[KAS] “the urgency of reality (causal efficacy)”
{CJ (AK)}: That could easily slide into the metaphysical nostalgia of an impetus substantialism.
It’s already been done, as well, with the apocalyptic urgency of various evangelised narratives. In a way, even Marxism is one of those narratives.
The Ur-world of urgency, of urgent production!
The metaphysics of urgency, of the urge, and especially of the causal urge, is inherently based on representational assumption; in your example, the structural image of ‘urgent reality’.
If, say, you’re advocating for ‘inner urgency’, an ‘authentic urgency’ no longer quite so bound to conventional market surfaces, what do you do when those market surfaces commodify those rhetorics of alleged ‘interiority’ and ‘authenticity’, precisely as a ‘market surface’?
Given the degrees with which whatever conception of market culture that you’re taking issue with, is co-implicated, perhaps even coextensive, with whatever level of personal and social authenticity you might be trying to defend, on what basis is it possible to distinguish between them, that; one, isn’t representational; and two, if represented, and however represented, isn’t susceptible to internal contradiction, reflexivity feedback, and so on; all of these to do with the theory-laden nature of how situations get established and epistemologised, in the first place?
The very notion, at the outset, of a ‘presentation’, is necessarily the identity of a delimited image. The very notion, of ‘immediacy’, is bound up with the logic of mediation, the punctum of the urgent moment, or moment of urge, merely being a conceptual element supporting that logic.
One of the reasons that Nagarjuna often seems to be so direct in his approach, is probably due to his impatience with the turgid labourings of these kinds of conventional dialectics.
The society of the spectacle; panopticism; the reflexive image; in addition, the early 1990s saw the publication of a number of works around the philosophy of optical metaphoricity.