The dialectical reversal of otherness is an inclusion that is also exclusion. In Art History, western interest in "Primitivism" is a good example. Turn of the Century Europeans were inspired by African art (inclusion), but only because they felt Africa had no account, making their civilization closer or a clean and innocent source of human vitality. The very theme making a difference together holds in it as much challenge as promise for the future journey of ecumenism in the twenty first century. Promise is evident in the incredibly view of working mutually. The power of togetherness to both counterfeit a sense of empathetic solidarity as well as to dispel any sense of isolation in our endeavors in sufficient reason to look forward to the future with hope.

However concomitant to this promise is the challenge as to whether the aspired for togetherness is probable at all, given both the numerous as well as the primary nature of our distinctions. An assenting respond to this query would only entail a further barrage of queries. What height of togetherness is practically possible? At what risk? At what expense?

In the risk of all this, it would make sense if we were to speak of the ecumenical endeavor of making a difference as being a pregnant one in very factual sense. For the reason that concerned in the whole procedure of making a difference together if not only the promise of the joys of originality, but also the problem of the moans and travails of childbirth, not to state the ever threatening danger of miscarriage. The point of the Dialectical Reversal of Otherness is to remind us that attempts at inclusion are not simple, that value disparity is indefinable and uneven, and that endeavors to release the human soul are corruptible.

Some ideas from one of the philosophers/ theorists

In Hegel’s philosophy, he used contemporary art in description of the dialectical reversal of otherness. The notion of contemporary art is that of the coming together. More specific, it means the coming together of human lives within the time of the living. As a historical concept, the contemporary thus involves a projection of unity onto the differential totality of the times of lives that are in principle a potentially present to each other at some particular time and in particularly now since it is the living present that provides the model of contemporaneously.

He argues that contemporary art is problematic, because it is an idea in Kant’s technical sense of being an object beyond possible experience. The concept of contemporary also projects the presence of temporal unity that is in principle horizontal thus speculative. Finally, the relational totality of the currently coeval times of human existence remains fundamentally socially disjunctive. There is no actual share subject position of our present from the standpoint of which its relational totality could be constructed as a whole in an incomplete form.

It is the fictional presence of the contemporary that distinguishes it from the more structural and durational category of modernity. In this respect, the contemporary involves a kind of internal retreat of the modern to the present. If modernity projects a present of permanent transition, the contemporary fixes such transitions within the duration of a conjuncture. Such presentence finds its representational form in the annihilation of temporarily by the image. The photographic and post-photographic culture of the image clearly depicts the contemporaneity of the contemporary. The image interrupts temporaries of the modern and nature. In short, today the contemporary is transnational because our modernity is that of a tendentiality global capital. Tran’s nationality is the putative socio-spatial form of the current temporal unity of historical experience.

Spivak argues that we are witnessing in the post colonial and globalizing world is a return of the demographic, relatively than protective frontiers, that predate and are larger than capitalism. These demographic frontiers, acting in response to large-scale migration are now appropriating the contemporary version of virtual reality and creating the kind of prostate collectivities that belonged to the shifting multicultural empires that preceded monopoly capitalism. The deepest troubles of the planet today do not lie only with geographical conflicts and world-economic ravages; they are also brewing in the metropolitan centers.

Hegel seeks a dialectical speculative solution to the antinomy of autonomy and transcendence. There is no absolute transcendence as other. Autonomy is reformulated in such a dialectical-speculative manner that can come to include within its own process of self-determination all references to transcendence as other. In this light, Hegel is the epitome of the privilege given to self-determination in modernity, representing its dialectical-speculative consummation.

The absolute form of being is dialectical self-determining. This absolute is identified with the free self-realization of reason itself, which becomes itself, fully by overcoming the indefiniteness of the beginning and becomes completely self-fulfilled. Hegel addressed the dedivinization of nature as other sought in humanity’s self-determination, a new wholeness of being, and affirmed autonomous immanence by means of a dialectical-speculative overcoming of all objectives beyond.

Emphasizing the romantic heritage and legacy of Karl Marx’s writings, peter Osborne presents mark’s thoughts as a developing investigation into what it means concretely for humans to be practical chronological beings. Illustration of passages from a broad variety of Mark’s writings and showing the links amid them, Osborne counters the illusion of Marx as a reductively economist thought. What Marx meant by greed is that communalism and the analysis of political economy were much richer and further unique philosophically, than is normally known. With the transformed globalization of capitalism from the year 1989, Osborne contends Marx’s psychoanalyses of the results of co modification are more relevant today than ever before

Do you have a question about this?

Hello there! Thanks a lot for sharing this educational post! In the simplest terms and mathematically speaking, it is a simple "sameness".