Monday, February 10, 2020



The Cosmetic Separation of the World-View from the Political Postulate of a World Formulation in Existence 

 
Related image



The world of politics or emotional claques of opponents, not to say enemies, is thought as locked into a logos-guided order of Liberal Democracy, understood as rulership by the best citizens authorized by all or most citizens likely, but necessarily, by election contest and public discussion. So far as public discussion becomes explicitly emotional or political it becomes an emasculated or philistine debate of egoistic representatives of factions and their interests under the word of Hobbes: as oft as reason is against man man is against reason. So far as the system of deliberative rationalism approximates to politics or gladiatorial battles of emotion or interest Democracy becomes rule of mob groups. The issue then is essentially the conception of Democracy as rule of the best as a postulate of a foundation in order understood as the basis for various world-views in a pluralised superstructure. The notion that the world views, whether Catholic or Populist or Comunist and so forth, can stand on the base of the logos-decision about  a State or an Administration defensive of a region of social being thought as superior and higher than the base, the mere spirited, thumos or emotional region of the political beings, is the basis for a coherent discussion of all things which hangs in a formulation which threatens to come into the violence of what Dugin has begun to think as a sort of logos war. 
 

The rule of the dead implied by existing orders is one sense of the “cosmetic” for the reason that the release from the authority of the weight of traditions prevails as a backround world power in the general imagination. This imagination at first is thought as identical to reality. So far as the eyes and the understanding are thinking they imagine at all times and stand in contradistinction to the sub-cause of instrument, instrument sanctified by the world thought and given its vital action via the world representation. The easy availability in all quarters in the popular thinking, the power of the cogency of the notion that because a thing was done in a way in the past is no reason to continue to do so reaches a violence which ever swells within the dam of the various great sleeping traditions such as the various sacred concepts of the West. For instance that of the music of Habeas Corpus which has little force of being in the Chinese ear. All the sacred concepts and corresponding gods of the ego arbiter in the form of the pathetic flight from nihilism to love (as in Zizek) flee from the existence of the decision which claims Dugin and with a staggering force outpaces the collapse of western logos. So far as the Western logos given way to mere politics and the idiot sophomoric chatter of the debate club loses all sense of its bare Democratic conception amidst the ravaging of the ego arbiter and its gods the claim of the future on those beings outside the Russian sphere come into an ignoble and stinking morass which topples into itself in rubles. 

 

The expulsion of the world-systems from the society of the social contract based on the Maslow pyramid and the like in its sustaining practical agreements belongs to the region of instability of consciousness which is unparalleled. The pathetic division of love and nihilism which avoids the question of the truth of being amidst the pyramid agreement has a strange tension in the division of the best who are meant to be recognized by the others between the requirements of the low emotional or interest ground of the factional or American politics of commerce (whereby the requirements of what controls the state are met by the military and count as the chief National Interest) and the perversion of a logos-culture in universities divided into ideological interpretations of the sciences or “facts” as with the political scientist Murray or the linguist Pinker, or the sociologist Wacquant (all amateurs in their general postulations which remove from the sphere of their narrow expertise into the abyss). Gross ideological or mythological interpretation effaces the Truth which seeks to claim human understanding in the knowledge of its eyes and understanding as its thought (in the sense of the Heidegger text). Watched by many critical eyes the movement of the internal disputes of the Russian sphere, even if not subject to external words, remains under the seething of a great not to say simply superior philosophical release from, as prepared by Dugin in the presence of, an un-philosophic West. In this sense it should be said that though every attempt to show the difficulty, and let it endow the west with its decision which is no mere decision of life and death or such like, remains the work of those few still claimed by the basic difficulties in their irony. The irony caused by the necessity of the forces and their obscurity of issuance from what is spontaneous as something not conflicting with passions against aims that wish to change the resistence to simple leading ends.



 


Thursday, January 23, 2020



Considerations of Reality, as the waves of an imbricated essence: 

 

Image result for kagemusha

If we heard that a doctor of Water, or of the science called hydro-oxegenology, conferred on his students the outlook that human beings were primarily phenomena of water, we might say that a few human beings can be spared for this thinkinking. But, what does it mean that some human beings can be spared for this pursuit? That chairs or offices can be endowed and funded in the Science of Water? Lives bounded to its concerns. Why, however, when it is said that the science called Biology is evoked as an authority does common sense already give way? It can be demonstrated biologically, or it is so biologically… What is supposed to follow from some departmental grasp of some phenomena (of some mere happening that once was)? All the time we are told there is Evolution, yet, if this is so why do we still speak of science as if they could tell us something true rather than something empirical (something past that can be guided anew, and with, perhaps, unconstrained willingness to be something according to some god)? 

In his Beijing compound the artist Ai Weiwei keeps many cats. One day one of them opened a closed door by leaping and turning the knob with a stretched paw. Do we thereby learn something about the essence of cats? About the possibility of any cat that might ever be? Not at all. We learn only that this cat did that. Nothing at all can be learned about man as man. 

Here the sciences retreat into mysticism and fictionalism. It happens because it happens. Each datum is incomparable. The thinking of Hume is a kind of mysticism, and on the other side Kant’s thinking. The pure human Why. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche prefer the will. The will is the standpoint which straddles the extremes until it is asked just on what ground does this possibility of the will stand? Its actus purus must be willed? Thus, the will to will! 

We then need to examine Nietzsche and The Heidegger. If the Heidegger speaks of Zuhandenheit, there is shown that “being” is thinkable as a becoming. An essencing. And if there it speaks of a Forhandenheit, there is thinking of the intervention of motus or change as something that stands as what is. Everything tries to roll into the thought of the “is.” The actus purus, is, and the beings “are.” Again, this is not easily discriminable from Husserl, not at all! Since Heidegger, himself, as is well known, convinced Husserl that the Athenians were already Husserlians. 

On the other hand, The Heideger claims his being was as yet unsearchable, not to say remotio, to the early Greeks. Though perhaps now it is eminentia with us. 

If someone says that male (sicuti est) and female are biological facts, though, social constructs, how does this differ from the claim that water is the truth of the human is a fact of the science of water? If political agreements, in the pet ideas and collections of conventions of political common sense grasp some terms, from their own ground, then it is not because they are scientific, but they point to the sciences for its authority. Yet, the sciences are compartments moving in their own abysses and endless accumulations, and not in the common cause. However, the duty of each office of science is supposed to be a patriotism of science. A duty to the universal compact of the universal pursuit. 

In general the ideas of former centuries seem to linger and dominate the outlooks of persons in a deleterious way one which causes them to become alluvial soot. And to be stuck outside the times. If it were possible to overcome the time with past copies of older times, degraded in this time, all would be well, and a revolt would be alive. As with the pathetic marginal revolt of numerous parties with “fascist” features. But, as it is in Reality, what happens is that the loosing factor, the greater freedom to fall over because one is not ordered by powers external, many weaklings feel themselves up to making a great deal of public noise. Yet, in reality this is a sign of their further insignificance. And their permanent anger is that of persons who have been told that they always could have enjoyed some advantage, and better if they had started earlier, or, put more realistically, they are like persons helped twice or three times and than outraged at being refused in a subsequent episode. Now they are used to being able to speak, and suddenly they image censorship is increased. Though it has all but withered. This is the general outlook. 

On the one hand the tradition, or what essences silently, the god of technology, scatters in every science as a multifold religious duty brought into a singular bottomless morass, binding and total. On the other, the human being, claiming to be no piece of technology, pathetically mounts various efforts demanding that no special awards be given to this or that person out of keeping with the general claim on the means to happiness through a share in the things that can be moved bought and sold. In each direction old ideas, not in keeping with the real bearing of the absence of all essences and natures, rages into itself. This ignorance of the technological power, and of the disappearance of being as nature, is to be overcome in a few thinkers. It means nothing that innumerable people can quote accurately some thinkers such as Nietzsche to the effect that they have long since memorized these accounts. Since nothing thereby is genuinely taken up in thought as what imagines being! And thought names the phenomena in toto, and, also, the whole or god, cosmos or the universe. However, thought is.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020



Technology restated out of the German world through a passage of Robert Musil’s “The Man Without Qualities” in attempt to come to its definition so as to see into it its decision

Image result for julieta aranda




Philosophy is the name for what helps human beings, or else it would be something else. Whatever helps is a caput mortuum, according to The Heidegger, a worthlessness κατ’ ἐξοχήν. Stated more ambiguously, but, also, say, more truthfully, and in polemic with the times, with information and facts, with newspaper time and manipulation which sees the newspaper time as claiming us, as political claim over the duty of our pride, as what we must follow to be men, philosophy stands against all this as the attempt to demonstrate the impossibility of a trivial life. The thing that is eminently salutary, health itself, seems to help. Political sense, in contradistinction to science, as the base out of which science claims, and makes its claim, to ascend, knows what health is, but in its ascent it no longer can know. Health becomes a technical issue. It’s not only that David Sinclair, by controlling the nucleus of the human cell, can change all the accidental forms of health, but health as such may suffer a qualitative change in its genus. 
 

Socrates was compelled to face up to the “City of Pigs,” the mere pleasure lovers, because Kallipolis, the most noble city, is the question: What life would be most noble? Kalon means what makes the most pious man want to worship through its beauty. The genius of Socrates finds most beautiful the improvement of human beings. His claim is that the ugliest understanding of justice is brute piggish power (cf. Strauss on tyranny and the life of actual tyrants in their self-claimed misery), and the political standard is contract and property. In the noble city we are physicians who claim human beings in order to lead them to the total exposition of the perfect human order. The first three Articles of the US Constitution are an ordering of state. What comes after is law. Kallipolis is not a city of laws. But, rather, of what one gets down on one's knees in the impulse to reverence, namely the highest vision of justice which brings audacity to the citizens and is the spontaneous support of their beings. Yet, this god, justice as sensed by the genius of Socrates, no longer claims human beings. However, today there is a god called techne. And it is no mean god, nor is its power less than the gods of all times. 
 

In a certain sense, this god is greater than the older gods. Surely, it is no nihilism. Only the overcoming of all gods would be that. However, now let us merely read a passage of Musil in order to grasp the definition in our own ways while considering it in the wintery light of Decision and Event (which is Ereignis) since, up until know, this has been something that just happened, and not what was decided by laying claim on this peculiar pattern of our time: 
 

“The lady and her companion had also approached and, peering over heads and bent backs, contemplated the victim. Then they stepped back and stood hesitating. The lady had a queasy sensation in the pit of her stomach, which she credited to compassion, though she chiefly felt irresolute and helpless. The gentleman, after some silence, said to her: “The breaks on these heavy trucks have too long of a braking-distance.” This datum gave the lady some relief, and she thanked him with an appreciative glance. She did not really understand, or care to understand, the technology involved, as long as his explanation helped put this ghastly incident into perspective by reducing it into technicality of no direct personal concern to her.” 
 

In all literature what matters is verisimilitude. But, that the engineer can imagine an engine and picturing it so work out various problems, such as the design of a better carburetor in his fuel injection system, also means that the knowledge he has in the intuition or prediction of the acts of the phenomena of heat and chemical actions come into the picturesque mirror. So far as literature and imagination remains a set of beings that does not struggle to overcome extrospective being it reminds of a metaphor that merely transfers meaning, but does not yet grasp that it first opens meaning. And this was the difficulty which caused Mishima to finally capitulate and relinquish literature.  


According to the god of techne, for the feminine and the political, always fearing the expert and seeking what is to be trusted, the nets of technology bring relief: This datum gave the lady some relief, and she thanked him with an appreciative glance. She learns of the title: Breaking-distance. The masculine spirit, to be sure, too learns of this, and here it would need to become intelligent, and learn the intelligence of breaking-distance. Which, to be sure, is no Greek or Latin text of philosophy or science (the two being the same named twice in  the tradition until now). So far as Greek and Latin were the entrance requirement for the universities of the past, they have now to step aside for the new intelligence of this man. Now, the irresolute feeling flies. With the datum. According to The Heidegger there is such a thing, too, of anxiety. Though, true, it is not thought as mere anxiety at a car wreck. Yet, it is banished! 
 

The feminine spirit, the popular, the political man, but Nietzsche says, this too names the scientists themselves these days, since they are universal laymen and infantizing and obscurantist of themselves, except in the narrow niche of their specialization and its corresponding intelligence, in the compartment of braking-distances for instance, She did not really understand, or care to understand, the technology involved, as long as his explanation helped put this ghastly incident into perspective by reducing it into technicality of no direct personal concern to her.”  Everyone who is happily a layman will accept the popular account, and having learned some names with the greatest complacency go about rehearsing them to each other and themselves. This means most off all the so-called scientists themselves, who are their own popular audience, and talk baby-talk even to themselves.  
 

Was this ever a decision? According to The Heidegger Event or Ereignis (others proscribe the translation) is a decision. It has nothing to do with newspapers, even if it infects the political, or what Leo Strauss says, in our own time, comes to stand for common sense as against scientific sense. But, what common sense is, is a small god in itself. It guides the ego arbiter in its deliberations within and with each other. And it too undergoes qualitative changes and one notes that once upon a time it was non-existent. Decision is somewhere in the god of techne, but what is this dawn for science or for politics? For philosophy and science on the one hand, and politics and common sense on the other? One would like to say, according to The Heidegger, and, also, the truth. How can we think the "according to the truth" given that The Heidegger tells us, if we listen, that the essence of truth is a decision or Event? The thrill of the removal from the newspaper time, with its demand to keep up with the latest incremental transformations on the road to the top of reality, would jolt through bodily to our fingertips when they found themselves moving in the untimeliness of this decision. This man and woman, in Musil, let us say, have lived in the newspaper, and not in decision. they are no nihilists, thus they can never create truth. Yet, The Heidegger does not aim at creating truth: rather at being claimed by Ereignis or Event, by the decision. Yet, is it this decision, that of that resplendent Techne in the eyes of political man, who is also these days scientific man, himself a popular man, speaking to his lack of science, to his mere techne, of the god of forces and laws of “nature,” of the unitary nature rather than the nature of the myriad individual beings, a decision to techne?   
 

To be sure the Event is like a paideia which lets one move forward in a situation of timelessness. But, this timelessness is not eternal in the sense of a store of ideas or possibilities, that of ivory, that of triangles, that of hippopotamuses and of a Marina Abramovic who asserts that a woman who has children can never be a great artist, but it is thought in the atmosphere of a polemic with the newspaper, which itself has the consideration of the progress of the “worker.” Because the “soldier” was damned with his “peace is a dream and not even a beautiful dream,” with his sacrifice and morality, and the selfishness of the “worker” with his, these are not one of ourselves and we may kill them for our benefit, since it all serves progress, since all “work” is in the service of the newspaper and the political, and makes for more information and most of all keeps us in contact with the “datum” which is in the place of decision.  
 

However, we must study the being of imagination and verisimilitude under the possibility of stealing towards the genuine definition of Decision which must be seen and not only talked of. This describes our current task. 

Tuesday, January 7, 2020


Definitions (always just getting under way).
Image result for yukio mishima

Definitions:

1.Defintion: That which points or sees into the concrete good of some matter. Someone who knows what the being properly is has the definition. 

Comment: The assumption that definitions are consubjective and extrospective corresponds to the possibility of intersubjectivity or communication and introspection. 

Examples: This sentence is a sentence and it says or tells us something. This kind of definition attempts to capture what everyone knows already. In other words, to say what is the good or solid significance of statements, propositions or sentences. That they say, or tell, or perhaps “show” something. That they tell us something is what gives them a bearing on human life. Magritte’s painting with the words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is a painting. 



Comment: The issue of specific diferentia which is still the Kantian sense of the analytic definition implies a non-conventional understanding of definition. The Anglo-American Kant (Quine is an exemplar of it) regards substance as a grammatical feature. The Kantian philosophy regards substance as a causal feature. With us substance is thought Phenomenologically (neither in a logical/conventional manner nor a psychological/factical manner). Like Aristotle we don’t suppose that it is meaningful to deny that all things have a ”good,” or to limit “value” or “ought” to the products of human making, but, unlike Aristotle we don’t assume that the “good” of stone, of roots, of small shrewd animals, or of Justice and Beauty, is once discovered final. Behind the good must then be thought the Holy. The rational will and the passions are not thought as projecting themselves into objects but thought and the definition are part of the beings. 



2.Dasein: Beings are undeceptively or straightforwardly available. The frames of common sense (thought in the Aristotelian way as endoxa, the Christian way as “general opinion” in contradistinction to knowledge, or in the biological manner as traits beneficial to survival of the species, or in some psychological/psychoanalytic manner or in the manner of Descartes and Thomas Paine, or in the scientific-Democratic sense) and of naturwissenschaft (this which aims at extrospective result or success defined against the value or ought content) cannot correct the availability (disponibilité [it is important to note we do not read this as said against Aristotelean “clock time” as does Derrida, but rather as referring to the availability of ousia or being in Aristotle as what is (‘is is available’)], parousia). Availability is itself available as is the “I” for what availability or presence is present. Heidegger is not taken as a demonstration that availability is one “beginning” among (moglich) others.  



3.Philosophy: What appears first among the Greeks. Especially with the discussions between the Meletians and the Athenians and the Eleatics. The name Caesar can be used to name a leader with no connection by pedigree to the Roman context. So too the name Philosophy can become, and has, a mere generic which denies the reality of the pedigree in its real existence. Though, the pedigree can not be thought here only by the frame of an imposed measure of clock time, since in being a definition it refers back to the good use which belongs to extrospective thinking of the beings (ergo, not to an abstract notion of a brain as in the “useful” (that is on the “subjective” notion that health is “useful”) medical work of the neurobiological field). In this sense Leibnitz' saying that thinking would not be found in the brain no matter how close one looks says now that thinking is found in the brain understood as sites of concrete goods. Of the neurons and such-like understood by extrospective self-identity. In this sense self-identity and ready-to-hand in Heidegger are alike (both are available or being the “is”). The mystery of the contrast between the god, ratio or reason (rationality), and the fateful power, pathos or the passions (“emotions” in the modern vernacular jargon) defines philosophy among the available beings. Availability is like the Holy being that in which the good is available. The Holy is a mere "verbal formula" and a "fallacy" from the point of view of formal logic. It can not be defined so far as it has no “good”, but it can be signaled Phenomenologically through the “is”.   

Wednesday, November 6, 2019




Conserving the possibility to think the genuine inception for a prolonged instant thus attempting to supply the true force of event: The Concept of Being 


 

 

The traditional concept of the concept is something that the imagination is unable to picture. The traditional example is given in the Port Royal Logic and refers to Augustine. The Concept of the Concept refers to a moment in the History of Being when imagination was thought as within the region of psuke, and not in the region of phusis. This description still holds for whoever thinks phenomenologically. In phenomenology the regions have no preference in terms of the evaluation of knowledge (as in the Theaetetus). In this sense when it is said that Being is not a concept something misleading is said. It is a concept. Only the concept of the concept is now phenomenological. So the region from which it is thought is no longer evaluated. No attempt is made to found knowledge. The truth of being is no knowledge or science. 

 

We say, the “guiding aim” and thus Phenomenology is no longer an “encounter” of a phenomenological knowing and what it knows. The position raised by Heidegger reminds of the statement of Jung. We continue to dream while awake in the unconscious. Jung says, also, the unconscious is really unconscious. It’s clear that any concept of the unconscious is analogous in its closeness to being to the Sophist question, “is not-being?” Therefore, we may think the not being and the unconscious. If the instants “forget” what energia as not-being is always bringing to them the dream chaos is the energia. 

 

The solidity of concrete, for instance, is already in the concrete as seen. We anticipate the potential. Is there something analogous in language which anticipates even without memory of an experience? So far as language is cerebellum environmental or motor based it is not correctness as what is apart from the discussion of words about words. In some sense this is the bare meaning of the conception of Husserl’s so-called intentionality. The retreat into the basic language which is phenomenological active prior to a discussion of words about words. However, everyone is distant from this, because of compulsory primary education. Because of introspective reflection. The motor primary language linked to being is not being, but in its essence like the not-being and the unconscious. It is a “essence”, conceptualized as a sort of energia with no nature. Which means that a house, for example, is a house, but that it might not remain a house. Because the ground of the event, for example, allows the second table of Edington to flow into it and take it over until it becomes a “dwelling machine”. Until it becomes what is the temporary station of the ungrounded worker, of the rent payer, of the owner who could be moved by the state. Of the one guided away from themselves so that they could improve their animal flesh and make themselves into something else because they are not the animal with the divine spark of reason but the sheer availability of the imaginary space-time to an experimentally available consciousness which is the cybernetic movement of what “persuades”, that is, of what manipulates. To manipulate is to persuade without conscience knowledge. Since there is no soul or psuke, this consciousness can not be persuaded. It is not even rationally conscious at all. Its consciousness is only of the “scientific house”. Only the being still with a subjective offense against this space-time still plays about with natural things as if it were an animal with a special advantage over the other animals. 

 

The concept of being, which is no longer a concept, but can be thought of as a concept. Where does the change happen? This grasping must be conserved in the flow of being. Heidegger says, I stand back and bow before one who will come… (step back in front of one who is not here, and I bow a millennium ahead of him,.) Thus, he implies, being is real. The History of Being is real. It goes on. In this sense, one can see that unlike the Eastern thinking Heidegger lets being be. And this is important to see when one thinks through this that is new to thought (thus, unlike wisdom, we say: something can be new to thought, thus, the Event). Heidegger does not hold, that which has been can not be undone. Because he does not hold with the principle of identity. Happiness, which was once Beatitude, which was once Eudaimonia, has it retained anything of its first emergence? Perhaps something. There is no man as man. Man is no longer the rational animal. Not an animal at all. What was learned of Plato, will no longer count. Perhaps there can be no learning in this sense, learning about an essence, that of man as man, and his morals. We must begin to think being, while as yet referring back to the flow of the concrete world, into reason as the reasonable. It may be asked, why refer always to the objections of common sense and the reasonable? Since one does not want to surrender to the forces of mere talking about talking. Just as it is also so that one does not give way to the authority of the atheistic god with its Laws of Nature as eternal Energia or Actus Purus. Instead we remember, not-being is. The unconscious is dreaming while awake. 

Monday, November 4, 2019


Remarks in Passing on our understanding of the Moral and Intellectual conceptions as historical relics and correctness (in some connection to Isaiah Berlin). On whether life is useless. 


Image result for count kuki heidegger
 

 

The question What is the significance of life on earth? is given in the formation of Law (through the art of Political Philosophy) and the direction of the advancement of the experimental sciences (or, the decision about how much resources will be allotted to each).  The question then becomes concrete.

 

We are grateful to Dugin for reawakening the interest in Guenon, his book The Crisis of the Modern World agrees with our own view to the extent that it grasps the transformation of the higher, nous or reason, to the lower, calculative episteme, as a comprehensive transformation of the human being, in his sense as a ruination and destruction of the intellect unparalleled in the human development. What interests us in Guenon is his genuine grasp of an inkling of the full force of the older thinking, now lost. That the going down of the tradition is the going down of an Earth. Earth is said of ethnos, but World of the Political community.



In parallel the Zizek position denies this attitude of destruction wholly, though in a certain sense Zizek, though he does not sense the Aristotelian world (as does Guenon), but wholly moves in its destruction in Kant and Hegel, as he expresses it quite beautifully by reference to Vertigo, to the rings of the felled giant Redwood “here I was born and here I died,” ergo, between Kant and Hegel, his attitude is that the cosmos is favorably disposed to man and must yield even though various difficulties present themselves. Nietzsche and Bakunin take the view, in contradistinction to this, that the significance of life is in life without end or favored home. Thus these views, never understanding either being nor religion and faith in Dugin's sense, are species of a Catholicism. The sense of a Herder, of a being at home as being like oneself, which in some sense even taints Heidegger, is repudiated in Zizek for universal norms as absolutes. Herder does not hold with supremacism, as of some veiled menace of a neo-Nazi "88," but with the each to their own to the fullest. This position, however, is impossible when the search for Truth of Being is taken seriously. The problems raised by Schmitt must show their grimace as in the "Idealism" of Samanth Power, in the spirit of the Valkyries, which strives constantly towards the elimination of evil, of enemy, with an undying will (concealed by lovely manners).  




The Catholic “will to power” shows straightforwardly through Sam Harris. Philosophy or “science” is supposed to be able to answer the question, What is the true way to live? The answer must be universal in character. Various verbal questions which can be raised as objections are not much interesting and, even less interesting is whether Harris himself knows what he is (or what peculiar taint of history he embodies). 
 
‘But if they want to suffer…’
‘A man may want to rape a woman. Are we to allow it because he wants to? Suffering is wrong.’
‘And you suffer all the time,’ the priest commented, watching the sour Indian face behind the candle-light.’


Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory   
 
This example shows the difference between relativism, as in Comte, Mill and the Utilitarian vision, and the Historical Consciousness properly. Of course, true, the Harm Principle comes in in the example of rape. But, on the Kantian view, it comes in as much in the example of suffering. Since each one is like each other, and harming oneself is no different than harming another. 
 
Happyness. No. 
Leiden leiden, Kreuz Kreuz. (Suffering suffering, the cross the cross.) ― Martin Luther
 
There is a thread, running from Athenian Eudaimonia, to Catholic Beatitude, to American Happiness. In this sense, one must ask: Does anything remain? Or, rather, has the ground changed sufficiently that nothing remains in the “idea”. 
 
The Utilitarian so-called Relativism sees each society as approximating towards what is most conducive towards cozy self-preservation. 
 
Our view is that: In Pinker there is an example of total lack of Aristotelian phusis or “origin.” He reads Locke as a Marxist who speaks of “blank slate” babies who take their form through rearing in the sense of class upbringing. Thus he tends towards the cheap commonplace amongst the Leftists: Plato, the Aristocrat. With the addendum, though, not all aristocrats are bad since there are “class traitors”. 
 
All this is totally alien to Locke and has nothing to do with his concept of the tabla rasa. which was directed at the art of reasoning or the formation of the discrimination of moral opinion and knowledge. 
 
In the same style Adam Smith is usually wholly misread. Since Smith (natural value) still lived in the atmosphere of Aristotelian reason. In a certain sense, something of the spirit of the “scientific” table, of Edington, so-called, is always read back into the Aristotelian world where there is no such nature. No experimental “science” “nature”, which is really a name for technological enframement (i.e., “nature” as an imaginary “space-time”/ "Gestell" as totalizing non-rational availability). 
 
--
 
Ishah Berlin says Hitler’s “values did not coincide with ours” and we therefore “had a right to go to war with him”. He doesn’t say: They were wrong (“universal”) values. 
 
Berlin admits that the category of human disappears at the edges. Those who we can not understand in any reasonable sense are not human. 
 
An implication of this is what follows: A discourse must be addressed to the friends of the truth if it is to be serious. To those who take pleasure in truth (rather than in interest or passion). A written discourse may be read by anyone, for thousands of years. It may be read by those who are not human. The ones who aren't human will not be friends of the truth. (The issue of bare intelligibility as against reasonableness is key here.) 
 
----
 
Heidegger: Being. Said negatively this means that one can not approve Guenon simply. Something is gained in the destruction of the West by the technological “science” or, what says the same thing, the transformation of the Western tradition into nihilism (on the one side, the impossibility of the question why prolong human existence?, on the other, mere “Life” as experiencing of the life-giving lies). Being says, not a telos, when stated negatively. Thus being is not origin or nature. Not the favoured world. The favoured world, the world of Aristotle, implies the nihilist world, it does not take an interest in us. The, “science” as “neutral”. To have a phusis is to be caused, since it a peculiarity, an essence, as what has a “mature” state. What grows to maturity has a purpose. To be, by contrast, is no cause or answer to the “why”. life is still full of the “why”. It differs only in that it denies that god can ever find man. For Harris, god must be capable to find a man. There must be favouring in the cosmos.

Thursday, October 31, 2019


 

Regimes of Humanism, Regimes of Individuality 

Image result for alexander dugin



 

 

Primeval passion, the sphere of Interests. The phrase “the passions of the tide” means that the tides take no action. Action is the mixture of the soul and the body. The popular or general opinion, in its frenzied inexactitude, doesn’t often enough distinguish action from mere movement. Napoleon sits on his horse, perhaps he unscabbars his long arched sword and thereby produces a semaphore. Perhaps Napoleon never fought at all in hand to hand battle or duel. Perhaps he never had a physical fight of any kind. What is an action? What is a deed? Because the human being lives in the storms of (truth as) correctness (this should not be confused, and by no means identified simply, with the temporally local phenomena of "political correctness"), it lives in a chain of thousands of years of overlapping thinking. Ideas of the dead, not only dead humans, but of dead circumstances and landmasses perhaps exerting their telluric forces, constantly overwhelm philosophical interests. The philosophical interest is truth. Yet, what does it mean that truth has become an interest, that reason has become a passion? The legal system of most countries retain the philosophic meaning of action, as in the phrase “Accessory after the fact.” Action is the older sense of the word fact. A legal fact, to be determined by a jury, as a non-scientific matter, as something which is not a matter of the science of law, involves asking how the mind links to what is done. A treacherous Borgias prince gives his guest a poisoned chalice. The unjust act (unjust fact) is made possible because of his knowing that it is poisoned. Implying that the significance or "relevancy" is woven into the mere material motion. A woman, according to the contemporary vision out of the mere social mass of the society, perhaps becomes “politicized” when she has a child because she must see to the interest of the “future” which has the business of being a danger for her own. But, on the other hand, the essence of man as man is supposedly reason which finds its right environing in the political world which makes freedom form necessity possible and so thought possible in idleness which is the aim of the highest human essence. Thus freedom from the labor demanded by a lack of mastery of the environment. Yet, reason is only availability of the intuited essences; in simpler terms it is what speech does in allowing one to speak about. Perhaps then man is the being with the interest of being the “head of a household” and controlling the “purse strings” and protecting what is his? The so-called thumos type or the object of the studies of Fukuyama in exact social science study. The question of the countries holding their own among the other countries is analogous to that of the question of the political man with his badges and money, his demand for pride or superiority, and, on the other side, the philosopher with his reason and his significance or truth and his claim to the superiority of truth and god or "rationality" as the Atheist god, to contest. 


Movement of the individual in the conventions of the current centuries.

The pathos of a “theory” of life (anti-dating Nietzsche) judges by moments of a lived-experience that takes its form in the drama of the individual. This is then the measure of the being, this and this happened and it was worth experiencing and these experiences go on throughout life and thus life is significant. Such mere “subjective” individualism must have a god to protect it, a god of reason such as that that came to light in the French Revolution (the struggle of the amour soi to assert itself as amour propre must find some tribunal to save off the mere reversion to barbarism, not to say the strange and problematic "state of nature"). If this God were summed in a word he would be “Equality” (thus the Truth of the Hegelian Absolute is averred in the human heart, and a rejection of simple Christianity (rather than its developed forms which stray from th mere "to the world what is the worlds, to me what is mine": ergo, the "aristocracy of nature" is evaded, of the judgement at death and not in this world of the personalities in their inner significance as spirits] is effected on some views). All are equal, later it becomes necessary to notice the principle of Equality, as the Truth of the world which if it is obeyed will draw mankind to bliss, is not so easily “worked pure” by the precedents of the jurists and the people in their Natural Right as what is Essential (e.g., the gay marriage issue) over the course of a century and many revolutions. The principle or God, which is eternal, which reason finds, must guard the mere living beings with their Erlebnis (because of the threat of barbarism). Thereby Nietsche would be totally bastardized and made to agree with the accidental grotesque world of concessions to reality (because in Nietzsche "Life" has a principle within it that decides on what is deed or significant as what is "life-giving lie"). 

 

Humanism: To make Reason God. Reason, what grasps the principle around which a discipline is founded and sustained. For instance, health makes the establishment of a diploma in medicine and research into what restores health significant or meaningful. Health itself is only available to reason as a principle. The means to health refer back to health, to the principle. But, health is only what is grasped as health rather than illness by the human “subject” with its so-called reason or ability to hold “abstractions” before itself in the soul, or the higher part of the soul. Then Equality is supposed to be to the whole, to all that exists, what health is to the body and reason comes to hold sway as a God. It degenerates so far as the principle undergoes the pathos of its continual catharsis and reemergence. In the sacrifice of one estimation of its predicated essence to another, in the burning of what one worships and the worshiping of what one had formerly burned. For example that American Southerners burned Integration, but now more and more worship it amidst various still visible resistances. 

 

Humanism: That decisions over fate are moved from the natural to the deliberate. So that all people from one country, because they speak one language, have numerous things in common, but that among them some will show inclination to work with mechanical things and go into a training in waste management, through an inner inclination. That inner inclinations be viewed as the most important thing. That all financial barriers, that a child with an inclination would be prevented from following it because the family needs them to earn a wage, are to be overcome. 

 

Humanism: The reorganization of all human achievement which gives the Deed or the Action a new significance. The greatest deed, to become an Individual. Thus the inner wellspring of mere motion, the “motive”, is the “Individualized” soul. 

 

On the other hand this Humanism is the shadow of a radical materialism in the form of Science or the sciences. “An elite is tempted by Russian neo-Marxism not so much because of its humanitarian gospel as because of its vision of a totalitarian civilization linked to the cosmic powers of matter.” The sacrifice of beings in the Russian Futurism and the subject matter of Boris Groys, the downgoing of the sun, and the nihilism which resets in order to build from a black null. The well-known Nazi “mysticism” which is really a “cosmic power” cult of "planetary criminals." The liberalism which flattens this and comes to speak of “consciousness” as an effective experimentally available limit state of material. Thus the deification of the essence of Reason as sheer availability. The human become the being that has for its specific differentia Availability (or presence).  

 

The Individual: That which is isolated by the economic machine and forced into universal gladiatorial contests of the most vulgar kind. The removal of the human being as a reasonable being under a principle which is the path to bliss or “happiness,” to what is the same as health to the whole. 

 

The Individual: The inner being without a soul, which is now the subject and not the possessor of the “knowledge as power.” Originally, the “knowledge as power” was a force against the environment of an animal gifted with reason. But, when the animal became a Material “consciousness” (no longer seriously recognizing a distinction between environment or surrounding world and itself) the “knowledge as power” was turned against it and began to menace it. 

 

The Individual: According to the Contract Theory notion an entity called a “rights bearing Individual” replaced the subject who was a duty bound possession of a king. When this notion became absurd to the rising middle classes, and it was asked, can the king of France sell one of his subjects to the King of England, the new regime was brought in. Undeveloped in America, with only Empirical institution, and more thoughtfully in France, with a Civic Religion of Equality (and Atheistic "rationality"). But, in what does the change actually consist? In effect the American has the duty to follow the laws. Thus duty still exists. The office of the Right bearer, is that of Law Obeyer. Long consideration produces the conviction that the Social Contract so-called Legal Fiction is much less radical than it presents itself. True, the Individual is supposed to live in Society and so in the gladiatorial contest where it is an isolate being and not part of a civic culture. And yet the civic culture goes on being imposed, but simply without an explicit admission of its obligating title. Thus a certain destructive clash exists between the State as referee over the gladiatorial world, and the Civic Culture imposition.  
 
 
In going over these  subject matters continually the “guiding aim” is to draw the whole into view as the rule of the past that lives on so as to remove the comfortable relaxation in what is already decided and effective everywhere. Only then can we begin to ask why Reason itself must become not “consciousness”, but rather being. And just how our leading question will unfold: Is the genetic power of the Phenomenology which still speaks from the Essence of Availability set aside in the “guiding aim” of the Truth of Being? 
 
 
Again, as the Methodos thinks, it comes to ask more profoundly about the “Truth of Being” in its founding. How can anything be founded that is not subject to the Metaphysics of Presence at all? Even Heidegger. Someone who has a possibility, someone who knows what to do with a shoelace, because they are that kind of being, already has, say, the standing future of tying a shoe. The Megarians make this sharper by pointing, ultimately, to the claim to an essential difference in this. Because accidents might prevent someone with a skill to carry it out in action and complete it perfectly in its end. A drunken contractor may fail to make of his raw materials the two by fours he needs. The failure to fabricate what is needed for the building could happen for n number of accidental reasons. Thus the ground of the energia, that place form which the standing possibilities come forward, is set over and against the supposed accidents. Yet, common sense sees the reliability of numerous skills in their possibility. In considering this as a field of competency of thinking that has come to pervade the human being as a correctness can we ever not treat our thinking as the actualizing or the deed of grasping what is available in order to decompose the mystery of dunamis and energia, of the coming to be of the possibility and the actus purus? In such reflections that go more closely to the base of the being question, is there supposed to be a moment when the End of Metaphysics is already overcome, when the leap to the another beginning is not present in the availability of the research? We must consider this again more accurately in what follows, out of Husserl and (Phenomenological) Consciousness (of the “encounter”) question [keeping in mind that Phenomenological consciousness has nothing to do with experimentally efficacious consciousness under a Liberalist Materialism of the so-called sciences].