Wednesday, August 14, 2019


In the Case that a Hermeneutic of Fate Appears

Image result for 19th century chinese photographer


Any hermeneutical address aims to overcome the mere will that uses words in a way that the reader must understand so as to use the same words in the same way, but the hermeneutical movment is towards letting language free itself from the various grips of the logoi




Because the three weavers of Homer are always in the grasp of Zeus, who is, most of all, the first sun, which is heaven, but already in Cicero nature, one listens to Zeus and hears racio, and hears reason, and hears the call of the law which is, although, still with the Cave at Crete, and not yet something which brings miasma, is as yet already following in such a way as to flow towards the medieval actus purus, of the deos, and the theism of modernity. And yet it would be ridiculous to show this as a Fate in the sense of what must be in the cosmos as macrocosmos. In other words, the First Beginning, must allow for a hermeneutic approach which allows for the sensing of what Fate is. Why does Zeus say, from one side of the rope at tug of war, I can carry all the rest up to me? Why does Zeus shrink back from saving his favored mortals, knowing that he could order the sisters, but risk chaos. What is this macro-chaos? the chaos proper to the Olympians, but not to the Cosmic gods. 




The things (subject matter) that were before the most admirable are now the subject matter of the black logos which is in the Aperion. The logos is never Apeiron, and language restricts, in its telling, the superlative hearing which is listening to Aperion




It is clear that the Black logos shys back from the will, from what senses hunger, from what senses the itch on the cheek, from sensus intimus interpreted in the modern way. On the one side, the will is what wants its powers, its possibilities, more than its accomplishments, its enjoyments (as in Locke’s formula for happiness). On the other it is possibility simply, as the reserve of all the powers known to man as man. Man as man is still a statement that sees in man the knower of the store of his powers. The ego arbiter, which is the nature of the gods, is what is already active. So far as the gods still move, as they did for Euthyphro, there is not yet pure onlooking as with Aristotle. So far as Cicero speaks of the ego arbiter, it is already so that the gods have come to be usurped by man as man. When the gods pass away into racio, god becomes what stands as an already standing. True, this is only gathered in certain grand sources such as Thomas, but is everywhere beset by the spirit of the potentia absoluta. When, in the modern development, history becomes a standing reserve under Galileo, the throwing back by Locke of the mere “psychological” question of the stirring up of the soul by the so-called sense data, the human forgets itself utterly in the myth of valuing this way and that way, while, on the other hand, what is truly admirable is unchallenged as the standing reserve which takes the absurd name of science. The crisis is only confronted in its strongest form when Husserl draws into the isolation of what one knows against one’s own knowing. Heidegger then subsumes the tradition in this light successfully. 



 

So far as fate is not the movement of a people, in its broadest life, it must name the break between Apeiron (,which is Dasein,) in its hermeneutical grasp of the black logos of the goddess which is ground or earth. If Apollo and his sister, the butcher, hear the black logos, they hear an alien language and what it tells them is to embrace within their own reigns Phenomenology. Yet, Phenomenology looks like this: it is for Artemis a running from the natural, from what has not asked about itself, from the zealous love of the hunt, from its thrill for blood lust, into a light, that of the first pagan light which only later, much later, ascends into what is at length “leap” (Kierkegaard), the super rational, but what is in itself the guided availability of imagination or viewing the memory with an eye to powers, as in the modern physics which is chiefly the work of Apollo or imagination. What is available is imagination but it has with it its logos which is the bright path. The logos that takes reason to be the good and bad, and the true and untrue, is never one. But that logos is always in its history. So far as Apeiron is grasped by logos it is what logos rejects because it binds and determines and sets off as what has peculiarity. So far as the black logos speaks of Apeiron it suppresses it because it is in dread of giving up its self defense which is the being of the people. The spirit of the need to defend which is holy dread is intoxicating and never exhausted. So far as this dread brims over it degenerates into reverence which knows cruelty. Cruelty is always the reveling in the suffering of the enemy. The black logos is not evil, but it is what first breaks from the primordial and loves what is its own best. The sphere of befalling belongs to the black logos, thus, so it seems, the befalling of G-d on the head of Moses. However, this detail is more like a mere fate than Fate, which first gathers the earth in the names and what they tell about the subject matter. Subject matter is a word that belongs to Heidegger, and it no longer speaks than of essence but holds essences, peculiarities, in Phenomenology, but so much so as the light that shows the phenomenology is no longer in vision, but as if the Phenomenology had set itself into being.  

Monday, August 12, 2019


Justice, Beauty, Truth, Fate, the situation of the world essence or peculiarity of the being (as a link in the History of Being)   

 




The subject matter of justice in its horizon of moglichkeit shifts from market order to Kantian absolute. The Kantian principle posits all freedom except that of creativity proper, since its freedom is limited to the phenomena, but still posits something back behind the phenomena as an “ought”. The stasis which is revolution and stands forth in the ought is a genetic point, not Aperion, but mere genetic standing within steadfast irresoluteness of the Unheimat


Beauty is dislodged from nature so-called. Such traits as courage and strength cease to make sense in the light of an ultimate “long run” which is the infinite malleability of the phenomena. Beauty means what is most admirable, the brilliant path in its secret quietness that withdraws from all boasting into the strength of what is most without need of striving. The lower virtues or excellences, the praise of citizen’s virtues, hard work, honesty, generosity, and so on, appear as obstacles to the brilliant road to the Utopia. As what reproduces the failure to see the true interests. 


Truth flees into the vague tangibility of daily agreement with oneself. Each one gains in isolation as they grow in the power to operate in the sphere of fake truths, of what is not grasped in the vague field of reine vernuft uperhaupt, plain understanding of all things. 
 
Is Fate an idea? A god. The earth, the dark ground of the cosmic, is a god. But, yet, is fate a god? So far as Fate is a god it can never be Aperion. And yet, the black logos, that of fate, races with gathering swiftness of foot into the veil of the unbounded which is still being. What is still being doesn’t ask to be fate. 
 
---


Because the uncanny is a gathering where letting be and Apeiron respond to the freedom implied by the slackening of the spirit of fate the black logos hangs wearily like a disappearing insanity which does not hold its grasp firmly on the scimitar which with its flamboyant curve brings the wild bloodlust to its highest zenith where it hangs unendingly bleeding out an open neck of the enemy. Fate corresponds to what is not free of the spirit of self defense, but which yet lives in what is still not Apeiron. 

Tuesday, August 6, 2019


What is the Genetic? Several more small considerations on the Geneticist Apeiron.   


Large Harbour Monument in the Lion Harbour area of Miletus


The genetic is said in contradistinction to the steadfast resolution:  



“Being the rational animal, man must be capable
of thinking if he really wants to. Still,
it may be that man
wants to think, but can't. Perhaps he wants too much when
he wants to think, and so can do too little. Man can think
in the sense that he possesses the possibility to do so. This
possibility alone, however, is no guarantee
to us that we are
capable of thinking. For we are capable
of doing only what
we are inclined to do. And again, we truly
incline only
toward something
that in turn inclines toward us, toward
our essential being, by appealing
to our essential being
as
the keeper who holds us in our essential being.”


Steadfast resolution is reason as the “inclination” or bent which is pure freedom. 

The genetic position is never amor fati, as mere meek evasion of the steadfast. 

The genetic position is not the liquidity, nomadism, risk or free “Ganze” whole without organs. 
It is never the god as country: 

“I don’t agree that you’ve not altered anything,” Stavrogin observed cautiously. 
“You accepted them with ardour, and in your ardour have transformed them unconsciously. 
The very fact that you reduce God to a simple attribute of nationality …”

He suddenly began watching Shatov with intense and peculiar attention, not so much his 
words as himself.

“I reduce God to the attribute of nationality?” cried Shatov.” 

It’s so that the moment when Orthodoxy is the identity thrown out as Russian, in contradistinction to the 
Western freedom, “civil society”, Orthodoxy is already part of the nationalist apparatus as a politicization 
which comes into being along with such matters as the dawning of the fourth estate and activist 
journalism, of the intellectual Zola and the Drafuys issue. At length, politics, as the 19th century invention, 
as heimatloses, as the serf who flees prosperity in the west for the return to serfdom, becomes 
nothing but “identity.” As standing reserve. 

The steadfast resolution which stands in being as towards the drawing forth is no meek amor fati or 
creative freedom in what forever is not permitted to seek. 

The genetic stands in the steadfast resolution so long as it stands there, but it is ready to move. It is a 
genetic circle. 

So far as genetic thinking is no mere creativity, it stands on the side of Husserl. Reason is still 
powerful as the essencing. Everyone knows what reason is, giving reasons, answering the question 
why in a manner that has some cogency, giving a reason. But, what reason is is no longer given in 
nature, in an eternal possibility to be answered.  

The genetic: We stand in a principal, and thinking from that principle, we accept the principle, 
until we are forced to draw out of it. There is, to be sure, a constant movement, but it is steadfast 
but irresolute. The irresolution is the Husserlian watchfulness. 

Sunday, August 4, 2019


The Question of Genetisism as an Anti-Heideggerianism (Or, the return to Husserl by way 
of thinking through the confrontation with Heidegger) [A text, or experiment in ‘saying’, 
with great liberties taken and unpolished] 


 Image result for nietzsche




Steadfast resolution is supposed to guide being according to a listening which lets being 
drawn forth. It takes the place of, and is a modified thinking of, Kant’s thinking of spontaneity, 
which is itself a thinking which reverses the sense of spontaneity of understanding as the lowest 
part of the Platonic system already made visible in the Theaetetus (where the dream, 
phenomenology, is set as the lowest and furthest from truth). If this is thought exactly then the 
movement of Aperion into Platonic thinking is traced all the way through to Husserl where the 
dream is set into being without differentiation in rank of truth from the intellect. 


The confrontation with Heidegger means the thinking of the non-withdrawing of teleology of 
“religion” or “science”, or Aperion or Dasein. Freedom in the Kantian sense is the non-naturality 
of the ends. Not freedom from, but freedom simply, or, creativity. Creativity, if it is a resolve in the 
midst of being of the field of being is a thinking of spontaneity as guided growth.



The question of Justice as the transformation of Justice as a part of the Aperion. Justice essences. 
Does the essencing (if it is a gathering rather than a standing “essence” or nature of the availability 
(presence) of the I owe its being to Phenomenological paideia or insight (way of moving forward in a 
domain)? 



In Aristotle Justice is a middle ground, it is contract and property, giving to the other what is theirs. 
The transformation of modern thinking into the Kantian Justice, as what is spontaneous, is the 
meaning of the modern historical development. The empirical American tradition doesn’t ever bring 
this to explicit light, but it feels it just the same. The doctrine of Natural Right understands that 
what is essential to the people at a given time is what is right by nature and this has for a hundred 
years been in the background of the Anglo-American legal thinking, but its force was only felt some 
time after the second world war. In the european tradition the Kantian historicism long held its 
metaphysical transformation of man into a creature whose principle of differentiation was moral 
rather than bodily into the teleological light of a supposed remote ought which was inclusive of the 
possible development of the human constitution to rational perfection. 

“By MANNERS, I mean not here, Decency of behavior; as how one man should salute another, or 
how a man should wash his mouth, or pick his teeth before company, and such other points of the 
Small Morals; But those qualities of man-kind, that concern their living together in Peace, and Unity.” 
Leviathan, Hobbes

The major question of modernity was the question: Was the region of Society realized? The grave 
doubts over this raised Rousseauian and Marxian confrontation into being. The metaphysical question, 
unknown in the Anglo-American sphere [Arendt’s letter to Jaspers circa 1950 “"Sometimes I wonder 
which is more difficult: to instill an awareness of politics in the Germans or to convey to Americans 
even the slightest inkling of what philosophy is all about."] of the meaning of the individual directly 
bears on all modern development. The question is, at the same time, inseparable from the 
question of whether society exists. The old formulation was: the body is the principle of individuation. 
With respect to the question of society, the old form was: ratio is the product of the Polis (pre-rights 
or social-contract), the question about whether the sphere of State, the new sphere formed out of 
the Sovereignty of the leviathan (de facto in absolutism) is a zone of reaction norm. Which is to say, 
the existence of the moral principle, still presupposed by Rousseau and Hegel, as the single position 
of a-non-individual, as a being that is rights-bearing only by bodily differentiation, but compulsed to the 
rationality of being, has no counterpart in the American system, where the matter remains merely 
empirical and individual has no meaning beyond the legal position, of a jurisprudential science 
(a techne of the lawyers, a matter of apprenticeship). The metaphysical question of the meaning of the 
position of differentiation, bodily or rational, is not raised explicitly. 



So far as the phenomenological reception of the differentiation of being points to the social character 
of language as a pre-Polis region, the thinking of justice under a cave of being is unbound to rules of 
conduct of speech of any sort, “logic” and the rules guiding Socratic diolgical discussion. 
The essencing of justice as element upon the face of the phenomena can have no recourse to 
the cogent leap into language, which is, at bottom, steadfast resolution. The withdrawal of Husserl 
from Heidegger is, positively said, the coming forth of the element of Phenomenological Aperion. 
Individuality in its phenomenological withholding has no sense at all.


The question of whether society was ever brought about, in the sense that the state always remained 
not only “necessary evil”, but, actively collective determinator of the principle of the provision of the 
means to “pursuit of happiness” shows in the Nietzschean thinking which is a thinking, not of 
Nazism, as is often said, but of Capitalist association or Corporation (as in the notion of 
“Surveillance Capitalism”, or internet as putting the citizens “on the plate”)   


A description of the current situation is given: “no one should be surprised if the people perishes of 
petty egoism, ossification and greed, falls apart and ceases to be a people; in its place, systems of 
individualist egoism, brotherhoods for the rapacious exploitation of the non-brothers, and similar 
creations of utilitarian vulgarity creations of may perhaps appear in the arena of the future."


However, in the first place, Nietzsche was, according to Strauss, thinking of WWII, “sanguine”, and 
yet, thinking in terms of the “long run”, he spoke of the permanent situation of the egoism, of 
individualism of a “society” freed of its “state”. However, again, in our own period, what rages is 
the question whether or not society was ever accomplished. And not, as is often said, the question 
of individualism or collectivism. Nietzsche saw yet further then his commonplace interceptors, or, 
better, than his most noisy popular interpreters. 


The drawing back in the confrontation with steadfast resolution into Phenomenological suppression 
of availability requires an enormous effort which implies the setting aside of the Christian epoch in 
which Heidegger still moves. The world power has in it the resemblance of specific human characters. 
And so too the Great epochal forces, as of a Christ and Moses, as, by analogy on the relatively 
modest level of the great thinkers, Heidegger and Marx, to the trivial figures of Bill Clinton and 
Richard Nixon. These last words, with their seeming unintelligiblity, point, one must see, to the 
force of personality which is the human grasping of various turbid and living spillings forth. However, 
it would be wrong to interpret this as a religious statement which posited a true religion, rather, in 
personality the force of the personality is only seemingly visible in its sense of complete and 
incomplete, and in the higher manifestations there are cloudy peaks that can not be distinguished 
in their force. 

It is so that, following the simple thought of Jung, that we do not know all our works and speech, 
but that others may see what we do not, in our ego, at least, know, that this exclusion of perfect 
knowing extends to the others' vision of their others, and so to all things. It is not easily set aside by 
ascription to video devices the formulaicly pleasing position of container of reality 
(as though to banish the Aperion by means of forgetfulness).




Thursday, August 1, 2019




Dasein as Apeiron



Related image



A study of the basic concept of Dasein out of the ground of Thales is attempted in what follows in 
the sense that Apeiron is considered in the light of Anaximander’s reception of the teaching about 
water. 



To the modern mind, which may be no worse than that of Thales, it is natural to explain Thales'
theory by the observation of phase changes in water, especially in the observation of evaporation; 
of the transformation of clear drops into the air. Aristotle never thinks of such an interpretation, but 
says that, “perhaps,'' Thales thought of the origin of all life in water. One thinks then of the coming 
of the flood season and the resplendence of the fields at Egypt on the Nile when the brilliant light 
reflects off the greenery. The aged grow dry and stiff and “break”, as the bough of a tree loses its 
limpid subtle sinews and becomes a dried out husk. According to modern thinking the mind of Thales, 
though it had, in the light of Apollo, grasped the distinction between dead matter and living, still, in 
the forest shadows of Artemis, hunted out an animistic thinking. Thus, one thinks not of dead 
matter in the dried out branch which is stiff and ready to break, which does not bend in the wind, 
but is broken (to bring in an Asiatic trope), but, instead, rather, one is already thinking of the 
deprivation of being in the dried thing. Dryness and stiffness are deprivation of the pouring forth 
of time. 



So far as water is an “element” it is a kind of αἰτία or “why”, in the Aristotelian sense. The aperion 
is then a basic why, and outstrips the simple why of water or fire or air. It is the “element” of the 
unlimited. In one sense what is unlimited is not beside and bound by the things that can obstruct 
it, the freedom from obstruction. Unlimited is also counted space, once more and then again 
forever, the a priori space of Kant. Unlimited is what is mixed in an erratic myriad of unintelligibility, 
the storm wind that Apollo refuses in slamming his great door. In yet another sense the unlimited 
is what is never exhausted out of its source, it's “still being”. 



Aperion stands beside nous and eros as what is more basic as a “religion” in the sense that “religion” 
means opening to forces and laws beyond what will and emotion already are, the sciences, in the 
modern sense, thus are a source of religion, since they bring forth laws without exhaustion 
(even if they aim all the time to reduce the laws to one statement of “symmetry”) and the sciences 
imply infinite or unlimited progress, for thirty or forty thousand, but, not so, for years with no end. 
This sense of the religious means Dasien or aperion. However, this is a crude (almost 
useless for lack of exactitude) statement of the issue.   



So far as Dasein says, on the one side, being, which is sum (in the sense cogito-sum), as will in the 
interpretation of Nietzsche and pain or worry in that of Heidegger, as a modified “sensus intimus” and 
cogito as what is given as the grasped “I” of availability stands as the cogito, Dasein reaches into the 
inexhaustible and is “verruckt”. Substance on the one side and pathos or attribute on the other are 
the Greek parts of Da-sein, which then grows into the Catholic difficulty where, from the limited 
position of bounded Greek thinking, Zeus or deity is grasped as law, as the power or dunamis of 
energia, as basic standing potential. Basic standing potential closes the infinite or unbound. Yet, 
only for Apollo (even if "faith" is meant to be a supra-Apollonian movment or "leap"), 
and never for Dasien



In the sense of aperion Dasein is not constructed out of the absolute doubt, through Husserl and 
Heidegger. For this reason it is worth considering the arising of aperion, under the question of whether 
aperion is a primordial thinking which comes prior to the First Beginning, opening the First Beginning, or 
outstrips the remembering of being implied by the raising of the question about the “forgetfulness 
of being”. Heidegger, one should remember, goes back before time as day/night, which is the 
primordial thinking of Ying and Yang which long readies any Chronological regularity of clocks.



If aperion were motus it would think “change”, and this could be extended to grasp everything. 
Anaximander does not know of the cardinal distinction of substance, on the one side, and pathos 
or attribute/accident on the other. Supposedly, Anaximander is prior, too, to nous. Therefore from 
where does he think himself? In the modern period, one has the thinking of a “access”, of 
consciousness, and the ancients had the soul with its various unleashing of spirits into the blood 
and through the air which were thought through and applied variously in the medieval thinking 
until their sense was lost in the synthesis of Galilean dynamics and common sense worked out by Locke.



What is motus to Anaximander? Does he think change in a general sense, as of the acquiring of 
learning in someone who masters a subject matter, of any affecting source? And yet, what is 
unlimited is not a name for “cause and effect”, nor even for what is breathing cause and effect 
forth as a first cause. Anaximander says nothing of a first cause. Da-sein, likewise, thought through 
withholding cause and logic, withholds this thinking in the brackets of Phenomenology, and so not in 
the honeyed light of the First Beginning which is simple raising of the eyes. 



This sketch, however, is of very poor quality except in the outlines of the subject matter. Which 
must be approached directly and with exactness.