Justification for the Reception, rather than Speculative Positing (or anything else)

The fifth paragraph of the eleventh lecture on the Fourth Law of Thought reads:

If we assume that the history of Western thinking rests in the withdrawing Geschick of being, then this is not simply some personal assumption we advance in the sense of an opinion that randomly befalls some matter and is enmeshed in a preconceived view.

Assuming doesn't mean presupposing, but it says that we have to take the thing on in such a way that it transcends the realm of opinion. Not because it ascends to knowledge, but because as cognition it is received by thought. 

Cognition says what Husserl says when he speaks of a manifold. In the sense that a conjunction is made the subject of a positing. The conjunction is simply something one sees, but since as soon as we try to bring this matter to language we become unclear, all one can say is the confusing thing, but then refer oneself to the simple facts of existence. 

Because the cognition is not a knowing, as something ascended above opinion, it is a basic ground of Reason. A manifold or conjunction of present presentations is referred to by the judgment, that is a lamp. The simple rises up into the abstract, and becomes difficult to follow. That is a dumb brute, a bird. Here, in the cognition, one refers to conjunction of appearances. What is crucial is that a presentation must be a presentation of something. Since if one saw a presentation, simpliciter, that would be nothing at all. Thus the indifference of the thing the judgment speaks of from out of the one who speaks reaches towards the conjunction, but never lights as what is exposed to the things. 

Whereas Kant speaks of what is presentation, Heidegger speaks of what is present, or presented. Vorstellung becomes what is there as Anwesen and Vorliegen. Because the place of the transcendental becomes the is as the reception of the Fate in the being of being as the higher reason, as the principle of reason which was logos, ratio, and the condition for the possibility. Being, if one mechanically wanted to read the matter out in the same form, becomes condition for possibility. What goes along with this is that History takes over reason, reason is not common to all ages, and that is known by thought, which is never subsumed by reason. 

Cognition, Erkenntnis in Kant, is what has nothing to do with knowledge or truth. Something which is ready to rise up form an opinion has to do with knowledge. As in a Socratic examination of the memorey lost to the soul, but which still resounds in its chamber. But, in another way, judgments, at once, are said to be a form of knowledge, yet, they never listen to what resounds, or to what the Fate bestows. If they don’t listen, then they remain something like the god, that dances above the deprivation of the human realm. The human realm, where all are slave to political passions, and make their arguments in accordance with their prejudices and interests. But what is true is left unreflected in its truth, and therefore it seems common to all ages. For example the notion that two things can be equal, supposes the correctness of the judgment concerning simple equality, as of the length of two things. But if it is made questionable, how this correctness stands towards the mystery, the common Sky of all ages is seen by thought. The possibility of the leap in the basic judgments, is like the Socratic movement into the ground of what is to be remembered. 

When we ask about, e.g., courage, asserting the whole: it is fearlessness in the face of what is dreadful and life threatening. But, when we look at the detail, is the insensate man, plunged into narcotic stupor, the courageous because he does not fear? One searches into the eidos of Courage. In like way, the thinking into the leaps, that teach us to see what was not manifest, never come to the “ideal”, which is not a concept known to the ancients, or even to the truth, they continue looking in the search. But, since we know the search is a teleological activity, we must not take what is proffered by the Geschick, the subject of the assuming, to be anything other than chance to make the leap towards the thinking of what is called Being, which is always a rubric. Yet, in all this that is stated Nietzsche, most of all, is speaking to us of the Life-Giving Lie. 

“ an opinion that randomly befalls some matter and is enmeshed in a preconceived view.”

Surely this is a gift of the Fate, and one can not deny that it is reception of what is bestowed. For nothing random is given out of the head as an impudent claim, but from the inner law of the Fate, out of what the British mind calls fiction, namely, from philosophy, philosophy has lost its deep mooring in the common ground of all the times (And Nietzsche has spoken of these depths comically, of the "profound"--what now is profound in History, in what peaks out of a passing world... but the British, in order to spend the Winter well fed, purpose the crime of treating what is man's own making, laws of prediction and description of things, to put them in the warm jail of the forbearance of all responsibility for Thought, in the content accrual of more devices, external from themselves, from the core, uncertain in their use, interesting, glittering, and soon thrown away for what is just as far from the core. While the Germans have long been Enlightened, terrifically praising themselves for their productivity and economic sense, and their scientific wits, having ceased long ago to have an inkling of Kant's work as anything but "epistemology" for some causal science of pseudo-prosthetics.), but all is assumed out of what lies present and what is ready in that it makes the path to the beings come into our uneasy glance that falls upon the basis of the leap and each leap in the Fate of reason which is the core of the human being, but not of what one is. 

What is Reason in the Reception of the Fate?

 

Paragraph Four of the 11th hour of the lecture series on the fourth Law of Thought reads:

We assume such a relation between the Geschick of being and the history of thinking. In speaking here of “as-suming” we mean “to receive” what comes over thinking: to “as-sume” in the sense, as we say, of “taking on” an opponent in a fight; only here the assuming or taking-on is not hostile and the fight is not one of hate. Assuming and taking here have the sense of a responding that listens and brings something into view.  

Now we must be cautious and in what follows we will first make proposals concerning the way the “Geschick” is to be thought. The requisite caution belongs to the reception of the Geschick. This means that what is said should be left entirely open, in the manner of a argument which suggests without the hope of being true. To suggest, to give reasons, without Truth, without the possibility of being right or wrong, of persuading or not, is the carefulness of the reception of the phenomenology of Reason as Vernunft and not as Grund. Because the “spontaneity” of the higher reason is creativity, but the creativity is not the Value that Values, that issues Value to the Being that looks at the “what”, rather it is the Fate as the House of Being. Thus Metaphysics, as the Laws of Thought are left behind and outstripped. Let us, therefore, act on this premise. Speach speaks, but never presents itself as mere knowledge or lie. 

Cornelius Castoriadis, finally, having relinquished the Marxist problema, and the Marxist methodus, says: "Embrace indeterminacy". This reminds us of the path of various empirical and rational thinkers who eventually succumbed to the difficulties and returned to the “mystery”, which is to say, they surrender the teleology. 

The saying of Socrates, stated positively: Anthropos is the seeking Bios. It follows from this that what was thought was always a teleological project. The πρόθεσις is a “placing in public”, as something like one’s body, so that just as moving the body, when it is concurrent with conation, is indistinguishable. Action and choice are identical, in, for example, pointing with a finger. Everything there is there as a species of thing, which is a purpose or a prosthetic of the will of the choice, and the action of the desire. The seeking is already the: Embrace of indeterminacy. Strauss calls that, the “radically mysterious dispensation of Fate’. If it is that "already" that only says that it is the "same", where "same" is the most difficult indication or direction. Thus the carefulness mentioned above. 

Everything is given roughly: In the same way as one travels from Darwin to Haeckel and to Freud, and then through a surrendering of the sentimental [the "sentimental" is a pejorative, like when Nietzsche speaks of the saccharine or sugary, and one should suspect it in the manner that Jung regards Nietzsche as "unbalanced", favoring Power: the connection of Power and Sentimentality is axiomatic for Jung], forced after grinding out years and decades of not facing what had already been received in History, leads one back to the unconscious, and to the drives, and to the surrender of the scientific stance, as the causal science (the project of Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Einstein, Feynman etc.). One is exposed to the rift between biology and physics, which is named Rationalism and Idealism in the dispute where George Berkeley takes up the view of Biology, ie. Natural History or Empiricism, and the mathematical Platonism, or Philosophic Materialism, leads inevitably to the question of Dr. Stephen Hawking's: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”. 

The bourgeois individual is supposed by the thinking of the “first labour than leisure” under the, first ethnos and elite, than abstract man. The bourgeois is supposed to come to being on the backs of these “firsts”, as though everything had to be understood according to a certain view of origin. The bourgeois is not exposed to death, but only to a struggle with the manipulation of a vestigial class. The individual is supposed, in the dialectic of History, to return to the ground after destroying the lower stages of identity. To return to a honest confrontation with death and the Eternal ground.

This thinking points back to the Archaic being, which is the awareness of the character in its relation to the cosmos, as the microcosm and macrocosm, precisely the character of one awarness. And not as the thought of being part of a group. The Archaic thought of someone one who can “raise their eyes”. In retrospect animal captivation appears as the “that” or ontic, as what is alongside what is, has become present in the something that is as the “what” it is. The prosthetic as the equipment of the house, is the basis of the Seeking, as a concealed teleology. So long as it is projected into the “not knowing” as the ad hominem, as the opinion which is not true, where the true points to the concealed teleology.  Thus the society without contradictions in the Marxist belief system, or the End of History, etc., must become the “radical dispensation of Fate” as the Geschick. 

Therefore the more subtle concealed teleology must be noticed, the Value
Science, in, e.g., Scheler and Husserl. This matter, of the juxtapostion of the Value Science to something else, remained inmanifest to Scheler. Whereas Husserl spoke of the "eigen-naïvetés" of the philosophy stated as Heidegger. Husserl hear speaks like Ardent, in her parable of the trap that belonged only to Heidegger. (Stated without linguistic precision: This is perhaps due to a lack of comprehension of the independent existence of the reception, as a form of Being.) Gadamer, for instance, called this "seeking after God" (that is not simply a signal indication of Gadamer's lack of competence, but a deliberately vague characterization under the category "seeker"). Showing the opposite extreme of generalization as interpretation of the work. The reception of the Fate is like the Value science, i.e., the claim that the “complex” always pulls the knowledge forward, so that the, e.g., power dormitiva, draws the "how" of the scientific search into the realm of chemistry, which searches out the laws of that power which stands in the basis of the “what” and is to be constructed according to a systematic science of the “that”. In the reception the subtle matter of the Value Science will no longer be endured, such that the problmema (not the problem, but the motif), must ask what everything else must answer to: Can the project of Seeking be overcome? No heterotic thought seems possible, between Nietzsche and Heidegger. Then we begin to sense the tenebrous spectre of Life-Giving Lie infringe upon the suspicious philosophy called Heidegger.  

Teleology means projecting into the future a purpose, I write a post in order to bring something to thought, in the descriptions here. Someone goes to the store, committed to the action of buying a loaf of bread. The things as the phenomena offer the true knowledge of the final science, that of Value. The science is discovered to be a teleological project, a action of the projecting comprehension, not of the Universe as what God created, but as the creation of the “spontaneity” of Value. A flowery water, turbulent with the spirit of command, addresses itself to the subsidiary being. At last the impression that one is a human being is dislodged, so that the teleology is challenged. 

If we ponder the sense of the “taking on” of the Fate in receiving it, we can see that it is not a knowing that is wanted. The “taking on” means exactly the overcoming of perception, or comprehension, in the cleft of the subsidiary and the commander. The Archaic as the primordial sloughs off the demand to raise the Earth to the Sky, the Sky being the sight of the primordial issue. The metaphysics being the statement of what the Sky says as the essence of life, e.g., one who does not Seek is not a human says that seeking is the Metaphysical Truth of Existence. Does the uncovering of the basis lead to the Philosophy of the Ultimate, as a Lie, or as a overcoming of the Seeking? The taking on of the Fate is a reception which presupposes Being, as the place of the privileged moment of awareness when the “eyes raise”.  


 

Comments on the ”Long Run’, or the now-extinct Germanish thought 

(now-extinct, just as is the thought of the Latini and the Athenian Greek)

It should be noted that the current professoriate, if it did not say something sensible, would discredit itself with its intelligent students. But that does not mean that what it says has anything to do with the German philosophy, of which, as Arendt says, it has no “inkling”. So when it uses, e.g., Kant, for the parts, it says something, though it has no knowledge of Kant. Not what directed and guided Kant. It is the most corrupt incompetence if its goal is to speak of Kant, but it says what is sensible in its own region. Through a abstractedly posited reception of the terms of the texts of Kant. With Kant what mattered was asking about the core of nature, in a scientific manner. With the Professoriate, what counts, is making a rule for what is called morals, where morals are thought as non-scientific. Everyone knows what the scientific is, and yet, when the new science comes forward, the science of causality will become what is obviated. As the science of morals is not longer ‘inkled’.  But this ‘inkled’ thing was the knowledge of what was most pertinent to the life of what shown out of what had no logos, what wasn’t.

Phenomenological Centers:

The miraculous challenge of life is the sensorium, as what is reality. The first struggle is the grand koine. The essentiality of the thing, as what is immediately seen, anschauen, intuited, the eidos when it is simply ‘the look’. The species as what comes forward as the reality of the ‘evil’ which breaks with the coming-to-be inward. The situation then sits in the ground of what comes to a lengthy standstill, when the settled condition responds in a repetition of eternally valid sensations which are objects as what sits there in the reality. 

This is a commentary on the now-extinct, worlds. The paragraph above says something about what a now-extinct world is understood to be. The Philosophy of the Ultimate, presupposes the question-worthy question: how far do they exist and how far do they not exist? How far are they construal or notional, and how far does the Grund let the reasoning of them live? One is likely to contemn the question: what is the past? Since it is so trivial. It has often been litigated by philosophers, but still waits to be thought into the opening of what is adequate to the ultimate. 

Truth

ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ

The book of Plato with the name Socrates,  despite the beautiful translation of the classicist Jowett, says nothing of the kind that is commonly promulgated. The unseeking life is not human, anthropoi, not a human’s? Does anexetastos, a word like a-moral, remind us of the analysis of Adorno and Horkheimer, about the dialectic of the Worlds? With reference to Odyssey and the cyclops. Not at all. Socrates is the first to say what the human is. We have to understand what he says, falsely, through the existential threshold of the definitions, which are copies of his. Definitions not as words, but as saying what the True world is, in reading it. In bringing it to us, Truly.  

Seeking, strictly speaking, means a goal is already prefigured. In this case, the knowledge of not knowing, given by Apollo, to Socrates. Better than “given”, since it did not merely appear or emerge, is to say, the inducement was given. What is given is there. Then the Denken that is close to Danken is the prayer: ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ. The extraordinary popularity of the saying of Jowett, who is no philosopher, but a beautiful speaker, a classist, is very right in that let the word worthy, which is nowhere in the Greek world known, come into this world. Supposedly the privileged awareness is the moment when something worthy comes forward. The insight. Yet, this is the pollution of the enchainment to the sentimental, as the counterblow of the wish and the desire. A desire might not be wished for, but rejected, a wish might find no solid ground. 

One can not stay with Jowett. Socrates is the first to say what the human is, but he makes the tendentious drive run very deeply. It is the drive to knowledge. In one incident of the literature one of the sons of Socrates complains to his father about Xanthippe, his mother, she is a fishmonger, a nag, she is running the boy down. Socrates asks his son, do not actors in the theatre abuse each other, as your mother abuses you? The son: But they do not mean it! And does your mother mean it? The notion of what is “meant” is linked to knowing, whoever does not really know what they do can not mean what they say. Yet, Socrates says, I know that if one who was better than me were to show the way, I should follow. The better man is, at one point, in the Apology of Socrates rent forth, set up as the measure. And then, playing the better man, the definition is given which says he is no man who is not searching. And the searching is qualified, it is the ascent from the knowing, as acting, to the Truth. 

Since causality is already in the bare divination, or acting, it is the subject matter that is “not known”, when the truth of it comes out, in the Enlightenment, it is only the acting Truth. A woman with red hair is not all women, since one can always come across one with blue or green hair. A body that is not extended in space is no body, and one need not wait to see if one comes across one. Yet, a coming forth or event, that has no cause, though it need never come forth, is not against the logos. Again: cause could always be what is expected, as by conditioning, at the primitive dawn, which itself brings humans to be. But as humans. Thus, the human is no human. But it is what is brought forth of what has of itself come to the logos, as the Laws that overtake poiesis. 

But, Ionesco says, given in the paraphrase: I fall to embarrassment, I hide, I want to say something serious, but I cower, seeing that it becomes words, the cliche, that it does not say what the human is. They go back to business as usual... They watch the words as one watches Syrians and Russians kill Syrians and and Muslims... as though waiting for further chances to be edified.

Philosophy of Ultimacy, Marxism, Existentialism, Genetic Circle

 

Something said about how we are thinking through what has been thought, or is thought now, by the philosophers, follows:

A recent statement of Chinese president Xi reads: “China stands on its own conditions and experience. We inherit wisdom from the Chinese civilisation, learning widely from the strengths of both east and west. We defend our way but are not rigid. We learn but do not copy from others. We formulate our own development path through continuous experimentations . . . No country should put its own way on the pedestal as the only way.”

Chinese, Chinese time, rather than the time of the global Chinese or the Elite cosmopolitan Chinese, has a “development path” which is not that of the Western North Atlantic. The time remains another time. The extinction of Chinese time, in the face of Western North Atlantic time is not brought about. 

The Genetic Circle: For instance, the ground is discovered to be now: Heidegger convinces Husserl that the phenomena are studied by Aristotle. Descartes brings the phenomena, into Existential light. The Existential position occurs only after Descartes: as the impossibility to stay with either the “there” or the “what”. Aristotle, from the “something as something” has the “power” to push things Back to the phenomena. But Husserl arrives at the phenomena through the Universal Doubt. The Fate of Thinking finds itself Being, as the inkling of Being. As the historial which Thinks the inkling.    

The Philosophy of the Ultimate, or of Ultimacy, then, considered in the light of what this sentence is saying, thinks its rising place in the light of the distinction between the bourgeois and the mystical. The former does not indicate, by any means, rationality. Rationality means the ability to demonstrate through arguments, that which is True. Nor, does bourgeois indicate, an amiability or susceptibility to demonstration through argument. The latter, the mystical, does not mean the religious, taken in the highest sense, experience of what befalls man as in, e.g., the subject matter of the Hebrew Bible, or the works of Gershom Scholem. Rather it indicates the excitement of the bourgeois in the face of what excites it by going beyond its ‘normal times’. A man has his lifetime, his times.

Marxists, as it were, will and will not recognize this mystical because they do not have disposition towards the sense of what Befall indicates. In the connection with religion. Their primary notions do not include and keep this. But they know of the “excitement” of the ‘beyond’ of the ‘normal times’. As religiosity of the religious Atheist who would become pure Atheist, and Atheist (without qualification). Thus, the sense of the ‘giving meaning’ or the explanation offers them a broad inductive basis. 

The Philosophy of Ultimacy is here explicated in what we are saying, through the connection to the Marxist' dialogue. To ‘overcome’ Existentialism… where what is presupposed or a more serious, i.e., more open, and less teleologically biased, reception of the ‘times’ than ‘there-ist’ Marxism. The something ‘there’ is the Realism of a Feuerbach. Where the basic ground is the ability of life to get on, it refers us to survival as a ground of the ‘labour’ and the Historial ‘complex’ of Capital. It is tendentious and wishful—unphilosophic. 

The Philosphy of Ultimacy is not teetering between the normal and the exciting. 

The Existential is more Philisophic than the Marxist, since it is "aimless", and not sentimental, as is the Marxist. But the Existential remains Thinkable, and need not become Nihilism in the sense of a teleology of anti-rationality. The existential is more threatening, more serious, but it is tendentious at bottom when it is thought Against the rational Logos. 

Although we say Philosophy, without distinguishing Thinking from Western Philosophy, we do not speak of Western Philosophy—as what one is—since the setting of the West means the ‘end of Philosophy’ and the self reflection of that end. Whether from inside or not is a question of the Philosophy of Ultimacy. 

The “there” is the thing there, the sight of the property, and the “what” is the place of the “ergon” as the “active intellect's” Thought of the Value or the Capacity. The Phenomena is the Conscious as the annihilation of the Platonic psychology, and the opening of the Freuden Drive and the biological Instinct, the Nietzschean Will, and the Heideggerian Nicht Nichtet, the Nothing. The Genetic Circle Circles, but the Philosophy of Ultimacy no longer thinks the Circling, and the End of Philosophy, as a Movement. It is as though Time were overcome, or threatened with being overcome. In the bringing of the gathering of the Poetic, as what looks Back towards poiesis as the Causa of Language become the Overcoming of Logic (of Greek Laws of Thought), the philosophy called Heidegger, bows before Being, as the Times of the Fate of Being. 

Paragraph 3: Leibniz and the Princess of Hanover (for as much as what is individual is not "devalued" to annihilation)

The third paragraph, of the eleventh lecture on Leibniz' “mighty” principle, reads:

But when one really thinks about it, rest is not an omission; rather, it is the assembling which first emits motion from itself. In the emission it does not merely discharge motion and send it off, but it actually retains it. Accordingly, motion is based in rest. So if we assume that the history of Western thinking is based in the Geschick of being, then in thinking what we call “the Geschick of being” we think a rest or repose, an assembling into which all movements of thinking are also gathered, regardless of whether or not thinking is immediately aware of this.   

--

Here, what is distinct, is that poiesis -- under the rubric Heidegger -- is thought in such a way as to be called Fate. Something which is “assembled” is coming forth. That is a way of talking about time. But not as reason, rather as aletheia. Why does one not rest in satisfaction, but rather is exposed to concern? A reason could easily be given in the form of giving an answer. But, poiesis resists that, or rather it does not know of reasons. Poiesis only says, it is so, because it is. The simple reason is not the scientific cause. The poetic “because” is not reason. In this are we really doing anything at all, except building a schema? What needs to be thought, and not studied out, is how Fate here is supposed to stand in the thing bestowed: namely, the essence of technicity. If we are capable, as we are, of thinking objects as causal, how can we be supposed to think in the manner of poisies? Supposidly Hericlitus still spoke in the manner of this Fate. So when Hericlitus said that many are asleep, when they are awake, he was already saying that he had grasped the “because”.

If aletheia is a bookend, like something standing on an old shelf, that is at last to be taken into consideration alongside correctness, it indicates that we are dealing only with what has come to language, with what language is willing of its own accord to say. If the principle of identity still holds in the “because” then we can not even overcome Greek thinking. It must be that Plato did not think aletheia, the poetic, but instead he already grasped the thing as the “what” and the “there”. Thus Socrates speaks of those who know of the particular and the genus. This is already a kind of objectification. Aletheia is supposed to be the word of the primitive philosophy, before it became a university subject, when it was the living and unnamed experience of time out of the ground of Being. The Earth would then be the “sleep”, and the Sky the “because”. 

What is it supposed to mean that now, just now, we are taking up this language? Is it supposed to all happen now? One can think poises so far as one takes it up out of the present, but if it is placed among the Geschick, written down, it is thought under the present essence, that of the objectified object.

---

The Fate is thought as “radically mysterious dispensation”, but then, not as the “because”. The Fate is always what “emits motion from itself” as the unfolded history, as the historial which is what is unfolding as the being of beings. So, the “because” is not what Hericlitus tells us, when he speak to us from the “sleep”, from the ground of the “sleep”.   

For the reason that the technological essence holds sway, we need remind ourselves, that the objects of technicity bring no Truth, niether about all things, nor of Man as Man. In bringing no truths they are the Serious, which comes forth from the Play, or, better, the Arrangement, which is to be sought from the Open. Since the causa, as the object reckoned in terms of the Correct, is the Time of technicity it clutters thought, and points away from the “because” and the “sleep”. Whatever the True Sky, of the causa brings forth in the manner of “what works”, of things invented, it brings only what is standing in the Fate, as the “radically mysterious dispensation”. Everything for the human is the same, a stone or a shoe, a machine for automated factory work, a embedded intelligence machine or a volume of poems. Everything that is correct, is the same in basic statutory. For instance, just as the thing called gravity, when it takes its meaning from the Laws of Einstein, can be pitched here or there, so can the thing called chair, be made here, there, at a remote place in the galaxy. Each piece of technicity is no more advanced than any other, but all stand in the Geschick, as the correct, as what is a knowledge of the universe, and what can become amidst the becoming. Every correct thing, in technicity, is a feature of the Sky, of the eternal system of nature.

When “an assembling into which all movements of thinking are also gathered” is thought, no correct thing is natured out of the stock of possibilities. So the thinking of the being of beings, as the essence of time, always thinks in a way that does not include itself in the World. But of all essences, there is the essence itself: So, if one who knows of health, knows from this essence, that they are healthy, they also have the objective correlate to this knowledge, for instance in the status of a untroubled stomach, but if the being there does not know of the essence of health, the rest too is not. Strauss gives in his book on Natural Right the example of War, referencing Weber. If war becomes, out of its essence, degraded, so that the God of Hosts, that is armies, ceases to be glorious, and the word “terrible” ceases to name what brings awesome fire to the subject, the essence begins to teeter. The turning of the essence means that good becomes bad, falls, is ridiculed, gossip follows, that the essence starts to “devalue”. But the turning of the essence is not the change of the essence into another essence. When the being of beings becomes correctness, as the causa of the objectified object, it describes something more than a “devaluing” of aletheia. What is the correlate, then, of “Sleep”—it is Being. 

But in saying so, what is really said? In one sense Being is what one senses dimly in the Element (cf. the example of Boredom and the Old Sunday when everything is closed). The Element also is what comes forth in the moment of great despair or joy. The Element is not, however, Being. Being is supposed to name what the rubric Being can’t name. Yet that can’t be taken as a riddle, or a strange opinion, because then we would refer back to the Laws of Thought. To the Principles of Metaphysics which close with that of the “mighty” principle of Reason. Even the “because” seems prior to the principle of sameness or identity, in so far as it doesn't say, there is something there as something. So, it is prior to Socrates with his announcement that the learned speak of the genus, and of the particular. Yet, when we speak to Hericlitus about this, strangely, he speaks to us of Fire. This subject matter is taken up, for instance, in the class sessions on Hericlitus held by Heidegger with another professor, and there much is suggested concerning the general external manner of the striving-for implied in the talking with Hericlitus. 

Fire is like a “spirit of decision” which acts like a weaver that brings the moments together, but isn’t seen. “All unseen” says Goethe, but what really “knits” can’t be the decision out of the Nothing, for instance when one speaks, before the speach, the “spirit of decision” is “active” and brings forth the “work” of what is said. Here, one goes about at the level of reflection which fails to overcome the divisions of times. For instance, into the standing system of nature, and the things become in nature, as what is irreversible. Even the Nothing has a place here as a ground, of the coming forth of the becoming. So this is “ontic”, as with Nietzsche. For example, someone makes some discovery, how to combine this with that, and at any moment they could bring it forth out of the stock of the system of nature. But, yet, what is behind them? Do they stand in what is already natured, or in the decision about what to bring forth? In the thinking back to the Fire, one too fails, at least at first, in one's striving, to come to the point of becoming, as it were, the undivided time. The undivided time looks like something more creative than what is creative, in the peculiar drawing forth of its luminous weight.

A Consideration about the Position of the Ultimate in Thought (through a continuation of the excursus) 

 

The second paragraph of Hour Eleven of the lecture series on Leibnitz’ “mighty” law of thought, titled in English, The Principle of Reason, reads:

In the course of pursuing the various eras of history of Western thinking we seek a view into the Geshick of being. Such a course has assumed in advance that the history of Western thinking rests in the Geschick of being. But that wherein something else rests must itself be at rest. Ordinarily we conceive of rest as the cessation of movement. Represented in a mathamatical-physical way, rest is only a limiting case of movement, which, for its part, is premeditated as a change of position measurable according to spatio-temporal coordinates. If rest is represented in advance as a cessation or limiting case of movement, then the concept of rest is reached by negation. 

A discussion which tends towards the ultimate, and wants to think what is ultimate, is distinguished first by the fact that a temporal sequence can not be given, such that it reads like a set of instructions, that would, when followed with fidelity, bring one to what is ultimate. What is ultimate has an enigmatic character with respect to a ordered sequence of time, or, indeed, to a sequence of time simpliciter. 

Thusly, the “various eras” can not be understood as something repeatable. Because one is not able to have an inside where the subject matter can stand and be manipulated, and so be repeated. 

In the basic sense, it is even not clear that time belongs in any way to the “various eras”. If time, in its enigmatic character, comes first to be announced, in the account, it should read: I happen. The “I happen” means that time means nothing other than that something happens. Something happens is as account of what time says. In a certain sense this can be regarded as an objectification of Being. Since, something is put alongside something, such that the something can be gauged, as it were. The something is the “something”, and what it is put alongside it the “it happens”. Something happens: Aletheia. 

Aletheia, is something. In this sense we can speak of the “Geschick of being”. In this sense aletheia is a name for time.

“In the course of pursuing the various eras of history of Western thinking we seek a view into the Geshick of being.”

The eras of being themselves give “something” with which to gauge the something that happens. This is the way that the so-called Geshick manifests itself to the view which is sought in the thinking. This Geshick is a Fate. The Fate names the way time is given, the way it is there in the beings. But is aletheia more basic than the sense of the objectified object, which shows itself as what moves? Movement is a something, such that it lets time happen. When time is thought as movement it seems to create the still observer, so that the non-subjective concept of duration, as thought by Bergson, becomes thinkable as the one moment, as what is always and without synchronic variation according to many movements, or many moments. The time of Bergson, one should think it over, is not subjective. Where does it get “seen” from? Somehow thought must think it, but this means that thought is no subject. 

“Such a course has assumed in advance that the history of Western thinking rests in the Geschick of being.”

When we think of this Fate, we do not think of a moment, that like a band is unfolding. Rather, we only think it so far as we think the ways time is something that can be happening, time has to be something, so that it can be seen apart from what it is, and so happen. If time is aletheia, truth, it is what being always shows, when it ceases to not show itself, but shows itself? A hand opens, and seems to express something when the fingers stretch in their opening. Such is something, something as aletheia. But the “opening” is not the time, in the sense that a “change of position” is thought as happening in a dimension. Neither, is the time the thing expressed, as if it spoke to the human being, in the creative moment that lasts forever, since it is only a band ever stretching, all in one moment. Aletheia wants to think time into the meaning, as it stands there, in what is seen. Seen can’t say, perceived, in the sense of a problem of how perception passes through a course of transformations, in order to become a represented thing. 

If the hand that opens isn’t thought as a sequence, but as a event, it is not clear how to ask about how it starts ["event" marks a difficulty, a Roman/Latin reason, in its connection to an account of ratio and ground, cf. The Principle of Reason. Alethiea is, appropriately said, no "event"). As if to found the start somewhere, and then to build up form the start. In one sense, when Rousseau complains that the State of Nature is thought from the starting point of bourgeois man, who is scattering the higher clergy and the elite warrior class aside, he says, we must go to the start. If one thinks in terms of a “Minimal State” one goes even further in thinking how the modern bourgeois acts when released from what made that being (which is to say, even further away from what Rousseau wanted to ask about). But what is more subtle is the ravishing of thought, that wants to pick up the being of the primordial, from out of what is not primordial. Supposedly one can think, or even observe, the beginning, objectively, if not as the life of the Orangutan, as the invitation from the village, which we would visit, and look to, with searching eyes. Rousseau is no thinker in so far as his thought is not concerned with what is ultimate. Since, in refusing to ask, how would the current man act if his society was torn apart, under revolution, under Cromwell, as in Hobbes, but rather he asks, what was the former being like. The primordial behavior. 

In Dugin we see this ethnological thought at a higher level of sophistication. Where the Ethnos, and the Laos or people as a stratified people, become the “imagined community” of Anderson. This all happens within the “era” of History, which is “Western” par excellence, because it is globalized. But what brings us to the thought of the ultimate is the difficulty that we can not rely on a way to gauge the progress of this “era” with respect to the other since this is it. There is a disputable point in the Dugin account, because the generalization of the subject matter implies an ultimate ground, from which "each" ethnos is then admirably fit, as it own stem, of the plurality universal. Which is to say that, the ethnos, itself, seems thought as primordial, yet, the primordial is conceptualized, as if each primordiality where subject to the current universality. This question, here, is not really like the similar objections to, e.g., Lyotard (with his infinite legalism, which is "almost transcendent" to use the saying of Levinas). Lyotard never fell to thinking the drastic practical detail empericaly and anthropologically, even when he took overtly 'anthropological' examples to heart. But does Dugin think the Fate of being, as what can not be schematically, like a formalism, removed and put in place? The thinking, one fears, into the dialectic stages, is more Marxist, and less Heideggerean. The ground of thinking is not really seen, the thinking is political. It wants the sovereignty to become what is more commanding, out of the fundamental being of Dasein, yet, it thinks away from the ultimacy.

“Such a course has assumed in advance that the history of Western thinking rests in the Geschick of being.”

Here we “assume”. One can, in a way, think the other “eras”, the other ways of awakening time, or, spoken in the aletheia of being, showing what is hidden by hiding what is as unqualified. Ultimacy begins, here in this disgracefully enigmatic sketch, to remind us of its difficulty. Ultimacy, at first, is ungraspable in terms of provenance. In this, the supposed modern era, is like a work of art, in the sense of a great work, which is not to be judged out of what came before, but rather, what came before only can be measures, as something, as something that happens, because of the essential measure, the starting place, of what proffers to being its essence, as what is the something that offers up time as what happens. The happening is in the artwork, as what is judged to be there, and to be rightly the subject of what is there, according to that beginning. In giving such an impressionistic account we must set a steep path, that one must walk up, in order to seek to bring a greater proportion of clarity, to a deplorably dark subject matter: the ultimate.