Wednesday, November 6, 2019




Conserving the possibility to think the genuine inception for a prolonged instant thus attempting to supply the true force of event: The Concept of Being 


 

 

The traditional concept of the concept is something that the imagination is unable to picture. The traditional example is given in the Port Royal Logic and refers to Augustine. The Concept of the Concept refers to a moment in the History of Being when imagination was thought as within the region of psuke, and not in the region of phusis. This description still holds for whoever thinks phenomenologically. In phenomenology the regions have no preference in terms of the evaluation of knowledge (as in the Theaetetus). In this sense when it is said that Being is not a concept something misleading is said. It is a concept. Only the concept of the concept is now phenomenological. So the region from which it is thought is no longer evaluated. No attempt is made to found knowledge. The truth of being is no knowledge or science. 

 

We say, the “guiding aim” and thus Phenomenology is no longer an “encounter” of a phenomenological knowing and what it knows. The position raised by Heidegger reminds of the statement of Jung. We continue to dream while awake in the unconscious. Jung says, also, the unconscious is really unconscious. It’s clear that any concept of the unconscious is analogous in its closeness to being to the Sophist question, “is not-being?” Therefore, we may think the not being and the unconscious. If the instants “forget” what energia as not-being is always bringing to them the dream chaos is the energia. 

 

The solidity of concrete, for instance, is already in the concrete as seen. We anticipate the potential. Is there something analogous in language which anticipates even without memory of an experience? So far as language is cerebellum environmental or motor based it is not correctness as what is apart from the discussion of words about words. In some sense this is the bare meaning of the conception of Husserl’s so-called intentionality. The retreat into the basic language which is phenomenological active prior to a discussion of words about words. However, everyone is distant from this, because of compulsory primary education. Because of introspective reflection. The motor primary language linked to being is not being, but in its essence like the not-being and the unconscious. It is a “essence”, conceptualized as a sort of energia with no nature. Which means that a house, for example, is a house, but that it might not remain a house. Because the ground of the event, for example, allows the second table of Edington to flow into it and take it over until it becomes a “dwelling machine”. Until it becomes what is the temporary station of the ungrounded worker, of the rent payer, of the owner who could be moved by the state. Of the one guided away from themselves so that they could improve their animal flesh and make themselves into something else because they are not the animal with the divine spark of reason but the sheer availability of the imaginary space-time to an experimentally available consciousness which is the cybernetic movement of what “persuades”, that is, of what manipulates. To manipulate is to persuade without conscience knowledge. Since there is no soul or psuke, this consciousness can not be persuaded. It is not even rationally conscious at all. Its consciousness is only of the “scientific house”. Only the being still with a subjective offense against this space-time still plays about with natural things as if it were an animal with a special advantage over the other animals. 

 

The concept of being, which is no longer a concept, but can be thought of as a concept. Where does the change happen? This grasping must be conserved in the flow of being. Heidegger says, I stand back and bow before one who will come… (step back in front of one who is not here, and I bow a millennium ahead of him,.) Thus, he implies, being is real. The History of Being is real. It goes on. In this sense, one can see that unlike the Eastern thinking Heidegger lets being be. And this is important to see when one thinks through this that is new to thought (thus, unlike wisdom, we say: something can be new to thought, thus, the Event). Heidegger does not hold, that which has been can not be undone. Because he does not hold with the principle of identity. Happiness, which was once Beatitude, which was once Eudaimonia, has it retained anything of its first emergence? Perhaps something. There is no man as man. Man is no longer the rational animal. Not an animal at all. What was learned of Plato, will no longer count. Perhaps there can be no learning in this sense, learning about an essence, that of man as man, and his morals. We must begin to think being, while as yet referring back to the flow of the concrete world, into reason as the reasonable. It may be asked, why refer always to the objections of common sense and the reasonable? Since one does not want to surrender to the forces of mere talking about talking. Just as it is also so that one does not give way to the authority of the atheistic god with its Laws of Nature as eternal Energia or Actus Purus. Instead we remember, not-being is. The unconscious is dreaming while awake. 

Monday, November 4, 2019


Remarks in Passing on our understanding of the Moral and Intellectual conceptions as historical relics and correctness (in some connection to Isaiah Berlin). On whether life is useless. 


Image result for count kuki heidegger
 

 

The question What is the significance of life on earth? is given in the formation of Law (through the art of Political Philosophy) and the direction of the advancement of the experimental sciences (or, the decision about how much resources will be allotted to each).  The question then becomes concrete.

 

We are grateful to Dugin for reawakening the interest in Guenon, his book The Crisis of the Modern World agrees with our own view to the extent that it grasps the transformation of the higher, nous or reason, to the lower, calculative episteme, as a comprehensive transformation of the human being, in his sense as a ruination and destruction of the intellect unparalleled in the human development. What interests us in Guenon is his genuine grasp of an inkling of the full force of the older thinking, now lost. That the going down of the tradition is the going down of an Earth. Earth is said of ethnos, but World of the Political community.



In parallel the Zizek position denies this attitude of destruction wholly, though in a certain sense Zizek, though he does not sense the Aristotelian world (as does Guenon), but wholly moves in its destruction in Kant and Hegel, as he expresses it quite beautifully by reference to Vertigo, to the rings of the felled giant Redwood “here I was born and here I died,” ergo, between Kant and Hegel, his attitude is that the cosmos is favorably disposed to man and must yield even though various difficulties present themselves. Nietzsche and Bakunin take the view, in contradistinction to this, that the significance of life is in life without end or favored home. Thus these views, never understanding either being nor religion and faith in Dugin's sense, are species of a Catholicism. The sense of a Herder, of a being at home as being like oneself, which in some sense even taints Heidegger, is repudiated in Zizek for universal norms as absolutes. Herder does not hold with supremacism, as of some veiled menace of a neo-Nazi "88," but with the each to their own to the fullest. This position, however, is impossible when the search for Truth of Being is taken seriously. The problems raised by Schmitt must show their grimace as in the "Idealism" of Samanth Power, in the spirit of the Valkyries, which strives constantly towards the elimination of evil, of enemy, with an undying will (concealed by lovely manners).  




The Catholic “will to power” shows straightforwardly through Sam Harris. Philosophy or “science” is supposed to be able to answer the question, What is the true way to live? The answer must be universal in character. Various verbal questions which can be raised as objections are not much interesting and, even less interesting is whether Harris himself knows what he is (or what peculiar taint of history he embodies). 
 
‘But if they want to suffer…’
‘A man may want to rape a woman. Are we to allow it because he wants to? Suffering is wrong.’
‘And you suffer all the time,’ the priest commented, watching the sour Indian face behind the candle-light.’


Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory   
 
This example shows the difference between relativism, as in Comte, Mill and the Utilitarian vision, and the Historical Consciousness properly. Of course, true, the Harm Principle comes in in the example of rape. But, on the Kantian view, it comes in as much in the example of suffering. Since each one is like each other, and harming oneself is no different than harming another. 
 
Happyness. No. 
Leiden leiden, Kreuz Kreuz. (Suffering suffering, the cross the cross.) ― Martin Luther
 
There is a thread, running from Athenian Eudaimonia, to Catholic Beatitude, to American Happiness. In this sense, one must ask: Does anything remain? Or, rather, has the ground changed sufficiently that nothing remains in the “idea”. 
 
The Utilitarian so-called Relativism sees each society as approximating towards what is most conducive towards cozy self-preservation. 
 
Our view is that: In Pinker there is an example of total lack of Aristotelian phusis or “origin.” He reads Locke as a Marxist who speaks of “blank slate” babies who take their form through rearing in the sense of class upbringing. Thus he tends towards the cheap commonplace amongst the Leftists: Plato, the Aristocrat. With the addendum, though, not all aristocrats are bad since there are “class traitors”. 
 
All this is totally alien to Locke and has nothing to do with his concept of the tabla rasa. which was directed at the art of reasoning or the formation of the discrimination of moral opinion and knowledge. 
 
In the same style Adam Smith is usually wholly misread. Since Smith (natural value) still lived in the atmosphere of Aristotelian reason. In a certain sense, something of the spirit of the “scientific” table, of Edington, so-called, is always read back into the Aristotelian world where there is no such nature. No experimental “science” “nature”, which is really a name for technological enframement (i.e., “nature” as an imaginary “space-time”/ "Gestell" as totalizing non-rational availability). 
 
--
 
Ishah Berlin says Hitler’s “values did not coincide with ours” and we therefore “had a right to go to war with him”. He doesn’t say: They were wrong (“universal”) values. 
 
Berlin admits that the category of human disappears at the edges. Those who we can not understand in any reasonable sense are not human. 
 
An implication of this is what follows: A discourse must be addressed to the friends of the truth if it is to be serious. To those who take pleasure in truth (rather than in interest or passion). A written discourse may be read by anyone, for thousands of years. It may be read by those who are not human. The ones who aren't human will not be friends of the truth. (The issue of bare intelligibility as against reasonableness is key here.) 
 
----
 
Heidegger: Being. Said negatively this means that one can not approve Guenon simply. Something is gained in the destruction of the West by the technological “science” or, what says the same thing, the transformation of the Western tradition into nihilism (on the one side, the impossibility of the question why prolong human existence?, on the other, mere “Life” as experiencing of the life-giving lies). Being says, not a telos, when stated negatively. Thus being is not origin or nature. Not the favoured world. The favoured world, the world of Aristotle, implies the nihilist world, it does not take an interest in us. The, “science” as “neutral”. To have a phusis is to be caused, since it a peculiarity, an essence, as what has a “mature” state. What grows to maturity has a purpose. To be, by contrast, is no cause or answer to the “why”. life is still full of the “why”. It differs only in that it denies that god can ever find man. For Harris, god must be capable to find a man. There must be favouring in the cosmos.