Ontological constructivism : Negri and the philosophical foundations of a future communism

As we find in Empire and Multitude, Antonio Negri's political project IS a thoroughly Marxist analysis and critique of global or late capitalism. By modifying and updating Marx's conceptual tools, he is able to provide a clear account of capitalism's processes, its expanding reach, and the revolutionary potential that functions as its motor. By turning to Negri's philosophical works, however, we find that this political analysis is founded on a series of concepts and theoretical positions. This paper attempts to clarify this theoretical foundation, highlighting in particular what I term "ontological constructivism" - Negri's radical reworking of traditional ontology. Opposing the long history of transcendence in epistemology and metaphysics (one that stretches from Plato to Kant), this reworked ontological perspective positions individuals - not god or some other transcendent source - as the primary agents responsible for molding the ontological landscape. Combined with his understanding of kairos (subjective, immeasurable time), ontological constructivism lays the groundwork for opposing transcendence and rethinking contemporary politics.

William Van Every fonds, 1784, 1804-1806, 1815-1816, 1828, 1832, n.d.

William Van Every, son of McGregory and Mary Wilcox (Jaycocks) Van Every, was born in New York state in 1765. During the Revolutionary War he joined Butler’s Rangers and served under Captain John McDonnell. He was granted three lots of land in the Township of Niagara, with additional lands granted at later dates. William married Elizabeth, daughter of George Young. Elizabeth was the widow of Col. Frederick Dochstader and mother of Catherine Dochstader, b. 1781. William Van Every died in 1832, his wife Elizabeth in 1851. Both are buried in the Warner Cemetery, in present day Niagara Falls. The children of William Van Every and Elizabeth Young were Mary, Elizabeth, Phoebe, John, Peter, William, Rebecca, Samuel and Joseph. Source: Mary Blackadar Piersol, The Records of the Van Every Family, Toronto : Best Printing, 1947. And, Patricia M. Orr, Historic Woodend, sponsored by Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 1980?

Charles Larned letter, April 3, 1813.

Charles Larned (1791-1834) was a lawyer and American military officer who served during the War of 1812. He was the son of Simon Larned (1753-1817), who served as a captain in the Revolutionary War and was a member of the United States Congress from Massachusetts from 1804-1805. Charles studied law in the office of Henry Clay in Kentucky, and was dining with a group of prominent citizens when word was received that General William Henry Harrison could soon be overpowered by General Henry Proctor. Colonel Owen, a member of the group, organized a regiment to reinforce Harrison’s troops. Larned became a member and subsequently survived the River Raisin Massacre and was later present at the Battle of the Thames. He was also part of a group of men who learned of General William Hull’s plan to surrender Detroit to the British and planned to overtake him should this occur. However, the plan failed, Hull did surrender and the men became prisoners of the British. After the war, Larned became a lawyer, and served as Attorney General of Michigan Territory during the Black Hawk War. During the cholera epidemic of 1834, he worked tirelessly to assist others, but was stricken with the disease and died. Letter Transcription: Pittsfield, April 8, 1813 I think that by this time my dear Charles you will allow I have some reason to give you a gentle reprimand for breach of duty—but I will not censure you upon suspicion maybe you have substantial reasons—at any rate one cannot very graciously reproach the other for negligence I for one am healthy as ham & that we have so seldom exchanged letters during your absence & on my honor promise to be a better girl in future—but the truth is my Dear Charles I am secretary for the Family—Mama you know never writes & James but seldom & they are all dispersed in different directions, consequently I have many calls upon my time—this to be sure is a pleasant duty & I urge it only as a slight palliation for my remissness if you should consider it as such—now I have finished my preface—I will try to be more interesting & doubtless I succeed. Our dear Father we hope & trust is now in Green Bush, where he will probably remain a month perhaps & from thence he expects to go to Sacket’s harbor—at which place you know our troops are fast collecting-- We shall hope to see him either here or there before he goes. Brother George I believe is [still] at Plattsburgh but expects soon to be removed to some other military part perhaps with Papa (I hope so at least). We have just got letters from Brothers Sylvester & Joseph at Middlebury—they are in good health. Mama has for some weeks been afflicted with an inflammation in her eyes but seems now to be convalescing. Sister Martha has been somewhat unwell for a few weeks but is now tolerably recovered. James & myself are both in our usual good health & at this time seated by the same stand, one reading, the other writing. Thus my Dear Charles have I given you an abstract history of our Family—but here indeed is a wonderful omission; not a word about Miss Harriet Hunt, who in truth ought to have been noted first but the last she’s not the least in my memory. She is much grown since you saw her, but does not speak as fluently as we could wish—a few word she can say. Probably before this you have been informed of the great loss your friend Sherrill has sustained in the death of his mother—also of the revolution that has taken place in Hackbridge as it respects the religion & morality of the place that more than one hundred on the plain have become religious converts & c—indeed I am at a loss what to say that will afford your pleasure—a narrative at this time must be gloomy indeed. The distressing situation of our country at this time would make almost any recital melancholy. The prevailing epidemic has swept off many of your acquaintance no doubt. Mrs. Dewey of Williamstown, the sister of Mrs. Danforth, has left a Husband, Children & many Friends sincerely to lament her loss—some few have died in our village, but we have escaped astonishingly –it has raged in every town about us--If we are unwilling to acknowledge a God in his mercies. I fear she shall be compelled to do it in the awfulness of his judgments.--------I am much [pleased] with our new neighbors the Parsons Wife & a Miss Woodward her cousin is a fine girl, I think, Mrs. Allen has not a handsome face but something in her manner that interests one her person I think the handsomest I ever saw & the Parson seems well pleased with his selection—Mrs. Ripley is with them this winter & will probably remain thro the summer—Her husband at [Sackett’s Harbor] little or no alteration is apparent since her marriage—she seems as gay & fond of company as ever.-------Mrs. [McKnight] it is expected will commence housekeeping in about three weeks in the house formerly occupied by Mr…. [Report] says that Mr. Goodman & Clarissa Weller are soon to be married & many other things that I must omit to mention for Mama wants a… PS reserved--now my Dear Charles remember you are considerably… & I am confident you have as much leisure as I have –… be ceremonious but write whenever I find time not & I beg… the same – I tell James I shall not send his love for he must write himself. I shall anxiously expect you to write & do not disappoint your affectionate, sister--H One word my Dear Charles from your affectionate Mother who longs to see Her Dear son Charles—but being deprived of that rich blessing at present—begs Him so to conduct that she may hope for it ere long—do you search the Scriptures and keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord—and all the sacred Commandments of God—it is my ardent desire…He would protect, support and provide for your soul and body and believe me your affectionate friend and Mother. R Larned.

General regulations and orders, 1804

Bound with: The manual and platoon exercises, &c., &c. (51 p.) and: General orders and observations on the movement and field exercise of infantry (16 p.) Inscribed on front paste-down: L. Colonel Brock. Also inscribed: Maj. Genl T.A. Smith late of the 1st. Rifle Regt. Bookplate of Robert B. Taylor, Norfolk. On front flyleaf: lengthy, two-page transcription in ink, headed /Copy/Circular/ dated "Horse Guards, 25th May '07" and signed: "Harry Calvert Adjt. General.

General regulations and orders, 1804

Bound with: The manual and platoon exercises, &c., &c. (51 p.) and: General orders and observations on the movement and field exercise of infantry (16 p.) Inscribed on front paste-down: L. Colonel Brock. Also inscribed: Maj. Genl T.A. Smith late of the 1st. Rifle Regt. Bookplate of Robert B. Taylor, Norfolk. On front flyleaf: lengthy, two-page transcription in ink, headed /Copy/Circular/ dated "Horse Guards, 25th May '07" and signed: "Harry Calvert Adjt. General.

Inniskillin Award Winning Wines - '98-'02

A list of awards for Inniskillin wines for the years 1998-2002.

Inauguración de la estatua de Carlos IV ; 1804

UANL

Lógica de Kant

UANL

Novísima recopilación de las leyes de España: dividida en XII libros, en que se reforma la recopilación publicada por el señor DonFelipe II, en el año de 1567, reimpresa ultimamente en el de 1775. Y se reincorporan las pragmáticas, cédulas, decretos, órdenes y resoluciones reales, y otras providencias no recopiladas, y expedidas hasta elaño de 1804 mandada formar por el señor don Carlos IV.

UANL

Viaje a las regiones equinocciales del nuevo Continente hecho en 1799 hasta 1804

UANL

Le Code civil des Français de 1804 : une transaction entre révolution et réaction

Un résumé en anglais est également disponible.

Les hypotheses cosmogoniques : Examen des théories scientifiques modernes sur l'origine des mondes, suivi de la traduction de la Théoriedu ciel de Kant

UANL

L'interdiction du mensonge chez Kant

Ce mémoire est consacré à l’analyse du mensonge chez Kant. Or, comme la Métaphysique des moeurs est subdivisée en deux volets, le premier portant sur le droit et le second sur la moralité proprement dite, nous nous sommes proposé d’envisager le mensonge selon ces deux points de vue, en commençant par le second. En nous appuyant sur les textes de Kant qui envisagent le mensonge comme faute morale, les Leçons d’éthique, la Fondation de la Métaphysique des Moeurs, la Doctrine de la Vertu, nous montrons que Kant condamne moralement le mensonge parce qu’en lui-même, le mensonge constitue la plus grave violation du devoir de l’homme envers lui-même : la sincérité. L’homme qui n’est pas sincère, c’est-à-dire qui dit délibérément le contraire de ce qu’il pense non seulement va à l’encontre de la finalité inhérente à la communication, mais aussi, par le mensonge, l’homme renonce à sa personnalité. En renonçant ainsi à sa personnalité, l’homme cesse d’être un homme véritable, c’est-à-dire celui en qui la pensée et le dit coïncident, il devient un semblant d’homme, c’est-à-dire celui qui délibérément dit le contraire de ce qu’il pense. En s’appuyant sur le texte de Kant qui envisage le mensonge au point de vue du droit, D’un prétendu droit de mentir par humanité, nous avons mis en évidence que l’argument central de Kant est de montrer que toute tentative de tolérer un droit de mentir rendrait la société impossible. C’est qu’un droit de mentir condamnerait à jamais l’humanité à l’état de nature, parce que la confiance qu’exige le contrat originel qui marque l’entrée dans l’état de droit n’aurait plus aucun sens. De même, un droit de mentir ruinerait tous les contrats, qui reposent, pour leur effectivité, sur la confiance. Au fond, un droit de mentir est contraire même au droit. Nous avons montré en conclusion de mémoire en quoi la position de Kant restait encore, de nos jours, actuelle. Une grande partie de ce mémoire a été réservée au texte polémique de 1796 D’un prétendu droit de mentir par humanité. Ayant montré en quoi consiste la position de Kant, contrairement à celle de Constant, nous avons analysé les nombreux commentaires qui ont été consacrés à ce texte polémique, qui opposa Kant et Benjamin Consstant, afin de montrer que l’interprétation de la position de Kant sur le mensonge varie selon qu’on revendique exclusivement sa philosophie morale ou sa philosophie du droit.