Momentous he prepares to set aside the possibility as human, and lets power be ability to move
commodity as such. Here we begin to understand the market as the situation of Dasein. The truth
that is uncovered is the ground and source of Dasein itself.
Truth means what is forever, what is always available to found a science on, it is what “everything relies
on”. Economics regarded metaphysically points to a philosophic wisdom. At first, one thinks of a
dialogical arrived at orientation towards the market. Does the market belong to force called “the
invisible hand”? Or to a “spontaneous” dispensation? To be sure, in a sense, everything is set loose,
the producers, the supply side, with their hopes to capture some part of the demand of the average
Dasein in its essence as consumer who looks about shrewdly with eyes clear for some clearance sale
at a Walmart. Everything comes forth as it does and can never be set down as a orderly rule. And yet,
on the other hand, a very few individuals, according to a special hexis, an ethos, which is the essence
of their being, deal with themselves to produce the core of the supply and all serious innovation. If this
ethos is a phronesis, for instance, in that of Wall Street, or of the modified and differing ethos of Silicon
Valley, takes hold of capital flows, interjected the university and its research laboratories, and its link to
the market, of all capital gains as a running ahead of all beings including those of university endowments,
of a constant whirl of capital pointing obliquely towards massive military requirements, whereby all
value gravitates and accumulates in armed core stores of value, for instance in offshore ventures
which are bought back by the core managers after an initial offering, then we see the ragging
of power in its real and no longer mythical form (one should note: the ability to obliterate from the
face of the planet obstacles to the flow is not the reality of the commodity, for it is assured by the
human being itself and only visible what the human is no longer seen a "subject" alongside its
"commodity", but as what allows commodity to come forth at all in a market world: this sense of
the form of truth moves in a fundamentally different way than the Marxist notion that capital was
overemphasis at the expense of other forces due to polemical extremes between Marx and his
contemporaries, rather, here, what is at stake is thinking phenomenologically in the proper sense of
a "phenomenology of the inapparent").
So far as this power sets aside all possibility of confusing itself with nineteenth century mythical notions
of natural value, and becomes “air”, set loose from all benchmarks, from all reserves, from gold, from
the “real economy”, moving according to the last airy myth of its positive externality and its visibility as a
gigantic planetary ponzi scheme, one begins, at length, to see the arche or origin of economics, the
primordial “why”. This why is being itself. So far as Descartes speaks of the cogito ergo sum, such that
in each experience there is the cognition of the universal, of commodity, in each commodity that sits
beside other commodities, the sum, the consumer, is supposed to be the ground that essentially allows
the market to come forward. And yet, phenomenologically, is the consumer even any more necessary?
“Logically” the consumer is the one who may be deceived by the notion that they have there something
they might conceivably demand. The very fact that they could be mistaken in the belief that they
demand something proves that they are consumers. This is not only a epistemological truth, a truth
stable as a syllogism which might be discussed in the shadow of the houses apart form “actual life”,
but, rather, at first, the contradiction, is alive in common dealings, in life. The contradiction in ordinary
life is the mistake or lie. I don’t demand this thing, but I am such to know that I don’t demand it. I believe
myself to demand it, but I'm such to be confused or mistaken about this belief. And, therefore, I am a
consumer, one who has been mistaken in what I am to demand. Yet, did Husserl really make this
mistake? Perhaps so. It is so in Husserl that something mysterious and worthy of our consideration
occurred. Husserl produced outstanding students which later in turn influenced his own thinking. In his
final works he showed the fruit of this influence, having gleaned the essence of his great student
Heidegger. Thus, again, in Husserl, there is a consideration of the: it can not be a “mistake”: the
Cartesian formula, I doubt, but, by this, am such to doubt, I am such to be fooled, and so am. A genuine
phenomenology, it comes clear, through Heidegger, can not be bound by the ”mistake”. It outstrips the
possibility of any science. Thus, its truth is not forever. In thinking over the essence of the uberhaupt,
of the philosophy of uberhaupt, of overhead, of everything, of the “framing”, Heidegger lets being be,
not by refusing the noumenal , but, rather, by letting the noumenal be as what is untouched by pathos,
by pathe, by the cycles that move the moon and the emotions that are, for man, interest, the interest of
a mother in her children, of a man in his country, of the philosopher in, what?--at length, the letting be
of any philosophy.
It is a strange thing that the word “bitte”, translated in English as “please”, has for its essence
something like command. At bottom it is a command, and is felt often as simple rudeness. Where the
word please is essential an extension of the region of courtesy holds sway. It may, at times, be felt as something
formal, something that enforces a removal from the other, but it is rarely felt as rude, the very opposite
of its essential meaning. If the German language has no word for please, is this simply explainable by
means of “action”, of behaviour? Isn’t it that behaviour already names a mode of Dasein? Is
financialization to be set aside in different languages, and shown not to exactly hold, in this or that
“culture”? Or, does it already point to a concern with truth? What kind of truth? A truth that is eternal,
and that all humans should seek to grasp in their hexis, in their ethos, in their being? But, is this at all
what is at stake for a being thought in the sense of a phenomenology which is without the possibility of
a mistake? Here we are drawn to consider how thinking differs from knowing, and come to the translucent
crystal of the saying that “we are not yet thinking”--indeed!, we still want to know!
