Tuesday, August 27, 2019


The Question of Evil (as the enemies) in the Light of Dugin’s Multiculturalism

Related image

 

 

 

The systematic treatment of evil is crudely visible in the Liberal logoi, the Apollonian, Habermas, and the Dionysian, Zizek. In the former, evil is what the discourse rationality which appeals to man as man, to the soul, excludes by its nature. In the later it is given by the formula of the intolerance of the intolerant, such that the Schmittean view holds sway and everything is crudely obvious. For Habermas there are no enemies, and evil does not exist. However, for Zizek, who is part of the same world, the enemies are the intolerant by the standard of a reflective doxographic modification which has behind it the higher entertainment of theory which serves to keep the so-called individual in self-improving intoxication. Man is higher than the ape, doxographicaly undeniable (or, at last for Zizek in the view of the various Nietzschean considerations which pass into the region of entertainment or are passed off as doing so), n number of entertaining theoretical considerations which show the system of ideas in which the doxa stands and belongs to the sphere of spiritual privacy corresponding to the grand "Theorie der Bildung des Menschen," which has long since degenerated into a universalistic Bildungsb├╝rgertum remains within the Liberal system. At the base an Earth Logos in the form of a “science” of imaginary motion and “facts” which hovers over the Technological Essence and takes the place of an ethnos, because of generations of breeding into the people through compulsory mass education the spirit of the art of experiment. 
 

 

There can, properly, be no evil for the Liberal order, since it ceases at its core to require an ethical system in any but an academic sense. It no longer involves human beings properly. From the point of view of the Earth Logos the “facts” are neutral, and real. The “values” are still visible in the Dionysian and Apollonian logoi, but only as what is not properly real. The abiotic flow of the “facts” from out of the Liberal order is then supposedly contrasted with the power of the substantial return to being on which the Orthodox world envelops itself in utter struggle. This struggle can not be passed off as “spiritual” as if it had to do with the higher entertainment or with the requirements of a world view such as the Catholic System. It hovers in a morass of forces near the narrow gate of the beings' issuance out of the primordial gate. Thus it is not clear how Dugin’s existentialism, appealing to acts of the will, to choosing to be Russian, grounds its first flashing over the fields of the people's life. 
 
In a certain sense in Dugin’s system the appeal to the geopolitical can only be read as an Apollonian light from within the Orthodox Fate. Everything appears as grounded in something ultimate which must impose its evil and its good. But, perhaps it has only good. Thus, suppressing the more sophisticated dualistic principle of the Manichee, it only finds what is itself and what is insufficiently itself. These vague considerations contain the question: Who is Dugin? this question can only be asked from the ground of being. The ground of being is only in the Dasein of each one. Even though there is no logos of identity in the sense of the principle of identity that makes the question, how do each of the cultures remain the same such that each is a culture?, each being the same, identical, in its status of being, being a culture, is not the question, for there is no identity of what is the same outside the laws of thought, but rather what the words say, each is a culture, are free of the demands of a dialogic of rules binding the practice of discussion. Free, not because these rules are formally disavowed, but because the direct practice of the philosophic work is at work through the things said without the Laws of Thought.   
 
Therefore, perhaps one must conclude that Dugin is adrift in what can not be refuted. He would take a rope to himself with which he would hang himself if he didn’t outstrip the petty demands of the entertainment of the spirit and the more authoritative demands of the requirements of Heidegger on thinking beings. Because thinking beings are drawn towards the thinking of being by the History of Being this issues a flashing light into the souls of the thinkers which determines their posture. It remains to be seen howsofar the Technological Essence is binding on this saying of “who” out of being. The strange absurdity of the situation is the visible result of the movement of nature into autonomy which collapses so far as autonomy is read as natural and nature as Anthropocene. In this sense Marx becomes Heidegger because Husserl has overcome all forms of individuation, both the bodily and the spiritual.   

Thursday, August 22, 2019


Some Approaches to the Problems of Dugin’s Multiculturalism 

Image result for unicorn chris tapestry
 

 

In his Die Geschichte des Seins Heidegger speaks of the necessity to allow the Russian Dasein the freedom to survive the Technological Essence without succumbing to essential annihilation of the life of the Russian Dasein. Dasein is a subject matter of the West and belongs to the development of its history. So far, then, on the most clearly exposed thinking any of us has at our disposal, it is clear that Dugin moves within the thinking of the West. To be sure, however, in the claim to the life of a Third Rome, of an Orthidox dispensation, poured out into several so-called cultures, the East, too, is Western so far as the West is supposed to name the Christian dispensation, and not the west in the sense of Spengler. For Spengler the setting of the sun in Deutschland is a reception of the European world which was itself not the West. Thus many difficulties already show themselves. 

 

The History of Being in Heidegger subsumes the Christian development, and its Dasein. It begins with Anaximander and ends with Heidegger. However this End is thought as a gathering, as something still hanging about in which we move. An andere Anfang is only dreamed of. Therefore, in what sense is Dasein linked to this New Beginning? In the most radical reading, not at all. 

 

We must ask: In what sense does History as a History of Being belong to the thinking of Dugin as a thinker of Dasein? 
 
Roberto Unger, who graciously makes his class sessions available to us all, says rather pathetically, but also, rather strangely, when one really thinks about it, that unlike the thinkers of the past, with their peculiar ideas, he is presenting, and has been now for many years, the condition of something in the world. When he presents his view on the difficulties of the notion of what the realistic means with respect to the political order. It is pathetic because it is obvious that all other thinkers have meant to speak of what is, of the “condition in the world,” in putting forward their thoughts. It is strange, however, when one thinks how long it was until it became clear in the History of Being that such was a difficulty in distinguishing the statement of what is from the statement of this or that thinker. 
 
In one sense it is self evident that the philosophers of the Greek world sought to say what is. Anaximander, however, in saying what is, began to think being as availability or presence. That the abiding of the essence of presence was at the same time arrival and egress as what was available to man as man. This is, to be sure, a statement of the condition of the world. Yet, in saying what is, how could one not yet see what naively disturbs professor Unger? It is not obvious what disturbs him. It is only clear that, on his view, everyone but he has spoken nonsense, but he is able to speak about a real condition in the world, and so to evade the difficulty of the situation of the “foolosophers.” 
 
What is the modern development of the History of Being in which Dugin must move if he is to receive the subject matter of a Dasein, thus of Dasein? When Kant poses the question of the creative development of the soul, which finds not only a triangle which can not be other than a triangle, as in Thomas, but must actively raise the principles, these principles are not raised from the psuke or soul, but from the obscurity of the earth. The spirit of Kant speaks of an availability of rational guidance through the empty principle of the Categorical Imperative, and in coming to some guidance it reaches a true guidance, but only true for that moment in History. History, political life, the movment of the opinions from what is in general power with the city, to the truth, then is exposed as mere time. The ascendant moon of the night ideas lurks behind the cave, for the cave only reaches from the opinions to the sun (of the true guidance). Because the true guidance is only the day guidance, that of political history, the thinking is forced back into the earth god, or to the level of the mere rhythm of whatever is like the animal life in man. But, the animal life in man is never to be thought out of a Platonic psychology of bios types. The whole “psychology,” of the being of the tribal life, of the village life, extending to whatever is in the place of the logos type, is in play in the earth goddess. 
 
However, in all this we do not reach the subject matter of Dasein. since in Dasein the concept of being is not meant to be thought of as availability. It is like the New Beginning. Therefore, it is almost possible to understand Dugin to move at the gate of the New Beginning, out of the development of the End of metaphysics, except that this implies a break which still moves in the intelligibility of the West as such which is planetary so far as it is the source of the principle of the partial truth of science which is the surviving part of the West, or, of what is the same, Philosophy. 
 
 
The necessity to defend against the Technological Essence implies the Earth Goddess or Black Logos. Yet, it implies as much, the Technological Essence (which could not properly be said to exist for the New Beginning as dimly posited in its impending). From a Nietzschean view one could say that the Technological essence amounts to a perspective. Something that is partially true, so to say, the inertial theory imagined by Galileo, takes over the world. Under the power of the need to hold one’s own amidst the play of the Military Industrial Complex all fates receive the same dispensation. Nietzsche does not really accept the Technological Essence, rather, for him it is a partial Truth. There are n number of such partial truths, an unlimited number. For Heidegger, rather, it is Absolutely True, it is the End of the West an sich. However, because it is only what is available, because it is under the dispensation of Apeiron, it does not reach Dasein.

---

The word "problem" in the title indicates an obvious difficulty in the position of the approach, in the suspension of the questioning proper to the one making the approach, in giving over the questioning to a mere solving of problems. Because all problems are mere problems, and indicate an obstruction, and are never anything more than what they stand as, but in themselves a availability of an obstruction of what is not visible to eyes that are not made wrongly, but only made to see what is available and thus to be obstructed, the thinking now in the ascendent puts the cave and the day into the moonlight. Ergo, historical awareness, seeing the generally accepted opinions, and there wiser development into the truths of the age, at the same time feels them as upon the wave of the History of Being. And this history is not time, but it is what makes time almost visible, for history, even of Being, never reaches the New Beginning.

 


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).