social imagination – trying ….

to see the bigger picture

some supplements for a comparison between Castoriades’ S(ocial)I(maginary) ..

Castoriadis’s most original and enduring contribution, however, is as the philosopher of the social imagination. The true opposition is not “the individual versus society,” mediated by “intersubjectivity,” but psyche and society as mutually irreducible poles, for the original psychical monad cannot by itself produce social signification. In creating “social imaginary significations” that cannot be deduced from rational or real elements or forces, each society institutes itself–though usually without knowing that it is doing so and in most cases preventing itself, by heteronomous means, from recognizing its own self-institution. Castoriadis’s concept of the “radical social instituting imaginary”–with its enduring difference, and mutual inherence, between “instituting society” and “instituted society”–breaks with both functionalism and structuralism while providing the key to understanding an original form of being, “the social-historical,” a self-instituting and self-altering unity that is irreducible to the physical, the biological, or the psychical.

… and Pierce’s triadic approach of introducing firstness etc….

While semiosis involves a network of relationships without which it just would not make sense, in both senses of the term – it would not be able to generate meaning, and it would be alien to Peircean relational semiotics – Castoriadis’ SI relies on a pollemical or dualistic model.

.. to follow up already here mentioned thoughts which also guided the terminology in the yesterday mentioned article of B. Holmes

conceived as an endless journey from the hardened preconceptions of experience to the reasonable realm of verisimilitude through the fragile (‘airy nothingness’) realm of dreams.
form here
Print Friendly, PDF & Email