The Semiosis of the Dialogical Event

Love has a great role in establishing non-dominating and non-totalizing relations among human beings. Love has transformative and emancipative possibilities. Love to be emancipative cannot suppress the multiple into reductive sameness. Real love is a process of becoming different and hence it ruptures everyday life. Love, therefore, transgresses the limits of everyday life. It opens the third space to look at our world. We have tried to propose that the disruptive event of dialogue of Science and Religion is an event of love. It is only after the encounter with the event that the subject and its co-witness can proclaim the truth of love. In the same way, the event of dialogue is co-witnessed by subjects converted to the truths emerging from Science and Religion. It opens a new semiotic horizon as the subject of truths of the event of dialogue begins to live their fidelity to the truths. The fidelity that the subjects manifest is love. Hence, the dialogical dialogue irrupting from the event of dialogue is animated by love.

1. Desemiosis and Resemiosis

The event can be known only by the subjects that it generates from within it. The event produces semiotic blindness and cannot be anticipated nor understood by anyone other than those who have encountered the event. Although the event has some of the elements from the situation that it is in, the event seems to put these elements in a semiotic black hole and de-semiotises them. This means the elements at the situation at the site of the event are sufficiently semiotically distanced so as to bring about an event that causes semiotic disruption and introduces a new semiotic horizon that enables the subjects of the event to live their fidelity to the new truths with love. Therefore, we can think that even though the site of the event of dialogue of Science and Religion has the elements from both Science and Religion and other disciplines, these elements pass into a semiotic black hole and exist in a desemiotized state. It is the irruption of the event of dialogue that re-semiotizes these elements and opens a new semiotic horizon that enables the subjects of dialogue to organise their love and fidelity to the truths of the event of dialogue. The desemiotization of the elements of the situation at the site of the event renders the event unintelligent to those that are outside the event. The desemiotized elements at the evental site are resemiotized by the subjects who get converted to the active living of their fidelity to this dialogue between Science and Religion.

2. The Symbolic and Semiotic

The moment the subject of the truths of the event begins to speak and articulate, the semiosis that he/ she decodes of the event enters the symbolic. The subjects of the truths of the event begin to live their fidelity to the event by proclaiming the truths of the event. This proclamation happens in the symbolic as thought by Julia Kristeva. It is in the symbolic that the subject of truths of event bears his/her witness to the event and its truths. The semiotic remains in a state of irreducibility to language while the symbolic belongs to the language and dialogue proper. But the subject being converted to the truths of the event has its ground in the semiotic. The semiotic cannot be understood through the symbolic order but it continues animating the fidelity and the love of the subject to the movement of dialogue between Science and Religion. The semiotic cannot be thought with the categories of the symbolic. This gap is allied to what Raimundo Panikar teaches when he speaks of the gap within the Mythos and the Logos. The dialogue is rooted in the mythos and occurs both at the level of the mythos and the logos. In the same way, we can say that dialogue is rooted in the semiotic but occurs in both the semiotic as well as the symbolic level. The semiotic does not signify like the symbolic and yet it is meaningful. We can take the rhythm in music or light in the field of art as illustrations of the instantiation of the symbolic. In the event of dialogue, it is love that animates the process of dialogue. The kinds of dialogical relations that we have articulated between Science and Religion are all at the symbolic level and are grounded in the semiotic.

3. Semiosis of Love, the condition of Otherness

The semiotic moves both inside and beyond the symbolic. We cannot speak of the symbolic or the mythos except through the symbolic or the logos. The semiotic is the condition for the possibility of the symbolic. The semiotic has a presence in the symbolic but this presence is one of absence. Therefore, it is present as absent. It is a kind of outside that is inside as well as stays beyond the symbolic. We have to understand this relationship because the dialogue is rooted in the semiotic but occurs manly in the symbolic. It is semiotic that offers us possibilities to come to the truths of the event and articulate our positions. It is the space in which the subject is born. We cannot theorise the semiotic. In the context of the event of dialogue between Science and Religion, we suggest that we take the meaning of love as understood by Badiou. It makes up the condition of possibilities for the dialogue of Science and Religion. As such it is a condition of otherness and cannot be understood through the language and its categories that operate at the symbolic. As a condition of otherness interrupts both Science and Religion and draws them into dialogue. Both are drawn to each other at the symbolic level as each has the other within itself at the semiotic level. What Kristeva calls the semiotic, we may infer that Badiou calls a generic set. A generic set remains in the situation but its main function is to disrupt the situation. This means that the generic set exists in the situation but it exceeds the situation. Thus the generic set is present in a situation but is not represented in it. Love is a generic set and it becomes the condition of the possibility of the productions of truths that convert us to live our fidelity to the event of dialogue work to bring an active dialogue of Science and Religion.

Conclusion

The mathematics of the condition of possibility of dialogue is a generic set that is present in a situation but is not represented in it. It is within the situation yet transcends it. The subject of dialogue is born out of an evental encounter that is full of semiosis of love that enables him/her to submit to the truths that are emanating out of the dialogical event. Just like we as Indians and Pakistanis are born and called into being by the event of partition and submit to the truths emanating from the same event in the love of respective their nations so also the event of dialogue calls the subjects of dialogue into being who are converted to truths emanating from the event of dialogue and live their love and fidelity to dialogue between Science and Religion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GREETINGS

If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product.

That's Big Data Analytics.

- Fr Victor Ferrao