi (sing) /Loci standi (pl):
A literal translation from this Latin form is ‘place(s) of secure repose, stay’ of culture or the cultural matrix. Loci standi manifest themselves at the low- middle- and high-cultural levels. Some examples of low-cultural loci standi are the genome; local species; non-GM seeds; macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and water; ecosystems; the hydraulic cycle; the Earth's carbon-cycling capacity; low entropy. Instances of middle-cultural loci standi are customary law, and local and bioregional politics. Animist worldviews are a form of high-cultural loci standi. So is any philosophy or worldview that does away with provincialism while preserving that which is autochthonous.
Loci standi partially decentre the following hypositions-hyposementor binary pairs: living-organism/inert-matter, theism/atheism, anthropocentrism/ecocentrism. This means that all these positions and corresponding hypo-positions-hypo-poseds are cognitively irrelevant. The perspective advanced by the present book is that of the places of secure stay. Loci standi, as it is the case of instrumenta movendi, are found in networks; they conform to a plurality.
Logic of In-Transitivity:
Philosophy and science as epistēmē is duly claimed to run upon binary logic—leading thereby to a proliferation of hypositions-hyposements. Such a logic operates upon the basis of solipsists positions or concepts—subject, productivity. Such isolation is complemented by its opposite compound—object, sustainable development. In this light, “object” and “sustainable development” emerge as the unproblematized reversals of subject and productivity, respectively. This is to say that the former—the initial position—is the new ground upon which the latter—hypo-posement-hypo-posed—comes to reside and gains a new life of its own. Jacques Derrida claims that binary logic needs to be supplanted by the logic of supplementarity. Derrida sustains that the initial position and subsequently complementinghypo-posement-hypo-posed needs to be added instead of resolved. In his view, it is both “subject” and “object,” both “productivity” and “sustainability” that operate on a par.
A theoretical corpus always favours a perspective. The present book shifts away from Derrida’s import placed upon supplementarity. Rather, it is claimed that the logic of transitivity needs privileging. Namely, philosophical elements must be regarded either as facilitatingtranspositions-transposements or as ecocidal and therefore as hampering them. It is categorized as intransitive that which is disrespectful of the oikos (“self-sufficient household”) and its surroundings. It is, by contrast, characterized as transitive those practices and arrangements that exhibit a respectful communion with the constellation of elements surrounding the oikos. Agri-fuels, to take an example, appear as intransitive—they set into place vast monocultures.
Yet it is not enough to enact a logic that assesses practices as transitive or intransitive according to their relation with the household and its surroundings; what emerges as intransitive exacts due transmutation—cf. hyperbolic immanence.
Low-culture is that cognitive part of culture that deals with the aspects that surround our enworlded, embodied condition. It basically discusses the issues of reproduction, reminding us that productive processes are subsumed to the latter. We say that low-culture is embodied when bio- and ecological rhythms are respected. A low-culture is disembodied when those rhythms are uprooted by productive ones. The bicycle is a disembodied low-culture—it uses a great deal of metal.
Low- Middle- and High-Culture:
The division low- middle- and high-culture corresponds to a cognitive attempt to reunify the disciplines. Each part of culture or the cultural matrix looks at an aspect of knowledge without overlooking the rest. That is why we mention the three cultural parts at a time.
Manufacturer of Culture:
These are loci standi regarded as simultaneously low- middle- & high-cultural entities. As opposed to fossilizations, manufacturers of culture engage immanence directly. They form regimes of unmediated,engaged immanence. An instance of manufacture of culture is the tree as characterized by Brian Cox & Jeff Forshae in The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen, 2011:
"Trees are machines capable of taking an amount of atoms and molecules, break them down, and reorder them to create cooperative colonies made up of billions of individual parts. To this end, they use a molecule called chlorophyll, made up of over a hundred atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen warped in an intricate manner, spattered here and there with few atoms of magnesium and nitrogen. This group of particles is able to capture the light that has crossed the 150 million of kilometers that separate us from our star, a nuclear furnace whose volume is a million times bigger than the Earth, and is able to transfer this energy to the heart of the cells, where it is used to make molecules upon the basis of carbon dioxide and water, in a process where oxygen is given off, so important for life. These molecular chains are the ones that form the superstructure of the trees and of all living beings [...]" (own translation from the Spanish translation, El Universo cuántico: Y por qué todo lo que puede suceder, sucede, translated by Marcos Pérez Sánchez, Barcelona: Debate, 2017: p. 13)
Middle-culture is that cognitive part of culture that deals with our politically embedded condition. It is assumed that the public polity is embedded in ecoregions or culti of Tellus. We say that middle-culture is embedded when political statements emanate from those ecoregions or culti of Tellus. A middle-culture is disembeddeded to the extent that those statements are foreign to the ecoregion where acultus belongs. The Clean Development Mechanism, one of the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, is a disembedded piece of policy. The cultus of Leviathan is using land from less or non-industrialized areas to allegedly offset its emissions of CO2-equivalent. This was a decision taken by ecocratic elites. It doesn’t reflect the will of theculti of Tellus, of the manufacturers of culture inhabiting the non-industrialized corners of the world.
Processes of nomization are related to high-culture. They refer to the process of creating meaning. It is a currency commonly found in the sociology of knowledge.
Philosophy and science as Kultur decentre ontology and enact a methodology that we may call osmogenesis, “the perpetual, impulsive action or activity of engendering; the perennial rebirth of the engagement.”
Plane of Immanence:
In a loose sense this banner is synonymous with the vocable “immanence.” In a more specific manner, largely as it is referred in the frame of this book, it speaks of the French thinker’s Gilles Deleuze’s treatment of the concept. Building upon the seventeenth-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, Deleuze may be the contemporaneous thinker who has most extensively touch upon the issue of immanence, only to tangentially add Antonio Negri and a group of philosophers that orbited around Louis Althusser. In philosophical circles it is said that the concept at issue has been Deleuze’s philosophical quarry—his source of inspiration. Yet it is equally argued that the French late philosopher failed to properly deal with the issue; he rather exhibited a tendency to circumvent it in his writings. The present book sides with this pointed rebuke. It is claimed that the signifying bloc “plane of immanence” is a metaphysical farce. Once the plane at issue is fully released—namely, delinked from its undue association with materialism as modern and postmodern philosophers in the wake of Marx’s victory over Hegel’s idealism have uncritically assumed (Chapter Four), this plane bursts into specific degrees within theconstrained-engaged immanent continuum.
We shall call a “position” that practice which qualifies as “intransitive” in that it breaks down the transitivities—the cycles—of the oikos. Max Weber was in the habit of calling them “concepts.”
As to the form it must be said the following. Cartesianism attributes to the res cogitans—subject—the ability to actively issue ontological predicates while limiting the res extensa—object—the passive position of stoically receiving these ontological narratives. Yet what transposes is both transposing—active—and transposed—passive. The suffix “-tion” is added to verbs to denote activity; it refers to an instance of the verbal process. The suffix “–ment,” by contrast, denotes both activity (transposing, hyposing) and passivity (transposed, hyposed); it refers to both an instance and result of the verbal process at issue. To thoroughly corrode the Cartesian chasm, we need to appositely rename “transposition” “transposement” and “hyposition” “hyposement.”
Contrastingly, a position—e.g., productivity—is endowed with the ability to subject. However, as it forms a hyposition-hyposement with its hypo-position-hypo-posed—sustainable development—it fails to be simultaneously autonomously subjected. Rather, a position is subjected to the hypo-position-hypo-posed or downgraded pole with which it is upon dependant relation for the completion of its significance. It is for that reason that the ending “-tion” of position can be respected—it duly captures its active voice.
Regimes of Constrained-Engaged Immanence:
It is claimed that a plane of immanence is a metaphysical fallacy. Once immanence is fully liberated from Marxian materialist residues (Chapter Four), the plane of immanence appears in concrete degrees of constrained-engaged immanence. This means that the plane of immanence, far from being static, is dynamic. It appears either hampered, confined by restrictive innerwordly elements—instrumenta movendi,fossilizations—or facilitated by conducive innerwordly elements—loci standi, manufacturers of culture. Each manufacturer of culture strikes a regime of a given degree of constrained-engaged immanence when it meets the cultus it belongs to and its eventual fossilizations.
When the manufacturer operates within the cultus of Leviathan, thecultus at issue is pervaded with fossilizations. As a result, the regime that is established leads to a high degree of constrained immanence; the exact degree depends upon the number of presentfossilizations. When Isaac Newton elaborated his theory of colour he used a number of instrumenta movendi—paper, a prism, a window, the postulates of Western materialism. That is why we say that his statements emanated out of a regime of relative constrained immanence.Our Common Future emerges out of a higher degree of constrained immanence. There are a larger number of instrumenta movendi involved in the decision-making process of the report at issue—basic needs intimately bound up with industrial goods, ecocratism, states, development.
When the manufacturer operates within the cultus of Tellus, thecultus at issue is free from fossilizations. Rather, it is built bymanufacturers of culture on the basis of loci standi. As a result, the regime that is established exhibits a high degree of engaged immanence and it is so in absolute terms given the absence of fossilizations. Goethe’s theory of colour emanates out of a regime of engaged immanence. It is only manufacturers of culture—the scientist and their sight, the atmosphere, outer space, the Sun—involved in the construction of this theory.
Situated immanence corresponds to that immanence that exclusively registers regimes of constrained-engaged immanence. The reader should contrast this kind of immanence with hyperbolic immanence.
A transposition conforms to the currency of the cultural matrix par excellence. Following the meaning of the suffix “trans-” in “transposition” as “across,” “over,” we shall call a “transposition” that practice which qualifies as transitive in that it facilitates the cycles of the oikos. In so far as the suffix “trans-” of “transposition” additionally signifies “beyond,” “transposition” not only conforms to the banner for transitivity but also to that of transmutation; to that of correcting and converting “positions”—intransitivities—into “transpositions,” transitivities. The latter is linked to hyperbolic immanence. Organic farming conforms to a transposition, whilst farming with pesticides is a position. Similarly, mobility on foot is a transposition, while going by bicycle and car conforms to two positions.
As to the form it must be said the following. Cartesianism attributes to the res cogitans—subject—the ability to actively issue ontological predicates while limiting the res extensa—object—the passive position of stoically receiving these ontological narratives. Yet what transposes is both transposing—active—and transposed—passive. The suffix “-tion” is added to verbs to denote activity; it refers to an instance of the verbal process. The suffix “–ment,” by contrast, denotes both activity (transposing, hyposing) and passivity (transposed, hyposed); it refers to both an instance and result of the verbal process at issue. To thoroughly corrode the Cartesian chasm, we need to appositely rename “transposition” “transposement” just as we redub “hyposition,” “hyposement,” an exercise duly undertaken as of Chapter Eight.