In the Case that a Hermeneutic of Fate Appears
Any hermeneutical address aims to overcome the mere will that uses words in a way that the reader must understand so as to use the same words in the same way, but the hermeneutical movment is towards letting language free itself from the various grips of the logoi.
Because the three weavers of Homer are always in the grasp of Zeus, who is, most of all, the first sun, which is heaven, but already in Cicero nature, one listens to Zeus and hears racio, and hears reason, and hears the call of the law which is, although, still with the Cave at Crete, and not yet something which brings miasma, is as yet already following in such a way as to flow towards the medieval actus purus, of the deos, and the theism of modernity. And yet it would be ridiculous to show this as a Fate in the sense of what must be in the cosmos as macrocosmos. In other words, the First Beginning, must allow for a hermeneutic approach which allows for the sensing of what Fate is. Why does Zeus say, from one side of the rope at tug of war, I can carry all the rest up to me? Why does Zeus shrink back from saving his favored mortals, knowing that he could order the sisters, but risk chaos. What is this macro-chaos? the chaos proper to the Olympians, but not to the Cosmic gods.
The things (subject matter) that were before the most admirable are now the subject matter of the black logos which is in the Aperion. The logos is never Apeiron, and language restricts, in its telling, the superlative hearing which is listening to Aperion.
It is clear that the Black logos shys back from the will, from what senses hunger, from what senses the itch on the cheek, from sensus intimus interpreted in the modern way. On the one side, the will is what wants its powers, its possibilities, more than its accomplishments, its enjoyments (as in Locke’s formula for happiness). On the other it is possibility simply, as the reserve of all the powers known to man as man. Man as man is still a statement that sees in man the knower of the store of his powers. The ego arbiter, which is the nature of the gods, is what is already active. So far as the gods still move, as they did for Euthyphro, there is not yet pure onlooking as with Aristotle. So far as Cicero speaks of the ego arbiter, it is already so that the gods have come to be usurped by man as man. When the gods pass away into racio, god becomes what stands as an already standing. True, this is only gathered in certain grand sources such as Thomas, but is everywhere beset by the spirit of the potentia absoluta. When, in the modern development, history becomes a standing reserve under Galileo, the throwing back by Locke of the mere “psychological” question of the stirring up of the soul by the so-called sense data, the human forgets itself utterly in the myth of valuing this way and that way, while, on the other hand, what is truly admirable is unchallenged as the standing reserve which takes the absurd name of science. The crisis is only confronted in its strongest form when Husserl draws into the isolation of what one knows against one’s own knowing. Heidegger then subsumes the tradition in this light successfully.
So far as fate is not the movement of a people, in its broadest life, it must name the break between Apeiron (,which is Dasein,) in its hermeneutical grasp of the black logos of the goddess which is ground or earth. If Apollo and his sister, the butcher, hear the black logos, they hear an alien language and what it tells them is to embrace within their own reigns Phenomenology. Yet, Phenomenology looks like this: it is for Artemis a running from the natural, from what has not asked about itself, from the zealous love of the hunt, from its thrill for blood lust, into a light, that of the first pagan light which only later, much later, ascends into what is at length “leap” (Kierkegaard), the super rational, but what is in itself the guided availability of imagination or viewing the memory with an eye to powers, as in the modern physics which is chiefly the work of Apollo or imagination. What is available is imagination but it has with it its logos which is the bright path. The logos that takes reason to be the good and bad, and the true and untrue, is never one. But that logos is always in its history. So far as Apeiron is grasped by logos it is what logos rejects because it binds and determines and sets off as what has peculiarity. So far as the black logos speaks of Apeiron it suppresses it because it is in dread of giving up its self defense which is the being of the people. The spirit of the need to defend which is holy dread is intoxicating and never exhausted. So far as this dread brims over it degenerates into reverence which knows cruelty. Cruelty is always the reveling in the suffering of the enemy. The black logos is not evil, but it is what first breaks from the primordial and loves what is its own best. The sphere of befalling belongs to the black logos, thus, so it seems, the befalling of G-d on the head of Moses. However, this detail is more like a mere fate than Fate, which first gathers the earth in the names and what they tell about the subject matter. Subject matter is a word that belongs to Heidegger, and it no longer speaks than of essence but holds essences, peculiarities, in Phenomenology, but so much so as the light that shows the phenomenology is no longer in vision, but as if the Phenomenology had set itself into being.