Distance (Non-Phenomenological or Non-Autopositional)
Non-autopositional a priori extracted from the autopositional transcendence of philosophy and constituting the last noetic determination of the force (of) thought or the subject-Stranger.
The concept of distance functions as a general rule in an implicit way along the interior of “philosophical distinctions;” for example, the distinction of the given which imposes itself upon the establishment of a philosophy (the “present,” the “contemporary,” the “inauthentic,” etc.) and of the empirical that agrees with “its” transcendental. It is a critical concept (via the distinction of specific spaces, the philosophical theories of geometrical space always being the result of the superposition of various sensible, geometric, physical, Euclidean, non-Euclidean spaces) and synthetic (which re-articulates the divisions of the empirical and therefore the site of every schematism). From the point of view of aesthetic reason, distance is presupposed by metaphor and the cancelation of metaphor in catachresis. It is the protection a philosophy gives itself through the rhetoric against an overly individuated style. From the point of view of practical reason, there exists a distance, never completely identifiable or known, that separates us not only from inauthentic values but also from their cause, radical evil. Post-Husserlian phenomenology has made explicit use of minimal “phenomenological distance” given by phenomena or representations (Max Scheler, Michel Henry) in the “return to things themselves.” Deconstructionists have aggravated the necessity of distance over the non-topological mode of deference or différance, particularly under the form of metaphor of metaphor, thus revealing that no distance is evaluable along the interior of philosophy (topology) or in its margins, but that it is “unavoidable” in order to understand the “gestures” of the latter (its mixtures, its distinctions, its operations).
The Real as Given-without-givenness excludes any “phenomenological distance” and its modes (nothingness, distinction, division, transcendence, alterity, etc.). It radically limits the philosophical importance of distance. Even the determination-in-the-last-instance of philosophy proceeds without recourse to it. It only appears as noesis (in the structure of the force (of) thought) and noema (in the correlate—“unilate”—of this structure) which correspond to transcendence as the essence of philosophizing and more particularly the essence of apriority, obviously via the non-autopositional mode. It is then determined-in-the-last-instance by the Real and takes on the noetic form of a “non-phenomenological distance” deprived of its autopositional doublet. It is designated in general as non-autopositional Exteriority or Distance (NAP-D) and creates the a priori element that contributes to the force (of) thought or that gives it its character as organon.