‘코라’(chora 혹은 khora)는 플라톤이 『티마이오스』에서 만물의 창조를 설명하 면서 언급하는 (형상과 물질 이외의) 제삼의 것을 가리키는 이름이지만, 보다 정확 히 말해 ‘이름 아닌 이름’이다. 창조의 과정을 설명한 후, 티마이오스는 다시 처음 으로 되돌아와 반드시 언급했어야 할 제삼의 것 즉 앞서 설명된 창조의 모든 과정 이 완결될 수 있으려면 필연적으로 언급해야 하지만, 실체나 실물로서 언급할 수 없었던 것을 말하는데, 그것이 바로 코라(chora)이다. 모든 만물의 어머니 혹은 산파라 일컬어지는 이 코라를 데리다는 ‘차이와 지연’ 을 의미하는 ‘차연’(différance)으로 해석하면서, 자기-애착(auto-affection)으로부터 비롯되는 동일성의 위계질서를 전복한다. 동일성의 질서를 확보해주던 기의란 실 은 기표들의 차이와 지연의 놀이에서 비롯되는 것이지, 그 역은 아니라는 말이다. 그 동일성의 신화가 생기는 이유는 바로 유기체의 ‘자기-애착’(auto-affection)이 빗 어내는 폭력과 차별이 있기 때문이며, 결국 동일성의 경계 밖에 존재하는 타자는 실재하는 타자가 아니라, 자기-애착의 힘에 의해 ‘자기’(self)의 경계로부터 추방된 타자이다. 자기와 타자는 코라의 차이와 지연의 놀이로부터 잉태된 ‘동일한’ 자녀 들로서, 나와 타자의 차이가 존재하기 때문에 ‘동일성’ 혹은 ‘정체성’은 의미를 갖는 다고 말한다. 화이트헤드는 코라를 ‘차이와 지연의 놀이터’로 보는 대신 자연과 인격적 정체성 에 통일성 혹은 동일성을 부여해주는 일반 원리로 보았다. 장소적 수동성을 담지 한 플라톤의 코라에 신적 에로스의 역동성을 더하여, 자신의 창조성 개념으로 발 전시키면서, 화이트헤드는 그 모든 과정들의 궁극적 이상으로 ‘조화 중의 조 화’(Harmony of Harmonies)를 제시한다. 그 모든 과정이 창조적 과정들을 통해 나아가야 하는 곳. 그렇다, 그곳이다. 여기서 플라톤의 코라는 단순히 수동적으로 들어오는 것을 받아들여 결합시켜주기만 하는 ‘터’가 아니라, 창조적으로 조화로운 통일성을 부여하여 새로운 우주 혹은 자연 혹은 인격을 잉태하는 자리이며, 그 모 든 탄생이 일회성으로 끝나지 않고 연속성을 갖도록 통일성 혹은 정체성을 부여해 주는 자리가 된다. 얼핏 대립되어 보이는 데리다와 화이트헤드의 코라 해석은 상보적 (complementary)이라는 것이 본고의 논지이다. 화이트헤드에게 우주란 저 밖에 별 도로 존재하는 것이 아니라, 현실체의 합생을 통해 각 현실체 속에 창조적으로 실 현되는 것으로서, 이는 곧 단일-우주(uni-verse)가 아니라 애초부터 다-우주 (pluri-verse)를 전제한다. 즉 화이트헤드가 말하는 코라의 동일성이란 차이를 배제 한 동일성이 아니라, 차이들 위에 근거한 동일성이다. 코라의 창조성은 곧 차이와 동일성 ‘사이에서’ 모든 과정들을 지탱하는 일반 원리인 셈이다. 여기서 ‘사 이’(between)란 말이 코라의 본래적 자리를 드러내기에 보다 적합하다고 본고는 주장한다. 자아와 타자 사이의 차이를 드러내는 것은 자기-애착에서 비롯된다면, ‘애초에’ 자기나 타자 간의 차이가 존재하는 것이 아니라, 자기로도 타자로도 정의 되기 어려운 ‘사이’(between 혹은, 하이데거의 말을 빌려, das Zwischen)가 있는 것이다. 그래서 본고는 ‘코라’를 ‘차연’과 ‘동일성’으로 해석하는 서로 다른 음율을 “사이”(betweenness)로 엮어보면서, 삶의 근원적 힘을 그 어떤 실체가 아니라, “사 이”(between)를 창출하는 힘으로 해석하려는 시도이다.

Chora is a nameless name, which points to "the third" in Plato's Timaeus, along with the so-called form and the so-called matter. After explaining the cosmo-genesis, Timaeus, the protagonist in the story, returns to a point where the story was begun and starts to retell it with what is missing in his first narration, with the third which has necessarily to be mentioned and yet which can be referred to neither as form nor as matter. This is chora which is the foster mother of all things in the world. By interpreting chora as différance, which means the structural movement of differing and deferring, Derrida turns upside down the hierarchy of identity, which derives from the auto-affection. The signified, which has seemed to support the order of identity, in fact derives from the play of differing and deferring, and not vice versa. The origin of the myth of the same lies in the auto-affection of organism generating violence and discrimination to the other, because the other the auto-affection constructs is not the other as existing out there but that as deported from the boundary of the self. However, both the self and the other are the children given birth to by the play of differing and deferring. Also, any identity can gain a meaning because there is difference between the self and the other. Instead of seeing it as 'the locus of differing and deferring,' Whitehead interprets chora as a general guiding principle that imposes a harmonious unity upon nature and personal identity. He develops the passive chora into his own notion of creativity by adding the dynamic of the divine eros to it. Here, Plato's chora is no longer a passive place where things incoming are merely combined with the so-called forms. It becomes a place where a new universe or a new personal identity is born each time by the creative and harmonious unity of chora-tic force and where, rather than being an one-time event, all the births secure their own continuity in the unity and/or identity chora imposes upon them. The point of argument in this paper is that the seemingly contradictory opposition between Derrida's and Whitehead's interpretations of chora is in fact complementary to each other. For Whitehead, the universe does not independently exist out there, but it is rather creatively actualized through the concrescence of each actuality. This from the beginning presumes pluri-verses rather than a uni-verse. That is, the identity of chora Whitehead puts forth is not an identity excluding any difference but rather that being based upon differences. The creativity of chora is nothing but a general guiding principle that supports all the processes in the world between difference and identity. This paper suggests that the word 'between' here is apt to describing a place where chora should be. Given that difference between the self and the other derives from the auto-affection, there is no difference between them at the beginning but a 'between'(or betweenness or das Zwischen in Heidegger's terms), which can be defined neither as the self nor as the other. In this vein, this paper tries to weave the two different melodies of difference and identity into a harmony of betweenness, attempting to reinterpret the originally natural force of life not as any substance but as 'between.'

Chora is a nameless name, which points to "the third" in Plato's Timaeus, along with the so-called form and the so-called matter. After explaining the cosmo-genesis, Timaeus, the protagonist in the story, returns to a point where the story was begun and starts to retell it with what is missing in his first narration, with the third which has necessarily to be mentioned and yet which can be referred to neither as form nor as matter. This is chora which is the foster mother of all things in the world. By interpreting chora as différance, which means the structural movement of differing and deferring, Derrida turns upside down the hierarchy of identity, which derives from the auto-affection. The signified, which has seemed to support the order of identity, in fact derives from the play of differing and deferring, and not vice versa. The origin of the myth of the same lies in the auto-affection of organism generating violence and discrimination to the other, because the other the auto-affection constructs is not the other as existing out there but that as deported from the boundary of the self. However, both the self and the other are the children given birth to by the play of differing and deferring. Also, any identity can gain a meaning because there is difference between the self and the other. Instead of seeing it as 'the locus of differing and deferring,' Whitehead interprets chora as a general guiding principle that imposes a harmonious unity upon nature and personal identity. He develops the passive chora into his own notion of creativity by adding the dynamic of the divine eros to it. Here, Plato's chora is no longer a passive place where things incoming are merely combined with the so-called forms. It becomes a place where a new universe or a new personal identity is born each time by the creative and harmonious unity of chora-tic force and where, rather than being an one-time event, all the births secure their own continuity in the unity and/or identity chora imposes upon them. The point of argument in this paper is that the seemingly contradictory opposition between Derrida's and Whitehead's interpretations of chora is in fact complementary to each other. For Whitehead, the universe does not independently exist out there, but it is rather creatively actualized through the concrescence of each actuality. This from the beginning presumes pluri-verses rather than a uni-verse. That is, the identity of chora Whitehead puts forth is not an identity excluding any difference but rather that being based upon differences. The creativity of chora is nothing but a general guiding principle that supports all the processes in the world between difference and identity. This paper suggests that the word 'between' here is apt to describing a place where chora should be. Given that difference between the self and the other derives from the auto-affection, there is no difference between them at the beginning but a 'between'(or betweenness or das Zwischen in Heidegger's terms), which can be defined neither as the self nor as the other. In this vein, this paper tries to weave the two different melodies of difference and identity into a harmony of betweenness, attempting to reinterpret the originally natural force of life not as any substance but as 'between.'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

chora, J. Derrida, différance, the signified, signifier, auto-affection, spacing, interval, the other(s), A.N. Whitehead, creativity, Peace or Harmony of Harmonies, the divine eros, the extensive continuum, personal identity, the betweenness (das Zwischen).