Transgresivnost v znanosti, literaturi in humanistiki
Dejan Kos
Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za germanistiko, Maribor, Slovenija dejan.kos@um.si
Pojem transgresivnosti se prvič pojavi v zgodnjem novem veku in odtlej ga najdemo v pravnih, teoloških, filozofskih in (literarno)znanstvenih diskurzih. Večinoma se nanaša na pojave, ki prestopajo meje običajnega, se odmikajo odpričakovanih praks oziroma so v nasprotju s temeljnimi komunikacijskimi, družbenimi ali moralnimi konvencijami. Njegov pomen še ni izostren, vendar ni dvoma, daje transgresivnost povezana s funkcijskimi razsežnostmi kognitivnih in družbenih sistemov. Vzpostavljanje, obvladovanje in odpravljanje nekonvencionalnih stanj sodi namreč med temeljne mehanizme, ki zagotavljajo prilagodljivost v kompleksnih okoljih. Ti se v različnih družbenih sistemih, kakršni so znanost, humanistika in literatura, kažejo na različne načine.
Ključne besede: transgresivnost / literarni sistem / humanistika / epistemologija / kontingenca
UDK 165:001.3
Uvod
Dostopni svetovi so bolj ali manj predvidljivi. Stabilna stanja in ponavljajoče se procese, ki to predvidljivost zagotavljajo, najdemo povsod: v nas, ki okolje opazujemo, in v okolju samem. Stabilnost določa meje pričakovanega, omogoča orientacijo in zagotavlja preživetje. V naravoslovnih, kognitivnih in družboslovnih znanostih so mehanizmi vzpostavljanja tovrstnih stanj opisani s pojmi habitualizacije, asimilacije, akomodacije, konvencionalizacije, shematizacije, kanonizacije ipd.
V kolikšni meri strukture dostopnih svetov izhajajo iz spoznavnih sistemov samih in v kolikšni meri so, nasprotno, določene z okoljem, je vprašanje, ki bi zahtevalo posebno obravnavo. Bolj nas bo zanimala zmožnost sistemov za premišljanje in preseganje norm, načel in mehanizmov lastnega delovanja. Pojem transgresije se bo torej nanašal na sistemsko sa-morefleksijo o kriterijih identitete, pozornost pa bo posvečena naslovnim področjem: znanosti, literaturi in humanistiki. Poskušali bomo odgovoriti na vprašanje o funkcijah transgresij.
Znanost
Področje znanosti se je v večtisočletnem razvoju spreminjalo, vendar je vseskoz ostajalo v znamenju elaborirane racionalnosti (prim. Ede in Cormack 199). V zgodnejših obdobjih so se v različnih konstelacijah prepletali matematični, metafizični, hermenevtični in empirični diskurzi, v zadnjih dvesto letih pa se je univerzalnost razkrojila, kriteriji znanstvenosti pa zaostrili. Ključna je postala povezanost treh kriterijev: teoretičnosti, empiričnosti in uporabnosti. Odtlej se kot znanstvena dejavnost oziroma disciplina uveljavi tista, ki (a) temelji na abstraktnih, logično zgrajenih pojmovnih sistemih, (b) s pomočjo teh sistemov organizira metodično pridobljene empirične podatke in (c) na podlagi tako pridobljenih teoretič-no-empiričnih modelov ponuja preverljive in ponovljive rešitve družbeno relevantnih problemov. Za uveljavljanje teh kriterijev poskrbi ustrezna institucionalna infrastruktura. Po tej poti se znanost sčasoma vzpostavi kot sorazmerno avtonomen družbeni sistem s specifičnimi pravili in družbenimi funkcijami.
Z osamosvajanjem znanstvenega sistema se spreminja tudi literarna veda. Težnje po zaostrovanju znanstvenih kriterijev so opazne vsaj od pozitivizma 19. stoletja naprej in se okrepijo s t. i. kulturnim obratom v drugi polovici 20. stoletja. Najizrazitejše so v študijah, ki se preusmerjajo od samih literarnih tekstov h kontekstom literarne komunikacije, pri tem pa v imenu preverljivosti ugotovitev uporabljajo metode naravoslovnih in družboslovnih disciplin (prim. Dovic 11—20). Na tem polu literarne vede smo danes priča širokemu naboru interdisciplinarnih povezav.
Zaradi svoje pragmatičnosti empirične znanosti niso naklonjene tran-sgresivnemu mišljenju. V težnji po čim večji uporabnosti rezultatov vso pozornost usmerjajo k reševanju problemov v opazovalčevem okolju, premisleki o izhodiščih in omejitvah lastne dejavnosti pa se z njihovega gledišča zdijo odvečni ali celo moteči. Ker temeljni znanstveni kriteriji izhajajo iz osnovnih mehanizmov racionalnosti (kavzalnih povezav, koherentnih struktur, konsistentnih modelov), bi problematizacija teh privedla do stika z iracionalnim, kar je za znanstveno mišljenje nesprejemljivo.
Največ samorefleksije zmorejo diskurzi, ki se naslanjajo na spoznavna izhodišča konstruktivizma. Osrednji pojmi tu izhajajo iz kibernetičnih konceptov samoreferencialnosti, krožnosti, zaprtosti in samoorganizacije (Glasersfeld 198—219). V tej zvezi je zlasti zanimiv pojem opazovalca drugega reda. Predmet opazovanja postane prav opazovanje samo, razmerje med opazovalcem in njegovim okoljem pa se odmakne od naivnega realizma. Toda konstruktivistična samorefleksija praviloma prevzame status realistične perspektive in zato ne vodi nujno do refleksije o mejah znanstve-
nega spoznanja ali do transgresivnosti. Razen tega ostaja konstruktivizem večinoma na ravni spoznavne teorije in je le redko vgrajen v raziskovalno prakso.
Nenaklonjenost transgresijam ne pomeni, da je znanost predvidljiva in konformistična. Nasprotno, med njenimi maksimami sta kreativnost in inovativnost, ki že po definiciji vključujeta preseganje znanega in odmik od konvencionalnosti. Vendar se tovrstni odmiki, kamor spadajo razvoj novih metod, modelov, tehnologij, konceptov, paradigem in interdisciplinarnih povezav, odvijajo v okviru sistemske logike. Sistem jih bodisi sprejme kot učinkovite strategije reševanja problemov in jih vzpostavi kot novo normo bodisi jih zavrže. Omejenost znanstvenega spoznanja pa večinoma ostaja slepa pega znanstvenega diskurza.
O transgresijah bi lahko govorili kvečjemu v primerih, kjer kriteriji znanstvenosti zgubljajo ekskluzivno vlogo. To se največkrat zgodi pri stikih med različnimi družbenimi sistemi, na primer med znanostjo na eni strani ter ekonomijo, politiko, pravom, religijo ali umetnostjo na drugi. Sistemi lahko v stičnih prostorih izpolnjujejo svoje funkcije na način simbioze ali hegemonije.1 So pa v vsakem primeru tudi medsistemske povezave večinoma normativno urejene, zato je njihova transgresivnost le navidezna.
Literatura
Kakor znanost je tudi literatura na eni strani vpeta v vsakokratne družbene kontekste in se skupaj z njimi spreminja, na drugi strani pa vseskozi ohranja trajne funkcionalne značilnosti. Od ostalih diskurzov se razlikuje po tem, da razvija tiste potenciale pisne kulture, ki izhajajo iz dekonte-kstualizacije komunikacijskih procesov. Kot je znano, pisava ločuje komunikacijo od telesa, vzajemnega opazovanja komunikacijskih partnerjev in skupnega komunikacijskega konteksta. Na ta način širi prostor avtonomije pri konstruiranju smisla in izostri zavest o tem, da so referenčni okvir komunikacije kognitivno proizvedeni modeli sveta. Ker so ti modeli arbitrarni in nedostopni zaznavi, skriptografske in tipografske tradicije spodbujajo uvide v interaktivno naravo diskurza o družbeno sprejetih verzijah dejanskega sveta. Tovrstne potenciale najizraziteje razvijajo fikcijski in večpomenski teksti, ki s slabljenjem referencialnih in konsenzualnih komunikacijskih konvencij krepijo mehanizme dekontekstualizacije in vzpostavljajo prostor alternativnih modelov sveta.
Vendar takšna nekonvencionalnost še ni transgresija. V primeru literature so kršitve komunikacijskih konvencij vgrajene v diskurzivno logiko
in so sčasoma same postale norma. To pomeni, da jih udeleženci v literarnem sistemu pričakujejo, pri čemer nista bistvena ne obseg njihovega udejanjenja ne področje sistema, ki ga obsegajo. Možnosti so tako rekoč neomejene: lahko gre za poigravanje z estetskimi postopki, pripovednimi strategijami, koncepti časa in prostora, žanrskimi shemami, intertekstual-nimi povezavami itn. (prim. Juvan 14).
Podobno kakor pri znanosti lahko tudi pri literaturi o transgresiji govorimo šele v primeru, ko postane vprašljiva sama identiteta sistema. Literarni diskurzi presegajo lastne identifikacijske kriterije, ko prevzemajo funkcije drugih sistemov, med katerimi je tudi znanost. Literarno konstrukcijo alternativnih svetov lahko na primer razumemo kot izostritev zavesti o interaktivni, arbitrarni in konstruirani naravi slehernega diskurza o realnem svetu. Tej izkušnji je mogoče pripisati spoznavne funkcije onstran kategorij, ki vzpostavljajo identiteto sistema. Je komplement tistim znanstvenim spoznanjem, ki pravi, da so vsi dostopni svetovi — realni in imaginarni — iz iste snovi: iz kemičnih in električnih procesov v možganih.
Kadar izkušnja nepresežne arbitrarnosti svetov zbudi slutnjo tistega, kar je presežno in nearbitrarno, pa lahko dobijo literarne transgresije tudi metafizično razsežnost.
Humanistika
Humanistika ne vzpostavlja tako jasnih norm in konvencij lastnega delovanja kakor empirične znanosti in literatura. Na eni strani je zaznamovana s težnjo po objektivizaciji svojih predmetnih področij (večinoma so to mišljenje, jezik, umetnost in kultura), na drugi strani pa je zanjo značilna visoka stopnja samorefleksivnosti in večperspektivnosti. Postopke verifikacije nadomešča logika t. i. hermenevtične argumentacije, pri tem pa samorefleksivnost in večperspektivnost nista niti v funkciji preverljivosti in uporabnosti (kakor v primeru empiričnih znanosti) niti v funkciji semantične odprtosti (kakor v primeru literature). Medtem ko empirične znanosti iz logike svojega diskurza izločajo transgresije, literarni sistem pa jih v logiko svojega diskurza vključuje kot svojo temeljno konvencijo, se zdi, da je humanistika vseskoz v prehodnem oziroma transgresivnem prostoru med opisi zakonitosti v opazovanih področjih in refleksijami o zakonitostih lastnega opazovanja.
Latentna in neobvladana transgresivnost privede med drugim tudi do konfliktnega razmerja med humanistiko in empiričnimi znanostmi. Ko s hitrim vzponom naravoslovja in družboslovja »trdi« standardi znanstve-nosti prevzamejo prevladujoč in ekskluziven položaj, postanejo discipline,
ki teh standardov ne dosegajo, marginalizirane, in sicer tako ekonomsko kakor simbolno. Situacija se je zaostrila zlasti v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja, ko sta empirična in humanistična paradigma nastopali v antagonističnih vlogah. V zadnjih desetletjih se krepijo težnje po njunem zbliževanju, vendar se humanistične študije še zmeraj težko odpovejo obrambni drži. Težave so na videz nerešljive: prevzemanje empiričnih metod ogroža identiteto humanistike, zavračanje teh metod pa njen ugled.
Pot do rešitve problema gre najbrž iskati v odpravljanju vrednostne asimetrije: humanistika naj se zgleduje po empiričnih znanostih v tistih razsežnostih, v katerih so te znanosti učinkovitejše (zlasti v pragmatični sintezi teoretičnosti, empiričnosti in uporabnosti), vendar naj potencialov samorefleksivnega in večperspektivnega mišljenja ne razume kot episte-moloških pomanjkljivosti. Dodatna spodbuda v tej smeri prihaja tudi iz uporabnih znanosti samih, ki v zadnjem času odkrivajo pomen herme-nevtičnih metod pri vrednotenju empiričnih podatkov (Hladnik 329). Res je, da »empiriki« hierarhičnega razmerja med paradigmama še zdaleč niso pripravljeni preseči, vendar bi zagovornikom humanistike koristilo ravno to, da bi pozornost preusmerili k spoznavnim prednostim samorefleksiv-nega in transgresivnega mišljenja in zaostrili zavest o tem, da je premislek o mejah lastnega mišljenja pomemben dejavnik v ekonomiji orientacijskih strategij.
Humanistične discipline bi najbrž morale priznati, da z empiričnimi znanostmi ne morejo tekmovati na področju pragmatičnega reševanja družbeno relevantnih problemov, in se obenem zavedati, da razvijajo spoznavne potenciale, ki v disciplinah, osredotočenih izključno na predmete svojega opazovanja, ostajajo nerazviti. Z vključitvijo opazovalčeve perspektive v elaborirane opise okolja namreč humanistika spodbuja ne le temeljni premislek o pojmu družbene relevantnosti, temveč omogoča tudi več kot zgolj intuitivne vpoglede v razmerja med arbitrarnimi in nearbi-trarnimi razsežnostmi sveta. Ti vpogledi omogočajo učinkovitejše obvladovanje kontingence in ne spodbujajo njenega izrivanja iz logike opazu-jočega diskurza.
Sinergijo med empiričnim in samorefleksivnim pristopom bi lahko ponazorili z drobnim primerom s področja orientacijskih strategij. Kot je znano, empirična znanost izhaja iz domneve, da se kognitivni sistemi razvijajo s povečevanjem kompleksnosti centralnega živčnega sistema. Visoka stopnja kompleksnosti ima na videz nasprotujoča si učinka: omogoča prilagodljivost pri orientaciji v okolju, hkrati pa privede do avtonomije oziroma funkcionalne zaprtosti sistema. Prilagodljivost se kaže v širokem naboru orientacijskih strategij, avtonomija pa se nanaša na lastnosti sistemov, da sami razvijajo kriterije vrednotenja svojih lastnih procesov
(Roth, »Gehirn« 178). Ob tem se postavlja več vprašanj. Kaj nam lahko orientacijske strategije povedo o svetu, če vemo, da imajo svoj izvor v sistemih, ki imajo dostop le do lastnih stanj? Kaj lahko na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev rečemo o mejah spoznanja? Natančneje: kdo je subjekt spoznavnih procesov in kaj je njihov objekt?
Nevrobiologija in samorefleksija v tej zvezi prihajata do iste ugotovitve: pojma subjekta in objekta je treba na novo določiti. Koncept jaza ni primeren za vlogo nosilca kognitivnih procesov. Subjekt je kvečjemu nasledek kognitivne samoorganizacije. Enako velja za konstrukt svobodne volje (Roth, Fühlen 494—544). Čeprav neradi priznamo, smo to vedeli že od nekdaj. Sleherno naše dejanje je v celoti določeno z dejavniki, ki jih nismo sami izbrali in na katere nimamo nikakršnega vpliva. Kakor nismo izbrali svojega telesa, nismo izbrali okolja, v katerem smo zgradili svoj svet, in prav tako ne izbiramo svojih lastnih želja. Izvir moči ni v nas samih. Na podoben način se razkroji tudi predmet našega spoznanja: že dolgo vemo, da zaznave lahko primerjamo le z drugimi zaznavami, ne pa z okoljem (Schmidt 13). Vemo tudi, da je svet dostopen izključno v modusu kriterijev, ki so imanentni spoznavnemu procesu. Vse, kar je z njimi nezdružljivo, ostaja nedoumljivo.
Ko domislimo pojem kognitivne avtonomije, se na mestih, na katerih smo pričakovali stebre sveta, razkrijeta praznina in nemoč. Povezava med empirično refleksijo in kognitivno samorefleksijo nas je pripeljala do brezna odsotnosti. Če ne prej, je zdaj, v jedru problema, nastopil trenutek, v katerem slišimo glas pesnika, odposlanca nedoumljivosti: »Toda kjer je nevarnost / raste tudi Rešilno«. (Hölderlin, Patmos) In kaj je »Rešilno«? Čas je za končno transgresijo.
Iz brezna odsotnosti zraste zavest o tem, da obstoj sveta ni samoumeven. Odsotnost niča postane enako nedoumljiva, kakor je nedoumljiv nič sam. V stiku s praznino se dotaknemo sile, ki je zanikala neobstoj. Moč, iz katere smo, prepoznamo takrat v vsem, kar obstaja. Ko smo se odrekli moči, smo se odrekli nemoči. To je epistemologija ljubezni. Končna transgresija nas je privedla do roba sveta in tam smo v drugem našli temelj svojega obstoja.
Kakor vsako čustvo je tudi ljubezen povezana s telesom, z izkušnjo življenja. Z njo je vsako branje živo. Znanost, humanistika in literatura jo brez težav vgradijo v svoja izhodišča kot etično držo. Če spoznanje izhaja iz evolucije, potem lahko evolucija izhaja iz takšnega spoznanja.
OPOMBA
1 Očiten primer simbioze je poljudna znanost, hegemonija pa je značilna za politične in ekonomske manipulacije z znanostjo.
LITERATURA
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2004.
Ede, Andrew, in Lesley B. Cormack. History of Science in Society: From Philosophy to Utility.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Glasersfeld, Ernst von. Wissen, Sprache und Wirklichkeit. Arbeiten zum radikalen Konstruktivismus.
Braunschweig in Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1987. Hladnik, Miran. »Količinske in empirične raziskave literature.« Slavistična revija 43.3 (1995): 319-340.
Juvan, Marko. History and Poetics of Intertextuality. West Lafayette (IN): Purdue University Press, 2008.
Roth, Gerhard. Fühlen, Denken, Handeln. Wie das Gehirn unser Verhalten steuert. Frankfurt ob Majni: Suhrkamp, 2003.
---. »Gehirn und Selbstorganisation«. Selbstorganisation. Aspekte einer wissenschaftlichen
Revolution. Ur. W. Krohn in G. Küppers. Braunschweig in Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1990. 167-180.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Kognitive Autonomie und soziale Orientierung. Frankfurt ob Majni: Suhrkamp, 1994.
Transgressiveness in Science, the Humanities and Literature
Dejan Kos
Faculty of Arts, Department of German Studies, Maribor, Slovenia dejan.kos@um.si
The concept of transgressiveness first appeared during the Early Modern Age, and can since then be found in legal, theological, scientific andphilosophical discourses. It predominantly refers to phenomena that transcend the limits of the ordinary, shift from expectedpractices and defy the fundamental conventions of communication, society or morality. Although its meaning is not sharply defined, there is no doubt that transgressiveness is linked to the vitalfunctional dimensions of cognitive and social systems, since establishing, controlling and eliminating unconventional states is part and parcel of thefundamental mechanisms that ensure adaptability in complex environments. Of course, these mechanisms manifest themselves in various ways in different social systems such as science, the humanities and literature.
Keywords: transgressiveness / the literary system / the humanities / epistemology / Contingency
UDK 165:001.3 Introduction
Accessible realities are more or less predictable. Stable states and recurring processes ensuring this predictability can be found everywhere: in ourselves, who observe the environment, and in the environment itself. Stability defines the limits of expectation, enables orientation and ensures survival. In the natural, cognitive and social sciences, mechanisms for establishing these states are described by the concepts of habitualisation, assimilation, accommodation, conventionalisation, schematisation, canonisation, etc.
To what extent the structures of accessible realities originate from the cognitive systems themselves, and to what extent from the environment, are complicated questions, but this will not be the focus of this essay. I will concentrate more on the capacity of systems to reflect upon and transcend the norms, principles and mechanisms of their functioning. Therefore, the concept of transgression will relate to systemic self-reflection regarding threshold values. I will focus on the fields referred to in the title: science,
217
Primerjalna književnost, Volume 35, Number 2, Ljubljana, August 2012
literature and the humanities. I will try to answer the question of the function of transgressions.
Science
The field of science has changed over the thousands of years of its development. Nevertheless, it has always retained the mark of elaborate rationality (Ede and Cormack 199). In earlier periods, mathematical, metaphysical, hermeneutic and empirical discourses were intertwined in different constellations. However, during the last 200 years, there occurred an erosion of universality, while the scientific criteria became more rigid. Crucial becomes the connection between three norms: theoreticality, em-piricality, applicability. Since then, an activity qualifies as scientific, if (a) it is based upon abstract, logically constructed conceptual systems, (b) it organises methodically acquired empirical data by means of these systems, and (c) based on these models, it offers verifiable and reproducible solutions to socially relevant problems. The relevant institutional infrastructure ensures that the aforementioned norms are enforced. In this way, science gradually establishes itself as a relatively autonomous social system with specific rules and social functions.
During the process whereby the scientific system became independent, literary criticism was also transformed. Tendencies towards establishing more rigid scientific criteria have been evident at least since the era of positivism in the nineteenth century, and they gained particular strength during the so-called cultural turn in the second half of the twentieth century. Such tendencies are most explicitly evident in studies that redirect the focus from the literary texts themselves to the context of literary communication. In these studies, the methods of natural and social sciences are used, and the criterion of verifiability is taken into account (Dovic 11—20). Nowadays, we are witnessing a wide range of interdisciplinary connections in this spectrum of literary criticism.
Because of their pragmatism, empirical sciences are not favourably disposed towards transgressive thought. Trying to achieve the greatest possible degree of applicability, these sciences direct all their attention towards solving the problems in the observer's environment, while any reflection on the origins and limitations of their own functioning seems from their perspective redundant or even disruptive. This is all the more so, since the fundamental scientific norms are derived from basic mechanisms of rationality such as causal connections, coherent structures and consistent models. Reaching beyond these norms would therefore necessarily lead to
contact with the irrational, which is, of course, unacceptable to scientific thought.
Discourses dependant on the cognitive origins of constructivism come closest to the logic of self-reflection. Here, the central ideas originate from the cybernetic concepts of self-referentiality, circularity, insularity and self-organisation (Glasersfeld 198—219). In this regard, the concept of the second-order observer is especially interesting. Observation itself becomes the object of observation, while the relation between the observer and his or her environment shifts away from naive realism. However, constructiv-ist self-reflection usually adopts the status of a realistic perspective, and thus does not necessarily lead to reflection on the limits of scientific cognition or to transgressiveness. Furthermore, more often than not, constructivism remains on the level of cognitive theory and is seldom incorporated into research practice.
Of course, aversion to transgression does not signify that science is predictable or conformist. On the contrary, among its maxims are creativity and innovativeness, which by definition include reaching beyond the known, as well as a shift away from conventionality. However, such shifts — for instance, the development of new methods, models, technologies, concepts, paradigms and interdisciplinary connections — are, of course, taking place in the framework of systemic logic. The system either accepts these as effective solutions for problems and establishes them as the new norm, or rejects them. The limitations of scientific cognition essentially remain a blind spot of scientific discourse.
We could perhaps speak of transgressions — in the narrower sense of the word — in instances where scientific criteria are losing their exclusive role. This is most frequently the case in hybrid zones between different social systems, for instance, in contacts between science on one side, and economy, politics, law, religion or, say, art, on the other. Such boundary crossing can fulfil the functions of two or more systems by means of symbiosis or hegemony.1 In any case, these intersystemic connections are for the most part standardised and hence merely give the appearance of being transgressive.
Literature
Similarly to science, literature is, on one side, integrated into its social contexts, changing along with these contexts, while on the other side, it always preserves certain basic functional characteristics. Literature differs from other discourses in the sense that it develops those potentials of
writing culture that stem from the decontextualisation of communication processes. Writing separates communication from the body, from the mutual observation of the communication partners and from the perception of the collective communication situation. In this way, the space of autonomy for constructing meanings expands, and the awareness that cognitively produced models of the world form the reference framework for communication increases. Because these models are arbitrary and inaccessible to perception, scryptographic and typographic traditions stimulate insights into the interactive nature of the discourse on the socially accepted versions of the real world. These kinds of potentials are most distinctly developed in fictional texts and texts with multiple meanings, which, through the weakening of referential and consensual conventions, strengthen the mechanisms of decontextualisation and establish space for alternative models of the world.
However, even this kind of unconventionality does not yet signify transgression. In the case of literature, the breaking of communication conventions is incorporated into the discursive logic, and has gradually become a norm in its own right. It is expected by participants in the literary system. The extent to which this break is realised and the sphere of the system which it encompasses are not of crucial importance here. The possibilities are practically unlimited: the break may involve playing with aesthetic processes, narrative strategies, concepts of time and space, genre schemes, intertextual connections, etc. (Juvan 14).
As in science, in literature transgression occurs only when the identity of the system itself becomes questionable. Literary discourses weaken their own identification criteria by adopting the functions of other systems, including scientific ones. For instance, the construction of alternative worlds can be understood as a sharpening of awareness about the interactive, arbitrary and constructed nature of each and every discourse about the real world. Thus, cognitive functions beyond the categories that establish the system's identity can be attributed to this aesthetic experience. In other words, the aesthetic experience complements the kind of scientific observation that maintains that all accessible worlds — real and imaginary — consist of the same substance: the chemical and electrical processes in the brain.
And when the experience of the formalisable arbitrariness of worlds elicits a premonition of that which is unformalisable and non-arbitrary, these aesthetic transgressions can acquire a metaphysical dimension.
The humanities
The humanities do not establish norms and conventions for their functioning that are as clear as those characteristic of empirical sciences and literature. They are characterised by a tendency towards objectification of their fields (mainly thought, language, art and culture), on one side, and a high degree of self-reflection and multiperspectivity, on the other. The processes of verification are replaced by the logic of 'hermeneutic reasoning', whereby self-reflection and multiperspectivity are not in the service of verifiability and applicability (as in science), nor are they in the service of semantic openness (as in literature). While science excludes transgressions from the logic of its discourse, the literary system incorporates them as a fundamental convention, and it appears that the humanities are always located in the transitional or transgressive space between descriptions of the laws of the observed fields and reflections about the laws of self-observation.
Latent and uncontrolled transgressiveness leads, inter alia, to a conflicting relation between the humanities and the empirical sciences. When, along with the rapid ascent of natural and social sciences, the 'hard' scientific standards assume the dominant and exclusive position, the disciplines that do not meet these standards become marginalised in the economic as well as in the symbolic sense. The situation became particularly critical in the 1970s and 1980s, with empirical and humanistic paradigms playing antagonistic roles. Although in recent decades tendencies towards bringing them closer together have strengthened, the humanities still only exceptionally retreat from their defensive stance. The problem seems unsolva-ble: the adoption of empirical methods endangers the humanities' identity, whereas their rejection endangers the humanities' reputation.
When trying to solve the problem, an elimination of the asymmetry in terms of values is probably a step in the right direction: the humanities should model themselves on empirical sciences in the dimensions in which the latter are more effective (for instance, in pragmatic syntheses of theoreticality, empiricality and applicability), while refusing to perceive the potential for self-reflective and multi-perspective thinking as an epistemo-logical shortcoming. Additional stimulation in this direction comes from the applied sciences themselves, which have recently been discovering the importance of hermeneutic methods in assessing empirical data (Hladnik 329). It is true that the 'empiricists' are far from willing to transcend the hierarchical relations between the two paradigms, but this is precisely why advocates of the humanities would actually benefit from redirecting their attention towards the cognitive advantages of self-reflective and transgres-
sive thinking, and also from heightening their awareness of the concept that contemplation of the limits of one's thought is an important factor in the economy of orientation strategies.
The humanities would probably have to admit that they cannot compete with the empirical sciences in the field of finding pragmatic solutions for socially relevant problems; on the other side, they should also be aware that they can develop cognitive potential that remains unutilised in the disciplines that focus only on the objects of their observation. By incorporating the observer's perspective into elaborate descriptions of the environment, the humanities not only stimulate fundamental reflection on the concept of social relevance, but also stimulate more than merely intuitive insights into relations between the arbitrary and non-arbitrary dimensions of the world. It is precisely these insights that are able to cope with contingency more efficiently than mere exclusions of contingency from the logic of the observing discourse.
Let me conclude by illustrating the synergy between the empirical and self-reflective approaches with a short example from the field of orientation strategies. In neurobiology it can be assumed that cognitive systems develop along with the increasing complexity of the central nervous system. A high degree of complexity has two seemingly contradictory effects: on one side, it ensures adaptability of orientation in the environment, and on the other, it leads to the autonomy or functional insularity of the system. Adaptability is manifested in an extensive repertoire of orientation strategies, while autonomy stems from the tendency of systems to develop criteria for evaluating their processes by themselves (Roth, »Gehirn« 178). Thus, the crucial question at this point is, what can orientation strategies tell us about the world if we are aware that they originate in systems that have access only to their own states? In light of these findings, what can we say about the limits of cognition? More precisely: who is the subject of the cognitive processes, and what is their object?
In this context, neurobiology and self-reflection come to the same conclusion: the concepts of subject and object need to be redefined. On one side, the concept of self is not suitable to be the carrier of cognitive processes. At most, the subject is the result of cognitive self-organisation. The same holds true for the construct of free will (Roth, Fuhlen 494—544). We have long known this, although we are reluctant to admit it. Each of our actions is entirely conditioned by factors that were not chosen by ourselves, and which we cannot influence in any way whatsoever. We did not choose our own bodies, we did not choose the environment in which we have constructed our world, nor did we choose our desires. The source of power is not within us. On the other side, the object of our cognition dis-
integrates in a similar way. We have long known that perceptions can only be compared to perceptions, and not to the environment itself (Schmidt 13). We also know that the world is accessible exclusively in the mode of criteria immanent to the cognitive process. Everything incompatible with these criteria remains incomprehensible.
When we bring our thoughts about cognitive autonomy to a conclusion, emptiness and powerlessness are revealed where pillars of the world were expected. The connection between empirical reflection and cognitive self-reflection has brought us to an abyss of absence. If it has not done so before, it is now — in the core of the problem — that we hear the voice of poet, the messenger of incomprehensibility: 'But where there is danger / The Rescue grows as well' (Hölderlin, Palmos). And what is the rescuing element? It is time for the ultimate transgression.
In the abyss of absence, there arises the consciousness that the existence of the world is not self-evident. The absence of nothingness becomes incomprehensible in the same way that nothingness itself is incomprehensible. In contact with emptiness, we touch upon the force that negated non-existence. It is then that we recognise the same power of which we are made in everything that exists. When we renounce power, we renounce powerlessness. This is the epistemology of love. The final transgression has led us to the edge of the world, and it is there that we discover the foundation of our existence within the other.
Like every other emotion, love too is connected to the body, to the experience of life. With it, each reading is live. Science, the humanities and literature easily incorporate love into their basis as an ethical attitude. If cognition is derived from evolution, then evolution may be derived from such cognition.
NOTE
1 An obvious instance of such symbiosis would be popular science, while hegemony is characteristic of, say, the political and economic manipulation of science.
WORKS CITED
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC
SAZU, 2004.
Ede, Andrew and Lesley B. Cormack. History of Science in Society: From Philosophy to Utility.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Glasersfeld, Ernst von. Wissen, Sprache und Wirklichkeit. Arbeiten zum radikalen Konstruktivismus.
Braunschweig and Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1987.
Hladnik, Miran. 'Količinske in empirične raziskave literature.' Slavistična revija 43.3 (1995): 319-340.
Juvan, Marko. History and Poetics of Intertextuality. West Lafayette (IN): Purdue University Press, 2008.
Roth, Gerhard. Fühlen, Denken, Handeln. Wie das Gehirn unser Verhalten steuert. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2003.
— — —. 'Gehirn und Selbstorganisation'. Selbstorganisation. Aspekte einer wissenschaftlichen Revolution. Ed. W. Krohn and G. Küppers. Braunschweig and Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1990. 167—180.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Kognitive Autonomie und soziale Orientierung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1994.