A Few Thoughts that Belong Together

In trying to think of what I’m trying to think, I found I had to note a few thoughts that belong together, though they by no means think precisely the same. A few of these thoughts, when they occurred to me, appeared both obviously the case and odd in terms of how they were the case. The are in a sense the Logos or gathering of what is thought in my thinking, but not fully laid out, a punctuated synopsis.

I’ll put them down without intentionally trying to set them in order:

  • Self-identity is posited against a horizon, which is itself posited as time
  • Self and World are the same, but narrated differently
  • Evil is an over or mis-determination, particularly a retroactive one, it can only be avoided by a holding-open of every determination as provisional, thus notion, which keeps determination open and provisional, is higher than concept, which fixes it
  • Will to Power is a closure of metaphysics because in collapsing to will to will, what is demonstrated as hidden from metaphysics is will to determine, or ontologization proper
  • Metaphysical ontotheology is not simply evil as will to determine eternally, but the inherent excess of that will as drive
  • Judgement is provisionally provisional, provisional as an act, and doubly so as the response to an act that is itself provisional
  • We judge the truth of anything based on how its story fits our particular version of the fundamental narrative
  • Progress is the rational-historical version of the fundamental narrative and the fundamental fantasy
  • Every bigotry is a version of the fundamental fantasy
  • Reason, or ratio, is a reduction of the notion of Logos, but a faithful one, in that ratio, as taking the measure, means most immediately a “taking stock” or “balancing of the books” in the accounting sense, and this sense was already primary in Logos prior to Heracleitas. Even to see Logos as intending a more originary kind of “gathering” must recognize that the feminine form also meant collection, but specifically a collection of money, and that one does not “lay together to gather things” in the farmer’s field or the hunter-gatherer’s wood, but in the marketplace
  • the substantialization of measure, the hypokeimenon, or rational subject, is from Plato to Descartes founded on a hyperbole of unreason. This hyperbole, the intrinsic excess of unreason is the pharmakon, in its variations from simple habituation in learning to drug addled delusion – what is madness as a loss of rationality compared to the madness of reason itself?
  • the substantialization of measure is also the reification of money/capital as an object in itself, as property – what is the crime in robbing a bank compared to that of founding one?
  • as history is rational and rationality is historical, so the ahistorical / prehistoric / posthistoric must be seen as irrational from the perspective of history and rationality
  • Christ as the embodiment of Logos also implies that the death of God in the crucifixion is also in part a balancing of the books, although not only that. The “Holy Ghost” is the community as the self-unfolding of Cosmic Spirit as the origin of reason and history, an origin that is neither historical nor rational
  • The “unity of consciousness” is a necessary fiction, just as Self-identity is based on Self-difference, or better, on Self-change, so without positing its unity self-consciousness cannot be thought, and only as thought can it be self-aware, adult self-consciousness, while as unified it cannot be in any way
  • The Fall, as the fundamental narrative, always strikes us (in whatever variation we subscribe to) as unquestionable, because our most unmediated experience of our Self is as falling. To say it more adequately would require a present perfect tense
  • As the fundamental fantasy, the retroactive positing of something as prior to the Fall is even more dangerous when nothing specific is posited
  • There is no One” simply means that ontology can only begin from the gap insofar as the gap makes the split into multiples evident, and as such we can only experience something as being if it is already split. We temporalize this gap between the future perfect (will have been) and the present perfect (always already) tenses, not between the present (is) and the past perfect (has been) and certainly not in relation to the past (was), The “sense” or “direction” of the change is determined via the absolute past (was always past). Only in this gap can presencing as such occur. An event of presencing proper is always therefore a surprise, although we suppress any response to it for the most part
  • Quantum Physics, the combination of QM and QFT, is simply a mathematical model of the above, it cannot determine ontology since like all scientific/mathematical models it is an expression of a specific ontology
  • As Einstein intuited, from the perspective of classical physics quantum mechanics and quantum field theory can only be an anti-physics (and complementarity an anti-metaphysics)
  • Bohr’s insight, philosophically, was not that “there is no reality, only quantum phenomena” or even the more subtle notion that the noumenon is an effect of the self-limitation of the phenomenon, but that the mystery of presencing cannot be asked about from the Gestell of the experiment, in which the gestellen, or apparatus, is only a recording of its trace, one that is inscribed into the phenomenon itself, and the results of the experiment a representation of that recording, thus at one remove from the trace, and a double remove from presencing as such
  • Someone I know once asked, at breakfast of all times, the seemingly bizarre question “what do you call history when it’s in the future?”. The only rational answer is revelation, and can only be revelation insofar as history is experienced as rational and rationality experienced as historical. The only event that may provoke this experience is the revelation of revelation itself as rational-historical. This happening of such factically, as a personal life event, properly initiates post-metaphysical thinking as such.
  • There is no possible restoration of any a priori order, a priori order is a fantasy of the falling regarding what precedes the fall, but there is no prior state, we are as thrown and thus always already falling. The One is only in the absolute past, the always already past.
  • The Augenblick of insight takes many forms. In the Republic it is the return of the philosopher from the sun, in the Phaedrus it is erotic union, Eros draws us towards the horizon and draws what is beyond the horizon over it toward us.
  • Recollection is intimated in erotic union, a forgetting beyond the beginning to the moment prior, when what was begun was still undecided. Simultaneously in erotic union we experience the otherwise contradictory nature of Absolute Spirit as authentic being-with, the shared Self itself as authentic
  • Spirit is the obscene insistence beyond birth and death of the Self, always already and necessarily positing identity from Self-difference, as such it is in a sense only in the absolute past as the past that was always past, Spirit is thus intrinsicallydrive in Schelling and Freud’s sense
  • Cosmic Spirit and its recollection beyond the beginning of the rationality of history and the history of rationality is fulfilled Reason as Absolute Spirit, the Cosmic Spirit becomes SelfSame through its temporalization as rational history and the retrospective understanding of that history as the development of Cosmic into Absolute Spirit, with the simultaneous appropriation of itself as the shared Self of community with no transcendent other (every factical other is part of the human community, and thus not other in a transcendent sense, and Absolute Spirit does not “hover over” community as transcendent to it, but is intrinsic to it as its truth)
  • Absolute Spirit is the proper fulfillment of Spirit, which otherwise, as drive, as obscene self-insistence, expends itself as the “death drive”
  • Put another way, Dasein as the manner of being human is already transcendent as temporally outside itself, and there is no transcending this transcendence. Dasein though is not solely the individual, but the back-and-forthness of the individual as the embodiment of community, and the community as the complementary truth of the individual, a truth experienced factically in erotic union
  • Care” as the meaning or sense of Dasein ranges from mundane concern (worries of the day) to the highest love
  • The “truth” of Christianity as a community of love is hidden as long as it remains a community of anything else, including a community of belief. The conflation of faith and belief is the error of metaphysics and metaphysical Christianity, faith is simply trust in love as the only foundation of community, it has no transcendental or metaphysical content, it is the pure act of trust in the community of love
  • The exchangeability of technology, where anything technological is at the minimum distance from its essence as technology, reveals the exchangeability of any for any that technology has itself helped bring about
  • This exchange includes such things as Eros and Will/Power, Will/Power and Being, Being and Essence, Essence and beings, Thinking and Being , Rationality (measure/judgement) and Thinking, Reason and Unreason (Madness/Habit), Rationality and Reason, Techne and Poeisis, Techne/Poiesis and Nature, Nature and Self, Self and Event, Nature and Event, Event and Appropriation, Appropriation and Will/Power, Appropriation and Eros, Will and Self, Self and Spirit/Drive, Mind and Body, Freedom and Habit, Horizon and the Open. And any other of these for any other
  • “Ereignis” is the factical experience of the event of appropriation that places each to each and thus turns each towards each, creating a topology and a topography in which we glimpse the withdrawal of Being as change, granted/gifted only in and as change
  • “What withdraws in the granting” is not properly even a what, it does not and can never transcend the granting itself as always already withdrawn
  • The body thus is not an information processor except in an accidental sense. The body ontologizes the real, the mind experiences and is the experience of this ontologization as reality, yet once it is as an effect of the body, it determines the manner in which the body ontologizes the real to begin with
  • Reality is not purely nothing, but as the HIggs field models, the less than nothing that defuses pure nothing as the highest point of tension, that between passive nothing and active negation. This pure nothing is both false, in that like drive it is only in the absolute past, but it still must be in the absolute past because reality can only be as a defusion of that tension
  • Specifically the Higgs field models, not the void/Chaos, but the abyss/Tartarus that serves to keep the void/Chaos eternally hidden – the abyss is not deep, it is not even shallow, since it is a priori to every dimensionality
  • Entelechia as an active “at work remaining itself” is thus part of the moment before metaphysics. Plato and Aristotle, while being the foundation of metaphysics, are not themselves metaphysical, since they had to already accomplish their work for metaphysics proper to become possible. A return to the moment before the co-origin of rationality and history (and conceptuality, capitalism and numerous other intertwining intradependent threads of Western civilization) is in thinking a return to Aristotle, Plato and their predecessors, not to repeat metaphysics but to enact the new as a forgetting of metaphysics and a recollecting of a different possibility. This forgetting though must not forget its forgetting – a different possibility must remain in a certain relation to Western history as metaphysical
  • Aristotle’s work appears to be ordered backwards from a metaphysical perspective, with first philosophy appearing last, physics second last, and the studies of human experience in the Ethics and Poetics first. Yet it is not an incorrect ordering, since as pre-metaphysical Aristotle could only found physics and metaphysics itself on experience, and thus experiencing itself had to be understood first. Not until Hegel, Schelling, Marx, Nietzsche and Heidegger do we see the order of Aristotle’s thinking (largely how his students ordered his work) repeated, which is the signature of the post-metaphysical

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s