Tuesday, February 25, 2020


Being as Metaphysics of the Law of Objects as throwing a bridge to the form as genetic life (Expressionism of a solid thought)

 
 



It is so that we return to our thinking of the Heidegger text as Husserl. Certainly, one should not understanding this thinking as a metaphysics of objects, because the round of the object in the understanding or substance is cast into view as the form. Thus, one is strictly warned against thinking this in any connection to analytic thought or the “object oriented” school and the like. Basically, this thinking is much more like the thinking of Dugin. We ashew or abjure any claim to being instructive and so abjure the need to contest the claim that one has merely been “expressive” or such-like. It doesn’t concern us that those unwilling to think should not understand this living thinking. True, this living thinking still moves in the infinity of the awareness of the claim of truth on it. But, this infinity is an infinity which is like the essencing of the essence, such that what stands equidistant to all ages is no timelessness of the mind of god, but this infinity of the unthought. In another sense this means that if an infinity has come before, it can not be that all has already been, since the possibility is infinite and can not be exhausted in any infinity. However, this thinking is form, thus involved in genetic circle, and not a dogma or rule corresponding to a superstition about the case with beings. 


The Heidegger text is a text of a study of the laws of objects so far as it is western. This is in keeping with our thinking which understands Heidegger in terms of Husserl. SO far as Husserl remains with philosophy, then, so far does Heidegger. Substance of the “thing” is visible according to Husserl or the final philosophy, which is Cartesian. Every form is profoundly indifferent to being a form under this thinking. Thus, when reason is thought as something added on, and beyond mere discussion, it is a form in which the Heidegger text thinks the final Greeks, or Plato moving towards Aristotle. Being is but a form. It is true, then, it is factizitat, it is subject matter, it is form. 


In the current religion what stands out is the obvious tendency to regard the fact as directive. Whoever notices the power of technology as fact says as much as that it ought to be so. Observation is regarded as giving what must be out of sheer observation. All observation falls back into a telling of what is to be by saying what is. However, to merely want never presents itself as sufficient to say what is. 


Death in the Heidegger text is a specific form of the phronesis or Socrates. And this is the form of moral conscience as what gives time. This form Heidegger finds in his form of Da-sein. Ergo, it is clear that though the movement towards the mere colors of the thing, towards the “fact” which is no longer phenomena as it was since the dawn of metaphysics, has settled into being as form. But, the form is not what is substantive. 2 + 2 has the substance which stands with the formulation 3 + 1. Such and such a piece of white pavement has the same form as some other ashen piece of sidewalk. This coming forth of the forms out of substance is fluid in its essencing under Husserl’s thinking. Likewise, it is not that in thinking Plato’s animal of speech as a special moment of reason prior to Reason, that the form is untrue to Plato as Plato and thus false. Rather, it is this history that first was the basis that allowed the form to endow man with its look. 


So far as a um-earth and an um-welt is bringing the horizon of humans into the position of the living forms it forms being, as the umbegrieffen, not as a piece of the understanding held in speech, but as the living texture of the form. Thus, we reach a point in our thinking where we can not be said to do philosophy of the law of the object, but we do not come to being as is supposed to be granted by the Heidegger text. 




 


Monday, February 10, 2020



The Cosmetic Separation of the World-View from the Political Postulate of a World Formulation in Existence 

 
Related image



The world of politics or emotional claques of opponents, not to say enemies, is thought as locked into a logos-guided order of Liberal Democracy, understood as rulership by the best citizens authorized by all or most citizens likely, but necessarily, by election contest and public discussion. So far as public discussion becomes explicitly emotional or political it becomes an emasculated or philistine debate of egoistic representatives of factions and their interests under the word of Hobbes: as oft as reason is against man man is against reason. So far as the system of deliberative rationalism approximates to politics or gladiatorial battles of emotion or interest Democracy becomes rule of mob groups. The issue then is essentially the conception of Democracy as rule of the best as a postulate of a foundation in order understood as the basis for various world-views in a pluralised superstructure. The notion that the world views, whether Catholic or Populist or Comunist and so forth, can stand on the base of the logos-decision about  a State or an Administration defensive of a region of social being thought as superior and higher than the base, the mere spirited, thumos or emotional region of the political beings, is the basis for a coherent discussion of all things which hangs in a formulation which threatens to come into the violence of what Dugin has begun to think as a sort of logos war. 
 

The rule of the dead implied by existing orders is one sense of the “cosmetic” for the reason that the release from the authority of the weight of traditions prevails as a backround world power in the general imagination. This imagination at first is thought as identical to reality. So far as the eyes and the understanding are thinking they imagine at all times and stand in contradistinction to the sub-cause of instrument, instrument sanctified by the world thought and given its vital action via the world representation. The easy availability in all quarters in the popular thinking, the power of the cogency of the notion that because a thing was done in a way in the past is no reason to continue to do so reaches a violence which ever swells within the dam of the various great sleeping traditions such as the various sacred concepts of the West. For instance that of the music of Habeas Corpus which has little force of being in the Chinese ear. All the sacred concepts and corresponding gods of the ego arbiter in the form of the pathetic flight from nihilism to love (as in Zizek) flee from the existence of the decision which claims Dugin and with a staggering force outpaces the collapse of western logos. So far as the Western logos given way to mere politics and the idiot sophomoric chatter of the debate club loses all sense of its bare Democratic conception amidst the ravaging of the ego arbiter and its gods the claim of the future on those beings outside the Russian sphere come into an ignoble and stinking morass which topples into itself in rubles. 

 

The expulsion of the world-systems from the society of the social contract based on the Maslow pyramid and the like in its sustaining practical agreements belongs to the region of instability of consciousness which is unparalleled. The pathetic division of love and nihilism which avoids the question of the truth of being amidst the pyramid agreement has a strange tension in the division of the best who are meant to be recognized by the others between the requirements of the low emotional or interest ground of the factional or American politics of commerce (whereby the requirements of what controls the state are met by the military and count as the chief National Interest) and the perversion of a logos-culture in universities divided into ideological interpretations of the sciences or “facts” as with the political scientist Murray or the linguist Pinker, or the sociologist Wacquant (all amateurs in their general postulations which remove from the sphere of their narrow expertise into the abyss). Gross ideological or mythological interpretation effaces the Truth which seeks to claim human understanding in the knowledge of its eyes and understanding as its thought (in the sense of the Heidegger text). Watched by many critical eyes the movement of the internal disputes of the Russian sphere, even if not subject to external words, remains under the seething of a great not to say simply superior philosophical release from, as prepared by Dugin in the presence of, an un-philosophic West. In this sense it should be said that though every attempt to show the difficulty, and let it endow the west with its decision which is no mere decision of life and death or such like, remains the work of those few still claimed by the basic difficulties in their irony. The irony caused by the necessity of the forces and their obscurity of issuance from what is spontaneous as something not conflicting with passions against aims that wish to change the resistence to simple leading ends.



 


Thursday, January 23, 2020



Considerations of Reality, as the waves of an imbricated essence: 

 

Image result for kagemusha

If we heard that a doctor of Water, or of the science called hydro-oxegenology, conferred on his students the outlook that human beings were primarily phenomena of water, we might say that a few human beings can be spared for this thinkinking. But, what does it mean that some human beings can be spared for this pursuit? That chairs or offices can be endowed and funded in the Science of Water? Lives bounded to its concerns. Why, however, when it is said that the science called Biology is evoked as an authority does common sense already give way? It can be demonstrated biologically, or it is so biologically… What is supposed to follow from some departmental grasp of some phenomena (of some mere happening that once was)? All the time we are told there is Evolution, yet, if this is so why do we still speak of science as if they could tell us something true rather than something empirical (something past that can be guided anew, and with, perhaps, unconstrained willingness to be something according to some god)? 

In his Beijing compound the artist Ai Weiwei keeps many cats. One day one of them opened a closed door by leaping and turning the knob with a stretched paw. Do we thereby learn something about the essence of cats? About the possibility of any cat that might ever be? Not at all. We learn only that this cat did that. Nothing at all can be learned about man as man. 

Here the sciences retreat into mysticism and fictionalism. It happens because it happens. Each datum is incomparable. The thinking of Hume is a kind of mysticism, and on the other side Kant’s thinking. The pure human Why. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche prefer the will. The will is the standpoint which straddles the extremes until it is asked just on what ground does this possibility of the will stand? Its actus purus must be willed? Thus, the will to will! 

We then need to examine Nietzsche and The Heidegger. If the Heidegger speaks of Zuhandenheit, there is shown that “being” is thinkable as a becoming. An essencing. And if there it speaks of a Forhandenheit, there is thinking of the intervention of motus or change as something that stands as what is. Everything tries to roll into the thought of the “is.” The actus purus, is, and the beings “are.” Again, this is not easily discriminable from Husserl, not at all! Since Heidegger, himself, as is well known, convinced Husserl that the Athenians were already Husserlians. 

On the other hand, The Heideger claims his being was as yet unsearchable, not to say remotio, to the early Greeks. Though perhaps now it is eminentia with us. 

If someone says that male (sicuti est) and female are biological facts, though, social constructs, how does this differ from the claim that water is the truth of the human is a fact of the science of water? If political agreements, in the pet ideas and collections of conventions of political common sense grasp some terms, from their own ground, then it is not because they are scientific, but they point to the sciences for its authority. Yet, the sciences are compartments moving in their own abysses and endless accumulations, and not in the common cause. However, the duty of each office of science is supposed to be a patriotism of science. A duty to the universal compact of the universal pursuit. 

In general the ideas of former centuries seem to linger and dominate the outlooks of persons in a deleterious way one which causes them to become alluvial soot. And to be stuck outside the times. If it were possible to overcome the time with past copies of older times, degraded in this time, all would be well, and a revolt would be alive. As with the pathetic marginal revolt of numerous parties with “fascist” features. But, as it is in Reality, what happens is that the loosing factor, the greater freedom to fall over because one is not ordered by powers external, many weaklings feel themselves up to making a great deal of public noise. Yet, in reality this is a sign of their further insignificance. And their permanent anger is that of persons who have been told that they always could have enjoyed some advantage, and better if they had started earlier, or, put more realistically, they are like persons helped twice or three times and than outraged at being refused in a subsequent episode. Now they are used to being able to speak, and suddenly they image censorship is increased. Though it has all but withered. This is the general outlook. 

On the one hand the tradition, or what essences silently, the god of technology, scatters in every science as a multifold religious duty brought into a singular bottomless morass, binding and total. On the other, the human being, claiming to be no piece of technology, pathetically mounts various efforts demanding that no special awards be given to this or that person out of keeping with the general claim on the means to happiness through a share in the things that can be moved bought and sold. In each direction old ideas, not in keeping with the real bearing of the absence of all essences and natures, rages into itself. This ignorance of the technological power, and of the disappearance of being as nature, is to be overcome in a few thinkers. It means nothing that innumerable people can quote accurately some thinkers such as Nietzsche to the effect that they have long since memorized these accounts. Since nothing thereby is genuinely taken up in thought as what imagines being! And thought names the phenomena in toto, and, also, the whole or god, cosmos or the universe. However, thought is.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020



Technology restated out of the German world through a passage of Robert Musil’s “The Man Without Qualities” in attempt to come to its definition so as to see into it its decision

Image result for julieta aranda




Philosophy is the name for what helps human beings, or else it would be something else. Whatever helps is a caput mortuum, according to The Heidegger, a worthlessness κατ’ ἐξοχήν. Stated more ambiguously, but, also, say, more truthfully, and in polemic with the times, with information and facts, with newspaper time and manipulation which sees the newspaper time as claiming us, as political claim over the duty of our pride, as what we must follow to be men, philosophy stands against all this as the attempt to demonstrate the impossibility of a trivial life. The thing that is eminently salutary, health itself, seems to help. Political sense, in contradistinction to science, as the base out of which science claims, and makes its claim, to ascend, knows what health is, but in its ascent it no longer can know. Health becomes a technical issue. It’s not only that David Sinclair, by controlling the nucleus of the human cell, can change all the accidental forms of health, but health as such may suffer a qualitative change in its genus. 
 

Socrates was compelled to face up to the “City of Pigs,” the mere pleasure lovers, because Kallipolis, the most noble city, is the question: What life would be most noble? Kalon means what makes the most pious man want to worship through its beauty. The genius of Socrates finds most beautiful the improvement of human beings. His claim is that the ugliest understanding of justice is brute piggish power (cf. Strauss on tyranny and the life of actual tyrants in their self-claimed misery), and the political standard is contract and property. In the noble city we are physicians who claim human beings in order to lead them to the total exposition of the perfect human order. The first three Articles of the US Constitution are an ordering of state. What comes after is law. Kallipolis is not a city of laws. But, rather, of what one gets down on one's knees in the impulse to reverence, namely the highest vision of justice which brings audacity to the citizens and is the spontaneous support of their beings. Yet, this god, justice as sensed by the genius of Socrates, no longer claims human beings. However, today there is a god called techne. And it is no mean god, nor is its power less than the gods of all times. 
 

In a certain sense, this god is greater than the older gods. Surely, it is no nihilism. Only the overcoming of all gods would be that. However, now let us merely read a passage of Musil in order to grasp the definition in our own ways while considering it in the wintery light of Decision and Event (which is Ereignis) since, up until know, this has been something that just happened, and not what was decided by laying claim on this peculiar pattern of our time: 
 

“The lady and her companion had also approached and, peering over heads and bent backs, contemplated the victim. Then they stepped back and stood hesitating. The lady had a queasy sensation in the pit of her stomach, which she credited to compassion, though she chiefly felt irresolute and helpless. The gentleman, after some silence, said to her: “The breaks on these heavy trucks have too long of a braking-distance.” This datum gave the lady some relief, and she thanked him with an appreciative glance. She did not really understand, or care to understand, the technology involved, as long as his explanation helped put this ghastly incident into perspective by reducing it into technicality of no direct personal concern to her.” 
 

In all literature what matters is verisimilitude. But, that the engineer can imagine an engine and picturing it so work out various problems, such as the design of a better carburetor in his fuel injection system, also means that the knowledge he has in the intuition or prediction of the acts of the phenomena of heat and chemical actions come into the picturesque mirror. So far as literature and imagination remains a set of beings that does not struggle to overcome extrospective being it reminds of a metaphor that merely transfers meaning, but does not yet grasp that it first opens meaning. And this was the difficulty which caused Mishima to finally capitulate and relinquish literature.  


According to the god of techne, for the feminine and the political, always fearing the expert and seeking what is to be trusted, the nets of technology bring relief: This datum gave the lady some relief, and she thanked him with an appreciative glance. She learns of the title: Breaking-distance. The masculine spirit, to be sure, too learns of this, and here it would need to become intelligent, and learn the intelligence of breaking-distance. Which, to be sure, is no Greek or Latin text of philosophy or science (the two being the same named twice in  the tradition until now). So far as Greek and Latin were the entrance requirement for the universities of the past, they have now to step aside for the new intelligence of this man. Now, the irresolute feeling flies. With the datum. According to The Heidegger there is such a thing, too, of anxiety. Though, true, it is not thought as mere anxiety at a car wreck. Yet, it is banished! 
 

The feminine spirit, the popular, the political man, but Nietzsche says, this too names the scientists themselves these days, since they are universal laymen and infantizing and obscurantist of themselves, except in the narrow niche of their specialization and its corresponding intelligence, in the compartment of braking-distances for instance, She did not really understand, or care to understand, the technology involved, as long as his explanation helped put this ghastly incident into perspective by reducing it into technicality of no direct personal concern to her.”  Everyone who is happily a layman will accept the popular account, and having learned some names with the greatest complacency go about rehearsing them to each other and themselves. This means most off all the so-called scientists themselves, who are their own popular audience, and talk baby-talk even to themselves.  
 

Was this ever a decision? According to The Heidegger Event or Ereignis (others proscribe the translation) is a decision. It has nothing to do with newspapers, even if it infects the political, or what Leo Strauss says, in our own time, comes to stand for common sense as against scientific sense. But, what common sense is, is a small god in itself. It guides the ego arbiter in its deliberations within and with each other. And it too undergoes qualitative changes and one notes that once upon a time it was non-existent. Decision is somewhere in the god of techne, but what is this dawn for science or for politics? For philosophy and science on the one hand, and politics and common sense on the other? One would like to say, according to The Heidegger, and, also, the truth. How can we think the "according to the truth" given that The Heidegger tells us, if we listen, that the essence of truth is a decision or Event? The thrill of the removal from the newspaper time, with its demand to keep up with the latest incremental transformations on the road to the top of reality, would jolt through bodily to our fingertips when they found themselves moving in the untimeliness of this decision. This man and woman, in Musil, let us say, have lived in the newspaper, and not in decision. they are no nihilists, thus they can never create truth. Yet, The Heidegger does not aim at creating truth: rather at being claimed by Ereignis or Event, by the decision. Yet, is it this decision, that of that resplendent Techne in the eyes of political man, who is also these days scientific man, himself a popular man, speaking to his lack of science, to his mere techne, of the god of forces and laws of “nature,” of the unitary nature rather than the nature of the myriad individual beings, a decision to techne?   
 

To be sure the Event is like a paideia which lets one move forward in a situation of timelessness. But, this timelessness is not eternal in the sense of a store of ideas or possibilities, that of ivory, that of triangles, that of hippopotamuses and of a Marina Abramovic who asserts that a woman who has children can never be a great artist, but it is thought in the atmosphere of a polemic with the newspaper, which itself has the consideration of the progress of the “worker.” Because the “soldier” was damned with his “peace is a dream and not even a beautiful dream,” with his sacrifice and morality, and the selfishness of the “worker” with his, these are not one of ourselves and we may kill them for our benefit, since it all serves progress, since all “work” is in the service of the newspaper and the political, and makes for more information and most of all keeps us in contact with the “datum” which is in the place of decision.  
 

However, we must study the being of imagination and verisimilitude under the possibility of stealing towards the genuine definition of Decision which must be seen and not only talked of. This describes our current task. 

Tuesday, January 7, 2020


Definitions (always just getting under way).
Image result for yukio mishima

Definitions:

1.Defintion: That which points or sees into the concrete good of some matter. Someone who knows what the being properly is has the definition. 

Comment: The assumption that definitions are consubjective and extrospective corresponds to the possibility of intersubjectivity or communication and introspection. 

Examples: This sentence is a sentence and it says or tells us something. This kind of definition attempts to capture what everyone knows already. In other words, to say what is the good or solid significance of statements, propositions or sentences. That they say, or tell, or perhaps “show” something. That they tell us something is what gives them a bearing on human life. Magritte’s painting with the words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is a painting. 



Comment: The issue of specific diferentia which is still the Kantian sense of the analytic definition implies a non-conventional understanding of definition. The Anglo-American Kant (Quine is an exemplar of it) regards substance as a grammatical feature. The Kantian philosophy regards substance as a causal feature. With us substance is thought Phenomenologically (neither in a logical/conventional manner nor a psychological/factical manner). Like Aristotle we don’t suppose that it is meaningful to deny that all things have a ”good,” or to limit “value” or “ought” to the products of human making, but, unlike Aristotle we don’t assume that the “good” of stone, of roots, of small shrewd animals, or of Justice and Beauty, is once discovered final. Behind the good must then be thought the Holy. The rational will and the passions are not thought as projecting themselves into objects but thought and the definition are part of the beings. 



2.Dasein: Beings are undeceptively or straightforwardly available. The frames of common sense (thought in the Aristotelian way as endoxa, the Christian way as “general opinion” in contradistinction to knowledge, or in the biological manner as traits beneficial to survival of the species, or in some psychological/psychoanalytic manner or in the manner of Descartes and Thomas Paine, or in the scientific-Democratic sense) and of naturwissenschaft (this which aims at extrospective result or success defined against the value or ought content) cannot correct the availability (disponibilité [it is important to note we do not read this as said against Aristotelean “clock time” as does Derrida, but rather as referring to the availability of ousia or being in Aristotle as what is (‘is is available’)], parousia). Availability is itself available as is the “I” for what availability or presence is present. Heidegger is not taken as a demonstration that availability is one “beginning” among (moglich) others.  



3.Philosophy: What appears first among the Greeks. Especially with the discussions between the Meletians and the Athenians and the Eleatics. The name Caesar can be used to name a leader with no connection by pedigree to the Roman context. So too the name Philosophy can become, and has, a mere generic which denies the reality of the pedigree in its real existence. Though, the pedigree can not be thought here only by the frame of an imposed measure of clock time, since in being a definition it refers back to the good use which belongs to extrospective thinking of the beings (ergo, not to an abstract notion of a brain as in the “useful” (that is on the “subjective” notion that health is “useful”) medical work of the neurobiological field). In this sense Leibnitz' saying that thinking would not be found in the brain no matter how close one looks says now that thinking is found in the brain understood as sites of concrete goods. Of the neurons and such-like understood by extrospective self-identity. In this sense self-identity and ready-to-hand in Heidegger are alike (both are available or being the “is”). The mystery of the contrast between the god, ratio or reason (rationality), and the fateful power, pathos or the passions (“emotions” in the modern vernacular jargon) defines philosophy among the available beings. Availability is like the Holy being that in which the good is available. The Holy is a mere "verbal formula" and a "fallacy" from the point of view of formal logic. It can not be defined so far as it has no “good”, but it can be signaled Phenomenologically through the “is”.