Sunday, January 21, 2018

Preparatory Remarks in Connection to a Thinking of what pertains to the relation between concept, 
abstraction, and being 

 Image result for Ruins Of Settlement Of Vathypetro


But what are beings? Now this means: What is being? The reply to this question is really just the 
complete answer to the question concerning beings. To be sure. And the first one we know of to 
have asked about beings in such a way as to have tried to comprehend being, and who also gave 
the first answer to the question, What is being? was Parmenides.


Nietzsche, with his Prussian citizenship, a Prussian, Nietzsche. He absconded to a proud 
Poland of imagination to subsist ten thousand leagues “above the normal.” There in the most 
sharp relief which rose up from an utterly versicolour radiance he could not mistake for someone 
else, beside from himself. Such that in the end what no one else could see was the
perspectivalist in the over-man. 

The blinding luster reflected in the archipelago world of the Greeks in larger Mediterranean barbarity 
which described the horizon from Persia to Germania. The on, or being, as hen, as 
the-one-not-the-many.  He denies the thesis “many are”, ta panta is consistently and perpetually denied. 
This becomes phusis—that which comes forth of its own—is thought with some abruptness as ousia—
substantial form—the profusion of principles of motion of all things. Parmenides.

The Latini have no primordial word for this, the Christians forget the question of the on or being and 
think phusis as what is good, as summum bonum and pure act. Energia is thought as actus purus
and with the fall of the Aristotelian thinking it becomes force, then all the forces of the mathamatical 

What is most crucial is that phusis is good—rational. Reason as potentia ordinata. Accessible only by faith. 
The rational becomes a feature of techne, and ceases to concern man as man. Europe became the West.
 Humanism dissipates into anarchy. A mathamatical thinking of phusis of inestimable scope comes to 
planetary power. Whatever is not Western appears as secession from reality. 

On this final point it should be said that reality and actuality cease to be distinguishable. 
The distinction fades into the mysteries of former times. Not only does actuality conceptually cease 
to hold apart from reality, but as what it is, in the on. In what follows we examine that way that ‘abstraction’ 
or conceptuality is to be distinguished from being is “said in many ways.” In the region off the work with 
the name Heidegger it speaks in another way than the source of Parmenides, One as not many

It is not that Nietzsche can not attain to the truth of the Germans. Rather, Nietzsche does not juxtapose 
the ordinary reliability of sound daily sense with the ‘abstractions’ of the inventors of “faculties”—
Parmenides inventor of the “faculty” of nous, that which corresponds to hen. Kant, inventor of the faculty
 of transcendental apperception. Rather, his furious reprimand comes in the form of declaring creativity,
 the genuine new which is not merely the reconfiguration from what is past and now stands before one 
as ripe for revolution, to be that dread power of Macht as Will to Will.    

Nietzsche obtains to the truths of the Germans so decisively as to fail to transform them, rather, there is 
confrontation! He obtains to these truths alright, but he declares from within them that a plank leading to 
a wild phusis has come. Not a good or an evil truth. Nietzsche loses his identity. He can no longer be 
tracked by the West, which, anyway, has become the planetary essencing of technology. The cosmic 
powers of the “one stuff” cease to speak in revolutionary tones, but more and more, always in new and 
more remote ways, the insouciance comes forward as the ever renewing forgetfulness which in its 
sameness is always different.  

There are peoples in the Amazon who have no word for colour, for the “abstract”. 
Yet, one never encounters anything at all without it being a case of what is general, and at the 
same time, what one can point to. The general conception of a universe, of world, as Strauss 
teaches, was not even available to the ancient Hebrew. What is invention, what is creation, 
what is conception, that statement which makes available to reflection as a bringing out of the 
way the thing stands as what it is to be for a thinking that would know how it, in the seed of what
 follows, ought to be. What is this being? How so far was it what befell the Greeks, as creator of the 
world (how else can one state it?, one can no longer be with such a time) befell the Hebrew. In such matters, there is no such answer as
: they tried to “explain” this or that, even the whole. All such befalling is Event amidst the absolute resonating of the Element. 
Let us prepare to allow the Methodos to draw towards this region as we assume the difficulty of 
Nietzsche’s, which is to say, not that man who lived, but that which speaks and so tells us, 
absconding with this West which is now planetary. 

No comments:

Post a Comment