Monday, September 17, 2018


Retreat to
the inmost. 



What could be more obvious than that man transposes the way he comprehends things in statements 
into the structure of the thing itself? Yet this view, apparently critical but in reality overly hasty, has first 
to explain how the transposition of the sentence structure into the thing could be possible without the 
thing first becoming visible. The issue as to what comes first and provides the standard, the 
structure of the sentence or that of the thing, remains, to this day, undecided. It may even be 
doubted whether, in this form, it is capable of a decision.


What is there as the spontaneous ground of the bare word is for the early Greeks taken up as 
what is unconcealed and not as what is reveliable. The phenomena. The revelability of a thing, 
by contrast, means what can be inferred out of the thing. Revelability is Christian thinking of what 
for the Greeks was not yet perfected, the sharing with, and entering into contemplation of things
in active contemplation that comes to be in the way of what it rests in. Revelability is reception, 
and in Kant this becomes the “legislation” of the thing by the transcendental power. The throwing off of
the movement of this metaphysics takes the form of, on the one side, the fact value distinction, which obviates the 
possibility of questioning in the universities, and, on the other hand, the general existentialism 
which holds with a romantic notion of the meaninglessness of the interpretation of all 
things which is always essentially credited with a unimportance before hand. This thinking then 
is a devious journey beset by the devastation of the human being: on the one side the biological 
interpretation: the cheep gathering of mere facts about what behaviour shows up which never grasps 
the decisive lack in such an approach. Instead, what arises is a asymptotic endeavor to raise 
“values” from the “facts”, which is already set aside as a possibility before the attempt is made 
(especially in a kind of bare fantasy of wiling it so because it, in exorbitant researches,
"must be", which corresponds to the sincerity of the strenuous contestation over ideologies).

On the other hand, the theological interpretation of man has utterly given way to the spirit of the 
“development of doctrine,” under the notion of the radical weakness of the “flesh of human weakness” 
in the light of the text which is written in human language (cf. Pius XI). The entire project to raise a living goal, a 
way to the eros as what draws towards the Sacred Heart, repudiates itself in disintegration. The 
philosophical interpretation (meaning, so far as the rare cases where philosophy is 
taken seriously exist at all, for instance in Strauss, and not in philophy as it stands 
as "Analytic," which is mere slavish subordination to and inmost essential dependence 
on the European Science) of man wanes in the backward look at the early thinkers, 
so far as they are taken up as models to teach what “genuine philosophy” is. What the first “raising of the eyes” 
of the human being says is: from here the rest is posited. For instance, there is no such thing as a 
bare biological being, there is rather, a human life, from within, that posits an account of a bare biological 
account as a sculpture cut from its own block. The “animal,” likewise serves such a function in the 
pseudo-thinking of such derivations of the meaning of “human being” as what is or is not “animal being.”

Here we move into a ground where the taking up of the thinking must remain in touch with the 
question of time as seen at the End of Metaphysics where it appears most sharply. When bare 
phenomena can be set out alongside the fully developed metaphysics of presence, as what is 
sheer accident or individualized things thought as under the mathematical unity of a whole which 
is in each part what belongs together because each part is the same in its reality as what can be 
measured, the strongest form of presence shows itself in that which is not present as accident, 
but is the support of the spontaneous whole. At the same time the thinking sees what is 
phenomenal, as what is sheer coming forth of itself as what it is in each case, as what already 
is itself and is not there for the sake of being revealed. Aristotle still speaks of the pleasure of 
just seeing, in the sense not of a taking pleasure from the thing, but of the beholding of the 
flow of the stream with the flash of light on its contour and the “light of the sun” as what is sweet 
as the sweetness of just being. This is already a kind of corruption of the primordiality of 
unconcealment in the dawning of presence. Here, then, in what follows, even the mere “because” 
which is prior to the thinking of all “possibility” is set aside as a place holder out of the mystical 
thought of a period closer to our own. Instead what is sought is an abandonment of the claim to 
the necessity to make something pay man. This is vexed in the look back so far as the seeking 
implies what is thought in the radical question. Suffice it to say, such searching is wholly impossible 
under the general mucking about of the opinion of human beings and the vagaries of what doesn’t 
even see the transformation of the pre-science or pre-philosophy in the first theorizing. The 
insinuation of this reflective theorizing into the habitual dealings with the world describes the 
transformation of phenomena into raw material for exploitation by the European Science. 
The collective malaise which sees nothing to overcome is what is to be overcome in the 
withdrawal from the general opinion’s menacing decision which is towards power, as gladiatorial 
contestation over the ratcheting up of cybernetic methods of thoroughly subduing the earth 
and everything on it. These manipulations which constitute the quiet and tranquil motions of an 
animal in a pot with the heat rising, which grows ever more comfortable, according to Kant’s 
joke about the  patient who died form the cure in historial terms: in the sense of the rising up of 
presence out of the First Beginning. This withdrawal from publicness can only mean a making 
of atonement to what is let slip by in the glance of historicism: in seeing the moment of the 
region of questioning in this withdrawal of the phenomena. 

The question of what “remains” “undecided” in the language should not think that the seeking 
of the primordial is a end in itself, rather it aims at aiding in the thinking of time. Time is no longer 
thought in the sense of “reality,” as the finest line of decimals in the measurement 
(cf. The Mighty Richard Feynman),  or as what is merely the romantic grasping of the 
whole by this or that opinion of an existentialist “subjectivity” here or there. Time can not be given 
to the regions of a pre-unfolded reflection out of the Greek Beginning.

No comments:

Post a Comment