Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philosophical Tradition
Gabriel Motzkin
I
n premodern philosophy all relations to another world were
conceived in terms of transcendence. The world that is another
than the one we are in is transcendent to it. The way we get from this
world to that one is through transcending this one. And the presence,
however conceived, of the other world in this one is the presence of
something in this world that is transcendent to it.
In reading Wolfgang Iser’s The Fictive and the Imaginary, it became clear
to me for the first time what is wrong with this conception. It is not a
priori erroneous to suppose that some other world than this one, with
other laws, exists. Nor is it a priori erroneous to suppose that we
conceive of this other world in terms of laws that do not properly belong
to our world. Nor even is it a priori erroneous to suppose that we
conceive of one world in terms of laws that do not properly belong to it,
but that have their origin elsewhere.
The philosophical tradition’s basic error was to presuppose that
absolute transcendence, the act of transcending, and transcendence-in-
immanence, are all the same thing, or indeed that they belong together.
If one substitutes the imaginary for the absolutely transcendent,
whether as dream or reality, the fictionalizing act for the act of
transcending, or of boundary crossing, and the synthesis of absence and
presence, of exclusion and inclusion, of imaginary object and real
object, for the three phenomena labelled transcendence, then instead
of transcendence, one obtains the imaginary, the fictive, and the
synthesis of consciousness and object. While these may belong together,
there is no reason to suppose that they have a common origin, or are
similar phenomena. Iser points out that the source of a phenomenon,
or the reason for it, and the phenomenon itself, are not the same thing.
He does not go as far as Hans Blumenberg, for whom the connection
between a place vacated for a phenomenon and that phenomenon may
be quite happenstance. There is for Iser an inherent link between the
fictive and the imaginary, but it does not derive from an ontological
identity.
In my language, that means not only that the path out of the world
and the place whither we are going, while related, are different. The
relations of constitution between them are also different. Iser’s polemic
is directed against those who would derive the fictive from the real. No
less, however, does his polemic work against those who would derive the
fictive from the imaginary. The transcendent world, the substitute world
of a “reality” beyond itself does not emerge from this one.1 Nor, however,
was this one created through a procession from another one. It is the
main point of the text that world-making takes place between worlds, in
the cross between them, and it is therefore the fictionalizing act that
must be shown in its world-creating order. Instead of immanence in
transcendence, or absolute transcendence, the transcending act be-
comes central.
However, the transcending act becomes central in another way than it
does in most modern philosophy, or indeed in traditional religion. For
this transcending act, Iser’s fictionalizing act, is not a self-transcendence,
a self-invention, or a self-creation, but rather a world-creation. Nowhere
does the self go along entirely with the transcending act. While in Iser’s
model, the self is preserved even while it is annulled in another world,
there is no final synthesis of the real, the fictive, and the imaginary.
In opting for this plurality of modes, Iser clearly sides against a
traditional philosophical view that was current even at the beginning of
this century. However, by refusing the evisceration of the distinction
between the imaginary and the real, Iser seeks a way out of that late
twentieth-century sophism which would derive the identity of both from
the imaginary.
At the beginning of this century, German Idealist philosophy dis-
solved in (at least) three distinct ways. Iser is obligated to two of them
directly, and to a third indirectly. These three ways are signified by the
names Emil Lask, Hans Vaihinger, and Edmund Husserl. Lask appears
in Iser’s work in the guise of Constantine Castoriadis, who, like Lucien
Goldmann and Martin Heidegger, was affected by his modern Neo-
platonism. Vaihinger appears as Vaihinger, a second-rate philosopher
who happened upon, malgré lui, a very interesting theory which has
continued to serve as a reference point. Husserl is rarely discussed
explicitly in Iser’s work, but it is unclear how Iser’s work could have been
written without presupposing Husserl.
As neo-Kantians, Lask and Vaihinger both began with an ideal of a
logic of knowledge that would provide access to laws which could
account for the phenomena that appear to consciousness as indicating
objects that can be presumed to exist in a world that is transcendent to
consciousness. Neither was able to maintain Kant’s equilibrium between
the intuition and the understanding. However, neither replicated the
iser’s anthropological reception 165
the Husserlian one between a thinking consciousness and the things you
can touch or bite, but rather between time-things as being now and me
as never now. In the end, he was in our sense also a traditional
philosopher, because the world of the now-things is ultimately swallowed
up in my world, the apparently nonexisting but actually only existing
world. Nonexistence and existence converge. Heidegger had a different
theory of subjectivity from all the others, including Iser, who also
believes in a weakly cognitive subjectivity, but he could not accept that
the world is composed of different structures that can never add up.
Derrida has quite accurately recognized this problem, but he wishes to
conserve Heidegger’s nihilism in a heterogeneous world-scheme, a
nihilism that is unnecessary for Iser because of what philosophers would
view as Iser’s essential lack of seriousness. The question that should be
posed following Iser is not if the procedure he outlines applies only to
literary texts, as he seems to think it does, but rather whether the good-
faith position must be that all acts function like his fictionalizing acts,
but some are qualified as thetic or doxic, or whatever. However, in that
case the question arises of whether the imaginary only exists for the
fictionalizing act, or for example whether a doxic imaginary exists as
well. One could argue that all acts draw from the same imaginary. I do
not think that this is Iser’s position. One could argue that what the
doxic, the act of belief, confronts, is quite different from what the
fictionalizing confronts, so different that it cannot at all be called
imaginary. Finally one could argue that there are different imaginaries
that make themselves available to different acts, just as there are
different possible worlds, and that following Iser we have to understand
these as different ontological worlds. We thus find ourselves in a limitless
set of different ontological worlds all the time.
II
human relation to the external world.5 I believe that this is not quite
precise: there is a great deal of counter-evidence. But certainly very few
twentieth-century thinkers have argued for the possibility of self-perception
based on external observation. A behaviorist would argue for such a
possibility, but then the self-observation in question is as external as were
Hermann Ebbinghaus’s memory-experiments.
Lask engaged in a lengthy polemic against the possibility of arriving at
truth through the logic of reflection, through self-reflection, indeed
through any kind of introspection. Vaihinger thought that only a limited
kind of self-observation is possible, a self-observation that recognizes the
fictional nature of the as-if sphere, and then fictionally posits external
reality by fictionally doubling the sensations that are the basis for as-if
representations (FI 144). Husserl believed that consciousness could
make itself into its own object, but only through the double procedure
of focussing on itself as its object and at the same time bracketing out
the question of its existence. One should note that this is not the way in
which Husserl thought external objects are constituted. External objects
are constituted through noemata. Bracketing out the external objects
makes the noemata visible. But here the object in question is itself the
noema. Normally in order to constitute the noema, I first have to focus
on some object, and then extract the noema from it. There is no blank
noema. Therefore consciousness, while a consciousness of objects,
cannot be an object. If consciousness is not an object, then it cannot be
perceived in the same way. Husserl actually sought to avoid this
conclusion, especially in his later writings. The consequence, however,
was, that like the Idealists, he then had to argue for the possibility of
deducing perception from self-perception and not self-perception from
perception. However, he did not really believe that we perceive con-
sciousness. The sense of external time is founded in the sense of internal
time, but the sense of internal time can only be visible through
extraction from a process that is itself not just time, such as listening to
a melody. Thus self-perception is actually not deduced from perception
at all, but rather from some other act, and a hiatus is required for self-
perception. Husserl is then forced to conclude that there really exist two
quite different kinds of external perception, sense-perception and
object-perception. Self-perception would then be an act between the
two. In that case, it must be modally different from external perception.
Hence perception cannot be self-perception, but, unlike Kantian and
Hegelian perception, must be able to cross the world-boundaries,
especially the world-boundary between inside and outside.
Heidegger believed that there is only one world and that in that world
we simply can never perceive ourselves. He concluded that we cannot
perceive ourselves because there is no inside, no distinction between self
iser’s anthropological reception 171
Christo work, one is actually seeing part of the border at each moment,
although one can never see the whole border. In the same way when we
see the world, we see it enframed so that it has a border. However in
seeing the real world, I assume that the real world has no border, that my
sense of a border at thirty-seven degrees and twenty-eight degrees is an
illusion;6 whereas through the fictionalizing act we make the border
explicit. No, that is wrong: we accord truth-value to the border which we
denied to the border of perception in the real world.
However, there can be no closure because while we can hold both
contradictory beliefs simultaneously, we cannot make them dialectically
into one and the same belief: I can believe that I can see the border, the
frame, the closure of a work of art, while I also believe that it has no
border, and that I also do not see the border of my perception of this
room, while also believing that this border of perception is really there,
but I cannot believe that there is any way in which these two quite
distinct doxic imputations are identical. In reading this paper, I can both
be conscious of myself and myself-reading-this-paper, and moreover be
conscious of an identity between the two, but this identity is not a strict
identity and can never be one. Therefore the border crossing it takes to
be able to read this paper means that I can see myself both perspectivally
and aperspectivally, but I cannot believe, as Kant did, that there is some
point of view which totalizes all perspectives, that all points of view seek
unity. Hence Iser turns to the philosophy of play, for everything is to and
fro. Anthropology emerges from the recognition of difference. It
assumes the ability to take on another point of view, but it also assumes
that Bali will never be Konstanz.
There is a quite banal danger here, and I think a clear one:
abandoning a faculty theory of human capabilities means that there can
be no faculty theory of human nature. We are not alike because we are
possessed of similar faculties. All men are not created equal. If they are to
be viewed as equal, it must be on some other basis than a logic of
participation in a common essence. I think that there is a solution to this
problem in the concept of the fictionalizing act: it is not because we
possess common faculties, nor because we hold the same imaginary
absolutes, that a common humanity is to be desired, but rather because
of the quite universal capability of fictionalizing, that is, of seeing aspects
from different worlds. Derrida, following Husserl, is quite right that that
is not enough. Husserl wanted to limn a consciousness that is the same
in God, humans, and animals, with no difference—and the Jewish
convert quite religiously believed in his Protestant God. Derrida accuses
Heidegger of not having thought of the problem of animals in Being and
Time. Any anthropology raises this kind of question, for in denying the
possibility of a universal perspective, it must affirm the universal
174 new literary history
1 Wolfgang Iser, The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology (Baltimore,
1993), p. 3; hereafter cited in text as FI.
2 Lask’s main works are collected in Emil Lask, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Eugen Herrigel
(Tübingen, 1923).
3 Hans Vaihinger, Die Philosophie des Als Ob. System der theoretischen, praktischen und religiösen
Fiktionen der Menschheit auf Grund eines idealistischen Positivismus, 8th ed. (Leipzig, 1922), p.
109; hereafter cited in text; in English as The Philosophy of “As If”: A System of the Theoretical,
Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind, tr. C. K. Ogden (London, 1968).
4 Manfred Sommer, Evidenz im Augenblick. Eine Phänomenologie der reinen Empfinding
(Frankfurt, 1987).
5 Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought
(Berkeley, 1993).
6 For a discussion of the issue of the borders of the visual field see Michael Kubovy, The
Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 104–11.