Rigor of Being in Identity: toward warranted assertability of European Identity and Being

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 10 December 2012 08:19.

Rigor of Being in Identity: toward warranted assertion through operational verifiability of indigenous European identity and difference – differences that make a difference.

GW:

“First, ‘the doctrine of metaphysics ... states that identity belongs to Being.’ Or Being is ‘the ground in which every being as such is grounded’. Existence is not Being. It is close to Being, but it is not Being.”

“This Being is a defining characteristic, if you like, of a being and belongs to a being. Identity precedes Being - this is what Heidegger is saying in those brief passages I quoted. He is undoing the common presumption, which has prevailed since Plato, about Being as ground.”

What follows is the suggestion of an indeterminate situation, where James says:

“What is an ontology without reference to existence?”

Problematization, where GW contends:

“How do you know that existence is ground? I think not, and on two counts.

You may consider it mete to “traffic in imprecision”. But just for my sake, would you be specific about what you mean by “existence” ... what its precise character is. Do you, for example, mean something nearer to “life” or “facticity” or “reality”, or perhaps, as the Sufis would say, “the found”? All these are particular, that is, they can be studied ontologically with different results, and I am not at all sure that this black hole into which an existentialist philosophy is apparently bound to disappear exists with any of them. I suspect it may be a product of imprecision.”

And polarization by the end of that passage.

GW has established a polemic between Being in reference to a more vague notion of existence as opposed to Being in reference to a specific group identity. Finally, we have a motion for operationalization, by definition, in an effort to yield warranted assertability: The following statement suggests (to me, anyway) that the term Being corresponds with human genetics, albeit in the active and ongoing sense – the processes and systems of a particularized genetic nature.

With this next statement, it is apparent that this genetic being does not exist with any viable guidance of meaning, any self-reconstructing semiotics, outside of an established social classification.

Clearly, our being’s and social genetic patterns are related to the evolutionary context of Europe, suggesting one obvious factor in potential delimitation. This does not merely represent an attempt to assert a Whites-only drinking fountain in a continent removed from our evolution by tens of thousands of years.

Nevertheless, despite even such obvious contexting as European evolution, the social identity that facilitates our Being as native Europeans has been denied the significance of delimitation - its meaningful difference is undergoing a harrowing siege.

- even by science, to some extent: Making this siege more problematic, more challenging is the fact that we can breed with all humans and there is some proclivity to do so, particularly under certain conditions.

Therefore, if our being depends upon the delimitation of social classification, of identity, which I would agree it does, it is necessary to “argue” the case through rhetoric and propaganda, but also through a praxis of science in service to our identity.

Science will not make the case by itself. But it can help greatly.

Our distinct Being as Europeans depends upon asserting the important differences and delimitations of our genetic patterns.

Toward that end, the operational verifiability of differences that make a difference can assist the assertion of identity difference by adding warrant to assertions.

One clue as to where important, qualitative differences may be, is in the notion of incommensurability: that is, where the logics of action and meaning of one genetic pattern do not mesh with the logics of action and meaning of another genetic pattern in anything like a symbiotic effect.

A clear example of incommensurable genetic patterns would be found in the late Phillipe Rushton’s studies of rates of sexual maturity between Asians, Blacks and Whites.

Blacks reach sexual maturity sooner than Whites.

Another example of incommensurability provided by Rushton would be his studies showing different strategies with offspring: Blacks having more offspring while Whites have fewer, but tend to give them more care.

As recognition of these differences and discrimination based on European identity, our social classification, is prohibited, it should not be a surprising result that European males, for their slower rate of maturity, are going to lose out, lose their co-evolutionary women to opportunistic aggressors; but not only - of course the quality of life, the ways of our life, but ultimately even the women that correspond with their Being will be lost with it.

This is one reason why it is important to assert and establish the Being of White men as warranted – indeed, in identity prior and necessary to Being - through our native European social classification, on the basis of our evolution and our co-evolution with our women.

Is the choice for a fuller life, authentic in accordance with their Being, denied White girls when this delimitation is denied? When the preexisting identity that might secure our protracted life-span developmental and evolutionary patterns - and with it, the yields of that sublimation - as native Europeans, is prohibited? Or were the cultivated practices of 41,000 years of co-evolution all just a waste of time?

Is their nature, to survive and yield children, being called upon to make too hard a decision, a decision before they are ready by their particular nature?

Are we asking for an intolerable choice between perception of survival requirements in the situation as it exists as opposed to their deep, mammalian concern for close personal relationships?

The instigation of young woman and the helplessness of young White men would seem to imply a fairly desperate call for identity. Indeed, are young White males being asked too much to asset their Being absent backing of Identity?

Are we, as native Europeans, an operationally verifiable and incommensurate species whose Being and Identity we might assert with warrant?

Can we verify, for ordinary people, that we cannot be forced together with other peoples without unnecessary and catastrophic destruction?

Because our species identity is somewhat contestable on the grounds that we can breed with all humans, the practical imagination that provides rhetoric, the public relations to inspire and assert the important differences of our identity over and against contentions to its warrant is surely necessary. That special kind of rigor as James suggests the imaginative side calls for, would be determined by practicality, utility and effect.

Also necessary will be the scientific praxis oriented in service of European peoples: the ontology project to establish operational verifiability to warrant the social classifications of our native European Being in Identity.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:22 | #

Daniel,

It is interesting that you suggest a correspondence between the Being of beings and genes. Our friend Dasein, who is a geneticist and, as the handle would suggest, a Heideggerian, told me one time that he also thinks this. I guess he means that Being, as the product of identity, is phenotype. What else could it be, anyway?

Well, it could be experience ... state ... the object of witness. This would contradict Heidegger’s assertion that even stones have Being. We would be looking for a modus for distinguishing between that very indiscriminate, abstract Being and a Being that we can, under certain conditions apprehend directly and personally. Heidegger gets around this by introducing Dasein - not MR’s Dasein! - which, in its authenticity or inauthenticity, moderates for Being and provides for every contingency.

Generally, I think we are a very long way from operationalization. I would like to see much more exploration of the sorts of questions James was asking before we leap into the political. I can see nothing but theory for a couple of years at least. Provided there is concert on the topic.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:25 | #

“The world is quite ruthless in selecting between the dream and the reality, even where we will not.”
― Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses)

“Men say they only learn this but he said that no creature can learn that which his heart has no shape to hold.” ― Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses)

“I don’t know what sort of world she will live in and I have no fixed opinions concerning how she should live in it. I only know that if she does not come to value what is true above what is useful, it will make little difference whether she lives at all.” ― Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses)

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:13 | #

Mr. Dasein is a geneticist? Lister, too? Interesting backgrounds at MR. I wonder why more scientists aren’t WPs, or at least race-realists. Perhaps they know more than they’re letting on for career reasons.

I read ATPH about 15 years ago. Good novel, though I recall the plot better than any individual maxims, such as those quoted. “I burned them out with a hot pistol butt” I think was one memorable sentence, about all I do recall.

Blood Meridien was excellent, as was No Country for Old Men, even though some classify the latter as noir or genre fiction (I disagree). OTOH, I could not get more than about 3 pages into Suttree before I gave up - the writing was just too opaque for my tastes. I was also unimpressed with The Road, which I found rather more self-important than important (plus I had to keep looking up his surfeit of weird nouns in the dictionary).

I always meant to finish The Border Trilogy, but just haven’t gotten around to it.

Posted by daniels on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:37 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on December 10, 2012, 07:22 PM | #

Daniel,

Yes, I agree with Dasein. It would be expressions of genetics (with some added agency, as the notion of dasein, would imply)

Well, it could be experience ... state ... the object of witness. This would contradict Heidegger’s assertion that even stones have Being.

While it is possible to conceive of stones as having being (if one takes a radically social constructionist position), I do not see it as anything like practical for our needs in defense of European peoples.

On the contrary, the distinction that Carl Jung made between “pleroma” the world of physics, forces and impacts and “creatura”, the biological world of angentive, sensible creatures, of more or less mind, is crucial.

It has been a common, and serious error of western thinking and practice, to confuse these issues: hence the Aristotlean refrain is invoked, viz. that people are biological creatures and require optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction. That they are mammals and care deeply about relationships.

These things are very different than the world of forces, impacts and quantities - the world of rocks

Your teasing out just how it was that Heidegger considered form (in accordance with Parmenides) as necessary to provide the context and ground of being was expert. For my part, even if my conscious recall of Heidegger is imperfect, I am content that what I am doing jibes well enough, I guess that I have taken some thing to heart - particularly on that count: social classification = equal a necessary form and ground of authentic being.

With this post, I have sought to point the way to a refinement of those forms, classifications and systems of White unions. The notion of “incommensurability” is a distinctly qualitative notion, and the focus on identifying incommensurate paradigms between people is a rigor that can serve to intervene with quantity and pleroma being misapplied to our qualitative systems, to our creatura and its requirements.

We would be looking for a modus for distinguishing between that very indiscriminate, abstract Being and a Being that we can, under certain conditions apprehend directly and personally. Heidegger gets around this by introducing Dasein - not MR’s Dasein! - which, in its authenticity or inauthenticity, moderates for Being and provides for every contingency.

I can agree that dasein, there-being, is a very good and important concept (in undoing the Cartesian notion of self - otherwise, as William James had noted, the self would have to be in two places at once; or reduced to a point. However, Heidegger’s notion of “midtDasein” there-being amidst a particular classification of folk, would be just as significant for us now, perhaps more so - as articulating its necessity would be part of reclaiming the legitimacy of discriminating on behalf of social classifications.

Well, it is true that I can be something of a vulgar pragmatist at times, going right for the heart of the matter, and lacking preparation. However, I am quite sure that there is no pure theory without content - we must periodically test our ideas against our aims and needs. Indeed, as I understand it, the very practical “how” question is one most apt to generate theory.

I have no issue with focusing on more theoretical, viz. more speculative matters, however it is in my anti-Cartesian mindset that theory is not wholly separable from praxis: the social world.

The beauty of hermeneutics, as I see it, is that it values and indeed insists upon an ongoing process of theoretical imagination and practical rigor/ or theoretical rigor and practical imagination, as it were.

Heidegger confronts Wittgenstein with the worldhood of the world which is everything that is the case? LOL

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:10 | #

Sorry to go off topic but:

Census: almost one in eight people in England and Wales born abroad. Immigrant population increased by 2.9 million in decade to 2011, as picture emerges of ‘greater diversity and of change’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/11/census-one-in-eight-born-abroad

The discussion that follows is awful - apparently the best thing about multiculturalism is the food. What a trivial mindset!

OK carry on.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:12 | #

That wasn’t at all off topic, Graham.

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:34 | #

Those in the field of genetics have a long way to go. It seems they’ve only scratched the surface in their understanding of how DNA really works. For example: Just recently scientists started discovering what was once thought of as “junk” DNA isn’t “junk” at all.

‘Junk’ DNA found to be genetic switches

By Clive Cookson in Aberdeen

A global collaboration has discovered a vast new range of biochemical activity in the human genome. It shows that most of what scientists had dismissed as “junk DNA” is in fact a gigantic control panel with millions of switches regulating the activity of human genes.

read more>>

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/109bf5e4-f771-11e1-ba54-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EkSB6ZH9

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:19 | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on December 10, 2012, 11:25 PM | #

I’m thinking about the ‘inescapability of ontology’; of the implicit but differing ontological commitments present in all world-views, in all ideologues. No firm conclusions, as such, other than this represents a topic of cardinal importance; but for now I’ll leave you with some McCarthy.

“The world is quite ruthless in selecting between the dream and the reality, even where we will not.”
― Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses)

“Men say they only learn this but he said that no creature can learn that which his heart has no shape to hold.” ― Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses)

Graham, I suspect that you call attention to a significant aspect of Being, one that would also contribute to its stigma: it is not altogether useful nor particularly a matter of utility - except perhaps as resource in unused potentiality for change.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:08 | #

BBC News December 11th 2012.

Census shows rise in foreign-born Report of 2011 census figures revealed.

To those who have not seen today’s BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677515

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:29 | #

I appreciate GW’s circumspect posture. Just as Werner Von Braun said, “Research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing.” so might it not be reasonable to say “Philosophy is what I’m thinking about when I don’t know what i’m thinking about.”? This is what I mean by it being philosophy’s job to “traffic in imprecision”. Research and philosophy are different modes of “knowing” relating to, respectively, doing and thinking.

Daniel’s “pragmatic” (his word) posture toward the “ontology project” is so far beyond what I am comfortable saying I “know” that I shrink from comment. I’m still back here stuck on what ontology “is” without reference to “existence”—or perhaps I should say, I’m stuck back here with the question of what might be called a rigorous “philosophical method” just as Von Braun would be stuck if he had no background in rigorous scientific method.

Posted by daniels on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:52 | #

..
Jim, we are pragmatists, as was Von Braun, because we have to be, not because we choose to be. There is no escaping it. However, when we engage the ontlology project, we stay our farthest away from mere pragmatism.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:04 | #

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/suzy-favor-hamilton-136952

“DECEMBER 20—-A three-time U.S. Olympian whose illustrious running career has included a [removed] TV commercial, a swimsuit calendar, and ongoing promotional work for Disney has spent the last year doubling as a $600-an-hour call girl, an astounding secret life that she now regretfully calls a “huge mistake.”

Favor Hamilton described the escort business as “exciting,” an illicit midlife diversion from her routine existence, one in which she operates a successful Madison, Wisconsin real estate brokerage with her husband, delivers motivational speeches, and does promotional work for various businesses and groups, including Disney’s running series and Wisconsin’s Potato & Vegetable Growers Association.

Favor Hamilton told of suffering postpartum depression after her child’s 2005 birth and how she had been prescribed the antidepressant Zoloft, which has allowed her to “feel better than I’ve ever felt.” Additionally, she told reporter Gary D’Amato how her brother Dan committed suicide in 1999, a year before she ran for the gold medal in the 1500-meter final at Sydney’s Olympic Stadium. She led that race with 200 meters to go, but when other competitors began to pass her, Favor Hamilton recalled, she intentionally tumbled to the track, ashamed that she could not medal in honor of her late sibling.
Sitting on an outdoor bench off the Las Vegas Strip earlier this month, Favor Hamilton referenced her athletic career when a reporter asked why she thought her identity could remain cloaked—especially since she spoke openly with certain johns about her real name, running career, and business pursuits.
Favor Hamilton answered that as a world-class athlete she was conditioned to believe she was invincible, and that doubts and concerns were counterproductive thoughts. During a subsequent conversation she brought up Tiger Woods’s tumultuous fall, saying that, “I mean, he’s the biggest athlete ever. He obviously thought he could never get caught.”

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:12 | #

/.
Sorry that last comment was meant for the “Re-Evaluating The Hierarchy of Motives” thread..