Monday, May 13, 2019

Statement on the difficulty of fact/tradition, as an indication. (Peroration before the most urgent question: 
What is indication?)

Image result for alexander dugin

Whatever is subjective is measured from a human being, and therefore everything is subjective 
that humans know of. Therefore, the formula ( the “word”): objectivity, has the sense, all human 
beings speak subjectively, only some are more subjective than others. This means that objectivity 
is established in some way by human beings who are subjects. This does not mean that we 
simply revert to “arbitrariness”. Rather, we observe that the objective has a status among all beings 
which is called “authority” in many quarters. The sciences, the European science, which rules the 
planet, is the most objective and the most authoritative. Whether authority and objectivity name the 
same thing one is not yet ready to say.

The history of the West is this: the statement that some things are learnable and that they 
concern human beings. The statment that the human judgment can come to see what is most 
proper to human beings. The statement that an individual human is to be expected with sound 
judgment. The statement that although no human being can fulfil this, humans on the whole, 
summum bonum, through the accumulation of the ages can reach this (the Catholic thing). 
The statement that no human good is to be expected but that knowledge about things can be 
grasped (logical positivism, behaviorism, Daniel Dennett: “facts”). At the same time, with equal 
authority, the Frankfurt School, intense opposition to tradition in every form and the claim that the 
human being can overcome all things (high [non-Heideggerian when considered richtig, properly) 
existentialism. Beside from these positions there is the vulgar existentialism, ergo, the “think for 
yourself” of everyday life which corresponds to Justice Kennedy’s “mystery” speech, each one 
may interpret in their own way. And, on the other hand, the overloading of the traditional position 
as if change could ever be averted (which is absurd and impossible: this marks a 
positive statement of ground: In Heidegger, too, the positivist is seen in the non-exact science 
or spiritual interest, where science/spirit means the higher life of forcing back to the 
phenomena out of discourse and "reason"! Yet, never, mere "intellect" (ergo, Zola and so 
on, the "intellectual" or activist) or, least of all "science" in the sense of irrational accumulation of 
tested object-things which refer us clearly back to the circle of object subject.).

It is clear that in the sense that tradition is set out as evil, say in the progressive view (in John Dewey and 
in all Americans whether they are aware of it or not makes no difference), what is 
good is the opening up of arbitrary desire. The “arbitrary” is a contested ground. If the subjective is 
the arbitrary it remains to be said that arbitrary means either random or it means based in judgment 
(arbitration). Random is a modern term and first means what can not be calculated. It is said in 
connection to the notion of “free will”, but hazily and essentially meaninglessly. Since free will is 
what one experiences in daily life and the term drifts into physics only so far as one consider 
prediction as a capability in the possession of a human being. If I have before me a sure 
prediction I can freely act on it. But, on the other hand, if the stochastic character of prediction 
comes before me, such that I treat with probability, which spans in meaning from trustworthy 
to statistically likely, any “logic” which wishes to give an exact meaning to the free can’t operate 
since what is only likely is not “free” is free means I choose knowing for sure it will be so 
(this leaves out the dimension of “value”, anyway, since I might expect a thing to be good and 
it might turn out to be bad or disagreeable to me apart from the certainty of it coming to 
pass toto caleo).

The spontaneous vigour of the violence of the moral leaning within me is read into the “object” 
so far as the sciences are read to be the moral edict par excellence. The immediate inference 
is that the inner reason, either in the tradition, or in the sound mind of the individual, is survival. 
On the other hand it is some sort of improvement promised by the sciences. The unholsome 
pessimism of Nietzsche which says: Why Science? becomes unhygienic. Because It can 
be manipulated out of the flabbergasting stream of becoming. It is important to grasp what is 
positive in the circle of everything written here. What is positive is that we point not towards 
the abyss of the contradiction. Ergo, that the subjective is “ultimately” objective. Rather, 
the thinking reaches towards what is. What is is on “the other side” of this abyss. This 
remains to be grasped by a thinker in our time, and it is what remains unthought in the 
cosmic feeling of being.

No comments:

Post a Comment