Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Jul 2021 08:53 | #

For us, interested in human being and agency as we are, the problem of evil is not a problem of reconciling the existence of a benign and omnipotent deity with the existence of evil in the world - that is, evil in the minds of men made real by the hands of men, not human error, not blind accident.  Psychopathy (ie, the condition of the non-emotionally-whole human mind) and weakness and corruption together explain the existence of evil perfectly adequately. 

So, for example, a fanatical SS concentration camp guard performing his duty in a system of routine evil may or may not have been a psychopath but he was certainly weak or corrupted in some way, while the ideologue Heydrich, as the author of the system, was almost certainly psychopathic, and such weakness or corruption that may have possessed him was secondary to his pathological freedom of action and decision.  A weak and/or corrupt man is moved to evil by external forces and circumstances, and may, too, be made what he is ... be brutalised ... by them.  But Heydrich could not have been a mere victim of force and circumstance.  He was a creator of force and circumstance.  The crucified Christ’s plea for the forgiveness of those who know not what they do can never apply to him.

So we can use the distinction here in consideration of your “Blob”.  The hard problem of evil is not the problem of men made weak or corrupt by force or circumstance.  It is the problem of men who act outside force and circumstance, and as such exercise a creative freedom and decision and yet decide for evil ... and not even the evil of unforeseen consequences but known, definite evil.  It is the problem of conscious evil.

Your actual blob, Physarum polysepfarum, has no brain.  It reacts to the immediate external circumstance without conceptualising what that is.  It cannot know decision.  It is pure instrumentality.  As such if we then accept that its blind, creeping progress has a parallel in our world of manifest and man-made harm then we need to account for the decision for evil.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:39 | #

Note to German-American WNs: I am not commenting above on the existence or otherwise of gas chambers, and I am not inviting further comment thereon.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:36 | #

Diagnosing the locus (or loci) of agency is, like diagnosing the locus of genetic interest being served, fraught with difficulties both because of our limited knowledge and because of our limited intelligence.  Reifying “BLOB” is therefore appealing.  To take your example as illustrative:

The ideologue Heydrich may be characterized as acting under the influence of a bad idea with the best of intentions—in other words, “human error”.  “Eradication” from German if not European soil “the scourge of an ancient enemy” so that, “never again” (to use a Holocaustian idiom) may the enemy damage Creation, was the stated idea and may actually have been the idea.  As defense counsel one could even argue that the circumstances imposed by WW II demanded the most efficient and ruthless disposal of the greatest number of Jews, utilizing limited resources—while eliminating the evidence—in service of this idea.  Prosecution would then have to demonstrate not only that this was, indeed, a bad idea, and not only identify its genesis as residing in Heydrich, but also demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Heydrich was possessed of a malign intent in generating this bad idea. 

Now, let’s turn this around and act as defense counsel for “Jews”:

I’ve already set forth my hypothesis of Jewish Virulence which, if properly understood, is actually a defense of Jews in the sense that it describes the genesis of an evolutionary dynamic triggered by the first displacement of Jews from their homeland.  In this dynamic both Jews and Europeans are victims of “blind accident” unless one ascribes to the Assyrians the maleficent intent of, in effect, creating a biological weapon of the Jews that would destroy Western Civilization and, ultimately, Jews themselves as a result. 

The above rhetoric is merely intended to illustrate the difficulty in identifying and quantifying the locus of agency in this material world.

To make matters worse, I’ll now prosecute the case against BLOB:

First of all, let me argue against the notion of “emergence” in the contrast between “gravity” as the metaphor for “pure instrumentality” and “grace” as the metaphor, if not identity of “agency”.  Grace precedes gravity.  Creation is self-disciplined grace.  Gravity “emerges” from grace as a direct consequence of Creation.  Creatures, therefore, are imbued with grace.  They are, in their very origin, more than “pure instrumentality”.  “Mind”—the essence of grace—is not the “emergent” property of Creatures.  BLOB, in more than mere metaphoric correspondence with Physarum polysepfarum, may not have a “brain” as such, but it is imbued with Mind by the grace of its Creation.  BLOB embodies values and hence its actions embody decisions.  In more global perspective, BLOB has an identity as a thought in the Mind of the Creator.

Under this case for the prosecution, we may, by implication, prosecute what I call “Bloblings” for willfully identifying with BLOB—whether it be out of cowardice, avarice or malice—based on the manifest destruction to the rest of Creation, ie: the manifest destruction of other thoughts in the Mind of the Creator that, on balance, impoverishes Creation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Jul 2021 23:32 | #

I have spoken with you often of this, as you have spoken to me of “the duel”.  In each case the one believes the other has not heard, and perhaps in each case the other is responding from the limitations of his particular and characteristic notion of what human being is.  Anyway, this is my turn to beat my head against the brick wall.  So let’s go on.

We do not seek the locus of agency, which would be a pathologist’s task.  We seek a living detachment from all that ordinarily, mechanically possesses us and strips agency from us.  There are certain generalities to this search which we can rely upon in the manner of objective truths, and one of these is the form of the movement, which is two-way and which broadly models as a decline into self-loss and confusion to one side ... call it fallen-ness if you like ... and ascent to self-appropriation to the other.

This is the only movement which has reality ... cognition of what is ... as its concern, though it is quite flexible and the essence of it may pop up in other ideas.  For example, liberalism has a parallel in its creative tension between constraint and choice.  Likewise, Nietzsche, who was concerned not with the existential but with the failure of morality in an age of nihilism, conceived a like binary of slave morality <> master morality.

Thus if we could travel back in time to pre-war Germany and ask the young Heydrich what influences formed his values it is pretty much inevitable that he would quote Nietzsche.  It doesn’t matter because the things people think or feel or believe lie in another rather messy but all-too-familiar division, and we need not concern ourselves with them or their dizzying diurnal power.  It is the turn to detachment (“awakening” in our lingo) which may invest the now authenticising subject with selfhood and with will, and does so regardless of the specific values or beliefs of the subject or the decisions he may take.  Those who believe in gods and those who don’t, those who possess a sense of the spiritual and the sacred and those who know only the material and the profane, those who are good men and those who are not ... all may equally turn.  There is more than one context in which the relation of exoteric to esoteric holds true.  It is a template that may be used anywhere that the general illusion retires before the advance of the real within and without.

So yesterday I made a distinction between those subject to “force and circumstance” - I’d usually say something like “immersed in Time and Place” - and those who make the turn.  My point about your blind and relentless Blob-force is merely that its qualities accord with the former, and cannot be made to apply to the latter.  Our most active opponents, on the other hand, exhibit no paucity of creativity and will, and the Jewish ones, almost to a man, would qualify by any standard you can name as racially-awake and aware.  Would that all of us were likewise.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:38 | #

A couple of other quick points.  First, yes I think we are confronted by an absolute evil which, in all the key parts of itself, knows what future it seeks for humanity and itself, knows full well what it does to the European race, and is therefore genocidal.  You write:

that virulence has now transcended mere Jews and now independently inhabits “the economy” globally

... and that is true.  The rise of technocracy kicked that off, and technocracy’s generalisation of “corporate purpose” and “brand values” after the 2018 promulgation of these things by the WEF demonstrates where stands the modern technocrat Heydrich today, and where the merely useful SS guard (maybe a VP of marketing or agency copywriter).  These creatures may or may not be Jewish, since that is not a requirement.  Whereas the old banking-led globalism tended to divide the world between the holders of debt and the indebted, technocracy has no such regressive impact but, on the contrary, presents the whole world with an ecstatic vision of a future of world progress and agency.  Yes, it is a lie in its implications for the life and death of the masses, but the ecstasy is enough for a great many low-level and personally fatally shallow “leaders” and “influencers” and others to play their small parts in things. That thingness, perhaps, is what you perceive as a blob.

Obviously, since the death of that comically sainted black thug more energy than ever has gone into the process of the self-radicalisation of the lower elements, such that every area of our life is now overflowing with formal hatred of us.  It is a plague upon us of biblical proportions, but a plague conceived in men’s minds and constructed by men’s hands.  It is guided.

The question which then follows is ...

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:47 | #

In Heidegger’s ontology the Being of a human being is strictly with the Being of other beings.  Thus, the child “is” with the “isness” of its mother.  Husbands and wives, men at war, politicians in debate, conspirators in conclave, friends with the wine flowing ... all follow the same model by which Being’s relationality abides in the weave of the cloth.  But it also stops there, too constrained by its neutrality to speak qualitatively or in any defining manner about human relations themselves.  It does not transfer to the material exigencies of our life.  After all, husbands may be cuckolds, men at war may be in rout, and so forth.  “Is”, in this respect, does not extend to “as”.  “With” does not extend to “of” or “in” (or any other preposition with ontological value).  Inevitably, then, Being’s inhering relationality is too existentially confined to open to that trio of most human but also most political questions: who, what and why.

This passage is from some work I’m doing to re-orient Heidegger’s ontology towards the natural identity.  But you were seeking something similar yourself, just possibly, all too long ago here in your “Rotarian” thoughts on the word as.  The point is that the creative action required of us today is identitarian.  The structure which has to stand upon the existential foundation is that of the affirmed and appropriated self.  In so much as Mind is the reification in thought, feeling and sensation of World, when thought, feeling and sensation all operate post the cognitive filter of care or concern for (or genetic interest in) the organism’s survival and continuity.  Where grace is I do not know, for my understanding is not that.  It is this (from an earlier essay):

So, by “foundation” I mean origin as a creative event which is self-perpetuating and, thus, functions as the universal primal order of life.  As befits mere beings of flesh and blood (and modernity, of course), let us address this admittedly large, not to say godlike subject in fleshy microcosm.  Accordingly and always mindful of our own extreme transience, we might hunt for the foundational in the occurrence, after perhaps a billion or ten or twenty billion infinitesimally brief cellular sparks in a mechanical universe (governed ceaselessly and absolutely by Time and Entropy but also by Happenstance in the sense of random events, processes, and interruptions) of an anomalous event of integration such that there was, this once, a founding vita, however spare, however primitive.

Obviously, we do not speak here of anything recognisably “personal”, or anything at all beyond a bare sequence of information in auto-catalysis.  But within that first, faint trace of a separation from the disintegrating lay a trace, fainter still, of the essence for continuity, interposing itself in the universal fabric, elaborating itself in whatever way will secure the light.  By elaborating, the whole may change and even divide and by dividing increase; and then, from changing and dividing and increasing, perform the saving trick of giving up phenotype to disintegration, yes, but withholding genotype for continuity.

Everything that comes after (so, nervosity, oxygenation, the sensing of heat, light, movement and of quora, the incorporation of energy sources, sensitisation to environmental change, the giving and receiving of chemical signals, the bias towards strong signals, etc … all the way to complex forms of sapience) is elaboration forced by the disintegrating action of the mechanical universe.  Stasis is not an existent reality.  For one of the sides to this drama … the side of life … there is never a possibility of rest or final victory.  Always, Time and Entropy drag this life back towards discontinuity and disintegration, and the cold state of mechanics.  Always life’s essential, voracious appetite for continuity, born of that initial happenstance, impels it forward and proves itself, within its own confines and by its perfect integrity, as equal as equal can be to the vast forces without.

Looking sideways at it, so to speak, and doing the ontology, one is necessarily sifting through and time-ordering the organism’s always elaborating grip on being.  I would reiterate that we do not speak here of the organism’s biochemical structure and interaction – an agglomeration of things dead in themselves.  We speak of its life-essence emerging unseen from difference elaborating as ever greater difference; and from confine, therefore, and the reflex, impulsion and movement which elaboration entails; and in what, broadly speaking, Martin Heidegger called sorge (care or concern), Frank Salter called interest, and we might call the sole imperative of the will to continuity; and, thereby, in the qualities of ownership and instinct which imbue that will; and in the procreativity which it imbues, and in the discrimination and opportunism which arrive with the light-seeker, sapience; and thence increase, inter-dependency, and belonging; and, ineluctably, death but also, triumphally, death’s deferment.  For all of this characterises the essential struggle, and all of this stands in absolute opposition to that cold state of mechanics which the ontological investigation of the universe logically must uncover.

Perhaps our difference is only that I find no Mind in that cold state of mechanics, but you find the Mind of the Creator.  You find a unity of Mind and Creation, and I find a duality of mechanics and consciousness, both of which may characterise Mind (this being the human tragedy).

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:31 | #

Is this The Ontology Project?

This is the only movement which has reality ... cognition of what is ... as its concern

ology: cognition

Ont: what is

Project: concern

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:37 | #

I hadn’t thought of it in those terms.  Of course, they are stripped bare of nuance and context, which may make it hard to defend against some unexpected attack with another blunt and bluntly rational object.  But that’s a risk I am happy to take so, yes, I could go with that.

It’s not the only way to approach the Project, obviously.  H held that identity is the relation of Man and Being or, to be precise, a relation of belonging together.  The Project seeks the means in life to real-ise that precise relation.  It is at once a nationalist and an ontological project, for a sizeable portion of nationalism’s potential rests upon the human truth of that relation and not, as I would often protest to Daniel, in the simple unifying of a thing ... a people, say ... with itself, which would be tautological and void of meaning.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:18 | #

It is at once a nationalist and an ontological project, for a sizeable portion of nationalism’s potential rests upon the human truth of that relation and not, as I would often protest to Daniel, in the simple unifying of a thing ... a people, say ... with itself, which would be tautological and void of meaning. - GW

Who said anything about a simple unifying of an idea detached from what is and nothing more than that? Not me. That is the stereotype coloring book of “the left” that the Jews have given you. It is you who seeks simplification at all costs especially when it serves to strawman me as the foil to your autobiography and ego project.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:31 | #

Is this The Ontology Project?

This is the only movement which has reality ... cognition of what is ... as its concern

ology: cognition

Ont: what is

Project: concern

James, for a moment you had me, not so much mystified, but wondering where you were coming from, when you told me that I “was not going to act intelligently until I made the distinction between is and ought” [and focused on what is].

And that you “think GW’s ontology project is the most interesting/important thing out there.”

......

For the brevity of your statement one can see the mechanics love of precision, an inappropriate fixation for the philosophical issue of praxis, its agentive, reflexive and qualitative concerns requiring judgment rather, this realm of human relations, the vital concern of ours. Same problem that GW suffers from - the love of absolute precision, removal of all ambiguity and metaphor where possible…but even where not reasonably possible.

I had not been yet aware that you, James, were coming from an engineering/ scientific STEM bent, and GW similarly, so over committed in reaction to your scientific approach, your skill set anyway, as to be scientistic, and as such, so unsympathetic to the philosophical updates of post modernity as they should be, so committed to not see it as such so that you could chase the (((red capes))), stereotyped distortions of social advocacy and the depiction of the Jewish anti-White advocacy as “the left”, accepting from them a coloring book of a characterology of the “the left” which does not deal with what “is”, a characterology which serves Jews, in their elite perch and GW’s reactionary ego, in its elite perch, altercast as right winger in pursuit of “foundational truth” against the foil of reactionary White identity - “the left”; for scientistic reactionaries to open their box of crayons and fill in the stereotypes of “the left”, not as a White left ethnonationalism, which comports a working hypothesis as a calibration of an extant group with interests, a group that IS indeed, which does not deny the objective truth inquiries of the STEM minded, but recognizes them as not the priority, but the feedback to the priority, us and our people, the calibration; but, unfortunately for your and GW, your egos as it were, are NOT required to the extent that your great minds might like to show and know that it is, recognizng that it is / or can be taken for granted while we attend to the deeper philosophical issue of how its homeostasis is to be reconstructed against subversive tricks and incentives that would lead members astray into systemic runaway…

GW has hinted at how technology has mechanized detachment from organic systemic correctivity and generated the lure of quantifying co-modification that further estranges the incentive from organic correction of the species, its human ecology in pervasive ecology, but what neither of you have been clever, or decent enough to acknowledge is that nothing of what I have brought to bear should have been looked upon as antagonistic or mutually exclusive to anything that you might reasonably want (I say reasonably, because clearly GW prioritizes his ego above necessary understanding); and indeed the philosophical platform that I have brought to bear remains the radical priority over and against your wishful thinking that it is superficial or the coloring book of the mutually exclusive, “left wing characterology” that the Jews have given you, patting you on the head to stroke GW’s unmerited, gargantuan ego, encouraging the Nazis and Christ tards to keep on coloring “the left”, keep on pursuing his right wing foundation, denying everything that is not the stinking fart wafting up from his armchair which he treats as zen majesty and calls consciousness.

We understand your love of scientific purity. When we were also philosophical novices, this was our desperate aspiration for warrant against Jewish sophistry in praxis.

But the truth that both of you refuse to see is your strawmanning and dedication to chasing the (((red capes))) of “post modernity”, a characterology of “the left” and its ideas, a coloring book handed you by the Jews.  ...as opposed to the only somewhat more modest acceptance of the working hypothesis of our genus and species as praxis, and its protection by means barely metaphoric as unionization, almost as literally as can be.

You love the purely scientific, and national defense must be void of metaphor, must only talk about what absolutely is, empirically, if it is to be deemed worthy of GW’s “ontolgy project” - ego project, gargantuan, unmerited ego project.

It is a more than fair enough working hypotheses that our group exists as genus and species and that our systemic reconstruction is targeted for disruption and rupture by our adversaries; and a valid working hypothesis they operate from seven to ten top down niches and from their genetics below in patterns that reconstruct their antagonistic behavior next generation even if not particularly this one, to take those who’ve benefitted for themselves, at least in the short term, by accepting right wing or liberal identity with the comfort of objectivist premises, and pander to them as such beyond accountability to their indebtedness to the re-calibration of our relative systemic interests, giving them/you a coloring book of “the left” and its characterology as it serves Jewish interests at this juncture quite well to have you continue filling it out….

So, if I liken national systemic bounds to unionization, GW can’t handle the idea of metaphor to even that extent, no matter how useful and important, it’s “the left” “it’s not what IS”, John Locke told him so, and the Jews agree, that it can’t be reconciled with his ego project, “It is so clear to me that our people are not a union and I hope that we are done with the discussion”...

There is a word for this, its called doltery.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 31 Jul 2021 02:50 | #

..and if I say (correctly) that hermeneutics facilitates liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity into individual and group coherence - facilitates what Heidegger called authenticity - to move gracefully back and forth as need be from the realm of the working hypothesis as it may be in a loose, relaxed relation to empirical reality in order to comprehend all relevant facts of the system which are not available for empirical inspection in an instant, allow for imagination to facilitate higher accomplishments and then to gracefully move back, as need be, to verify sufficient adherence to what is in rigor of empirical warrant, you will say that everyone says that this is “clunky” and you will make it look like “bean counting”....

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 31 Jul 2021 04:58 | #

...and then you will say that there is no such thing as white left ethnonationalism, why? because it does not serve your ego project’s autobiography as the hero of idiots who want to accept the Jewish altercasting of White identity as right wing along with a characterological misrepresention of the social group advocacy that they need as anti-White and anti-truth and anti-nature ...and the Jews agree.

Anyway, that’s all “politics”, a secondary concern that I’m supposed to be in such a rash hurry about, when your scientific/engineering rigor is busy following all the consciousness of a lawnmower.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 31 Jul 2021 21:28 | #

GW writes:

Of course, they are stripped bare of nuance and context, which may make it hard to defend against some unexpected attack

Don’t worry, GW.  My attempt to reduce yours to few words is my quite sincere attempt to get at a few root concepts in your terms—from your perspective—in your argot if you will, so that I can start to work on a Rosetta Stone and come to understand what you are saying.

It is most decidedly not to take your words, turn them into swords and slice through the carcass of a living concept to there by win a “duel” of words, although given the context it is more than understandable that you would answer “yes” with trepidation.

Let me illustrate the distinction:

When you say “what is”, a blunt “concern” so to speak, is that one may be limiting one’s self to mere* science and, in particular, to the science of that which exists in the sense of standing “outside” as “object”.

However, I know from the context of all that you say that were I to so slice my reduction to few words “The Ontology Project” from the rest of what you say that I would be engaging in a mere duel of words—denying that by “what is” you entail value which necessarily entails “inside”, as “subject”.  Moreover, this “subject” goes beyond the mere “self” to a transcendent identity (or identities) of which one is a part.

Now, hopefully we can proceed in peace.

Let me come at “what is” from another perspective that may help clarify what I mean when I distinguish “is” from “ought”, and thereby avoid being sliced to bits by those seeking an egoistic advantage:

When people in general—not just myself—use the idiom “is vs ought” they are speaking of objective vs subjective, truth of natural science vs value of technical applications thereof, etc.  I find myself continually having to stress this difference with people in their attempts to define things like “intelligence” as an adaptation of evolutionary agents living in the material world.  Such agents make predictions—the temporal product of science—and apply those predictions so as to make decisions with evolutionary consequence—engineering/technology of “maximizing fitness”.

Now, having said that, there is another, higher order of “is” that entails the esoteric—beyond temporal science that entails what might be called “final cause” or telos.  I believe you are using “is” in that sense when you say “what is” as it pertains to “The Ontology Project”.  Moreover, “ont”, in this sense, pertains not merely to that which “exists” in the sense of standing outside the self.

Have I thus far averted most of the feared word violence?

*mere as in mereology’s danger of forgetting that one has divorced parts from their whole in the process and thereby lost one’s logos.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 31 Jul 2021 22:14 | #

Daniel, for the zillionth time, whole peoples cannot be taught what you were taught at uni.  Regardless of what it might or might not accomplish for an individual sociology prof it does not scale.  You are so self-absorbed you have lost sight of why we fight and who for (which loss of sight involves the freudian projection of a similar self-absorption upon me).  That does not change because you tack on the words “white left ethnonationalism”.  If you had been on this site in the days when we were busting the liberal compass you would know that nationalists are not reported on the left-right axis.  You would understand that there is another axis in another whole system, because a politics of the life and interests of peoples is fundamentally separate and distinct from a politics of the freedom from constraint, whether that freedom is got by the individual or got for the class or group.

It is my possibly erroneous but, anyway, settled opinion that the base axis of nationalism actually runs from nativism to imperialism because interests can be defensive and entrenched or they can be aggressive and expansive.  Another interesting and more ontological take on that would be to cleave the contest between being and becoming.  What it’s not is a contest between dirty, rotten “right-wing” individualists and nice “left-wing” ethnic unionisers.  You seem to be stuck on a model of breaking from the jewification of “the left” and breaking again from the dirty, rotten individualists, for which purpose you enlist the aforementioned professorial hermeneutics.  It’s all so gauche and, yes, clunky; and loads of people have informed you of it.  But it’s your very own baby, and you won’t look critically at it.  Nobody can save you from yourself.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 00:15 | #

Daniel, for the zillionth time, whole peoples cannot be taught what you were taught at uni.

GW, for the zillionth time you lie, you gaslighting asshole. Asif I am the one who is exasperating. If it so hard to understand, why would you try to simplify what I say of hermeneutics as a “little dance” ? was that “nifty apprehension” to impress and create, well, “just this joy” for Carolyn Yeager in an expression of her emergent Nazism?”

...I’ll come back to the rest of your horseshit later, when I have time, you gaslighting fuck (as if people readily grasp your worldhood-of-the-world Heideggerisms and Bowery’s technicalese).

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 00:36 | #

Regardless of what it might or might not accomplish for an individual sociology prof it does not scale.

I must continually correct you that I have not studied sociology, not taken one class in sociology, as Jewish sociology is a cliched accusation that people like Uh would egg you onto in the characterology of “the left” that serves both your Jewish masters and as a strawman foil for your autobiography in its ego project, er “ontology project.”

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 00:41 | #

You are so self-absorbed you have lost sight of why we fight and who for (which loss of sight involves the freudian projection of a similar self-absorption upon me)

.

This whole bit is a projection. You gaslighting fuck. YOU have lost sight of why we fight and who we fight for, and are self absorbed. There is no question that you place your ego above proper understanding of the interests of our people, genus and species.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 00:53 | #

That does not change because you tack on the words “white left ethnonationalism”.

No change necessary, because you lie. And I don’t tack these words. I recognize the pattern beneath, wresting them from their depth grammar for public application despite scientistic fuck heads like you who want to see words as found objects independent of human agency - recognizing that our enemies are doing all they can to discourage Whites from moving into this territory and have left this territory of White social advocacy moribund and available for our definition as we see fit…. as opposed to you and the coloring book of “the left” that they’ve given you, with one special page to color in, with a crown on your head, “king of the truth seekers, debunker of all academic pretense, as the words of Jewish sophists (which undoubtedly anything that I’ve gleaned from academia must be, taken uncritically and whole cloth), their words themselves, mother of harlots has been slain.”

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:01 | #

If you had been on this site in the days when we were busting the liberal compass you would know that nationalists are not reported on the left-right axis.

You have busted no liberal compass. You are treating words like they are found objects and that a left-right axis is irrelevant to nationalism, exactly because Marx appropriated “the left” as an anti-national, international workers class project and you are too stupid and self absorbed to appreciate the importance of making the characteristically leftist concept of social group advocacy and accountability coincide with national boundaries once again.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:04 | #

You would understand that there is another axis in another whole system.

I’m the one who doesn’t understand that there is another axis possible? Nice try asshole.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:14 | #

because a politics of the life and interests of peoples is fundamentally separate and distinct from a politics of the freedom from constraint, whether that freedom is got by the individual or got for the class or group.

While there is a difference between life, interests and freedom from constraint, individual and group, I have not argued in anyway that denies this, obstructs the reconciliation of real life, interests and the autonomy and sovereignty of our people from the attack our borders and bounds have been under. A reconciliation which in fact, is necessary and which I have provided much better resource than you by lightyears, despite the fact that you will not acknowledge it, will gaslight, like people can’t understand unionization of the people, for the sake of accountability, correctivity and the systemic homeostasis (autonomy and sovereignty) that that entails (to serve our interests and lived life).

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:20 | #

It is my possibly erroneous but, anyway, settled opinion that the base axis of nationalism actually runs from nativism to imperialism because interests can be defensive and entrenched or they can be aggressive and expansive.

That much coincides with what I am calling White Left Ethnonationalism - calling it that for one thing, to turn off right wingers who rely on cliches of “the left” in ordert o justify the introduction of elements which work to the contrary - to imperialist supremacsim, whether Abrahamic or Nazi/scientisitc.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:23 | #

Another interesting and more ontological take on that would be to cleave the contest between being and becoming.

That’s not more interesting.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:33 | #

What it’s not is a contest between dirty, rotten “right-wing” individualists and nice “left-wing” ethnic unionisers.

I have never made individualism an enormous bone of contention, have not called individualism “rotten” nor have I characterized individualism as the defining characteristic of right wingism. It is, rather, more definitively liberal, coming from the same objectivist root, but less obsessed with an even more pure objective warrant above or within nature that right wingers seek; not all so infrequently to the point of making them every bit as rotten as the liberals who justify their individual non accountability on the same objectivist grounds, which would seek to dismiss with condescension as you just have, if not vilify as “racist” we “nice, left wing ethnic unionizers.” What an asshole.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:38 | #

You seem to be stuck on a model of breaking from the jewification of “the left”

I’m not the one who is stuck bozo. You are the one who is chasing their redcaping and misrepresentation of good, important ideas that we need so that you exactly fight against what we need, just as they would want.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:42 | #

and breaking again from the dirty, rotten individualists,

I have NEVER railed against individualism and individualists like this. And it is typical of a strawman that serves the convenience of your autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego to try to say and reduce my position to a complaint as such.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 01:50 | #

for which purpose you enlist the aforementioned professorial hermeneutics.

How stupid are you, oh self professing foremost expert on Heidegger?

Hermeneutics, a White concept which liberates from the arbitrary state of mere facticity in the thrownness and can circle back to empirical verification as need be, facilitates the transcendence of paradox, contradictions, set backs to one’s self and people, retrieving historical perspective and bearing, coherence, agency and warrant thereby, for group and individual both. It is necessary, a crucially important idea as such, even though your ego project can’t live without the idea of its red cape misrepresentations that you’ve been chasing the majority of your life.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 02:01 | #

It’s all so gauche

Is it so gauche and do you represent the common folk? or you unmerited, gargantuan ego?

and, yes, clunky;

No, it is not clunky at all, that is a projection of your mechanical mindset. Nor does it do a “little dance” or go “round and round in a circle” like you Nazi friend Carolyn Yeager tries to suggest.

It harmonizes with emergentisms, does not contradict it as your Cartesian reaction and anxiety over Jewish abuse of the concept would have you insist.

and loads of people have informed you of it.

Very few people have tried to “inform me” (misinform me as such); and those few who have tried have been people who have priorities other than the systemic well being and autonomy of the European genus and species.

But it’s your very own baby, and you won’t look critically at it.  Nobody can save you from yourself.

What you are calling “my baby” is one of many important ideas that I have brought to bear; criticism of its use or abuse is part and parcel. I am doing quite fine thank you, don’t need your “help.”

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 03:41 | #

GW , with respect , the considerable energy you expend on pointing out ” the bleedin’ obvious” to political enemies might be regarded as excessive.

Interesting and informative though, so please continue.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 10:19 | #

GW , here’s a chap who addresses Middle England, within the usual constraints of Youtube :

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjLyFInQQs

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 17:20 | #

Attempting to get back on track:

GW writes:

H held that identity is the relation of Man and Being or, to be precise, a relation of belonging together.  The Project seeks the means in life to real-ise that precise relation.

(emphasis mine)

Having been known as “The Glossary Nazi” in various business contexts where I violated my job description by breaking boundaries between departments and disciplines so as to get everyone operating from the same, minimal, set of terms to the greatest extent practical, I find H not merely impenetrable, but virtually disgusting due to his seemingly incontinent logorrhea that, even in German, drones on for 586 pages* which, while merciful compared to, say, Marx, is, nevertheless, a monstrosity.  The Glossary Nazi in me would like to take him out behind the crematorium and flog him until he agrees to provide a Minimum Description Length version of “Being and Time”.  Alas, it is too late even to beat a dead Heidegger, his corpse almost certainly having decomposed beyond beating.

And, yes, I understand fully the dangers of such verbal reductionism.  I even coined a phrase for it decades ago:  “Occam’s Chainsaw Massacre”.  Decades of paying very close attention to the tension between descriptive adequacy and parsimony, I finally came across Kolmogorov Complexity as the solution within the realm of the computational model.  Now, lest I trigger incontinent logorrhea as critique of computational models, I’m not here to defend them, but merely to point to an analogy wherein communication via minimum length descriptions may find value in The Project.  Communication is, after all, an important aspect of “a relation of belonging together”.

So I appreciate your tolerance while my Laconic goose-stepping threatens to trample underfoot your garden.

Having invested perhaps too many words of my own in justifying the Laconic and disgust for incontinent logorrhea, let me try to get back on my Laconic track again:

Identity.

You correctly point to my prior entries here regarding Rota’s emphasis on Ulam’s “as structure” which, it seems now apparent, to have originated more with H.  I suspect H’s association with Nazis, combined with the Manhattan Project’s establishment of a Jewish technocracy in the US may have motivated Rota to elide H’s “as” and credit Ulam.  However, it was the tragically short-lived genius Frank Ramsey who criticized Russell and Whitehead for their failure to distinguish between indistinguishability and identity.  In other words, it may have been Ramsey who first pointed to “identical as”—even before H.  I suspect a proper understanding of Ramsey’s philosophy would be more fruitful than H’s.

*Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, in Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe, volume 2, ed. F.-W. von Herrmann, 1977, XIV, 586p.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 01 Aug 2021 20:57 | #

Coming to terms with a degree of serendipity, redundancy, contradictory overlap (Socrates, Aristotle, Nietzsche were all the greatest philosopher) multiplicity, equiprimordiality and emergentism’s quality of non reducibility in the non Cartesian world of praxis, would surely be something that Heidegger cared to illustrate with his “verbal logaria”, thinking being more like poetry than science as it were in the worldhood of the world.

..now to get back on track to scientistic philosophical butchery.

Poor wailing modernist, where is the Tractatus when you need it ...the world indeed, must be everything that is the case…

It is not enough to say “midtdasein” is being amidst one’s own kind, one must specify, being with kind ...ah, that is always the difference that makes a difference. What happened to being of? did he get thrown back into a process of engagement and a change of perspective? Can’t have that. ... René, René!

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Aug 2021 00:22 | #

James, re your comment at 12, I see nothing there to which exception could be taken.  Rather than just agree with you, though, I have some tangential commentary which you can take or leave, as you will.

By way of a Rosetta Stone, there is always the argument that ontology may be applied to any and all things to find the essence of them (which Daniel may refer to as precision); and by rendering them down to that essence we render them consistent and, therefore, workable together.  So while, say, a scientifically proven and stated “is” may not run with a philosophical “ought” because value is absent, the two can be made subject to ontology like anything else, and take their place in the order of being (which order is synthetic and relational - a case of Heidegger’s endemic “withness” but freed from the bounds of human being which he placed upon it).

I would like the passage quoted in 6 above to qualify as a very minor but still helpful example of that.  A molecular biologist could conceivably recognise in it the amateur’s attempt to capture something of his discipline, and the philosopher likewise.  Of course, neither might think very much of it!

So that’s just an argument, as I say, and I’m not at all sure about its practical value, except to affirm that there is something pervasive and singular which may be akin to reality insomuch as the mind can approach that, and which under certain conditions may be communicated between certain people.  “Certain” because the working together of these things from very different source materials would, I think, necessarily be a creative act and not simply interpretational or analytical.  Creativity is rare.

That leads us to the latter part of your comment.  Esoteric and exoteric are terms from another rare creative life, the life by and large of monastic seclusion.  If we give the name “religion” to the particular content of both, or spirituality or even mysticism, then we do so from a viewpoint in the exoteric and we will not know what it is we are really attempting to describe, and anyway lack the language.  Actually, the esoteric in itself, as a functioning entity, is not visible at all from the exoteric.  Indeed, the exoteric - a world of faith practise and moral and, more likely, not so moral behaviours - is not visible to itself either; not in its reality.  That is only revealed from within the esoteric, for the esoteric is the place of all revealing.  The esoteric is the place of knowledge of how Man works and what he ordinarily is, but also of what he is when the habituation which otherwise fills his waking existence is transcended.  The esoteric is the place of “is”.  By contrast the exoteric is the place of “ought”.

Now, it happens that this relationship is rather strikingly replicated in the case of nationalism and liberalism.  There, too, “is” an element of one-sided knowing, transcendence, affirmation, sightedness and speech and so forth, which imbues even a simple man who has found his way to nationalism.  There is a correspondence, something synthetic. Rosetta is a small, dusty town in Esoterica, the place of “is”.

With regard to your latest comment let me check out Ramsey, who I do not know.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Aug 2021 00:37 | #

Al, I apologise for the occasional inconsideration shown towards Middle England.  But sometimes opportunities arise to sharpen one’s focus, and this one of them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:05 | #

OK, so I have had a quick look into the tragic Ramsey.  As to his relevance for us, as far as one can tell his work is all too thin ... just a sentence of possible relevance here and a sentence there ... to give us anything even approaching a real steer.  Would that the poor, brilliant fellow had lived long enough to fulfil his potential.  Ulam seems to have contributed widely but, again, always mathematically.  I had a look at the alluring-sounding group theory, which was one of his fields of academic interest; but found only disappointment.  It’s too tangential, and to adapt it would anyway require an agenda that may not include personal integrity, ie, it would be a hell of a stretch.

So I think I’ll leave the adoration of the equation to others, and stick with the near two-thousand year historiographical journey from the early Neoplatonists to the Heideggerian present as a far more accessible and consequential guide to this question of identity. 

On that, I’m not sure why you would find relation less interesting than indistinguishability.  Relation implies order which implies value ... descent, ethnicity, preference.  It’s all readily available for proving.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 04 Aug 2021 02:22 | #

No apology necessary, GW.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Aug 2021 03:41 | #

Distinguishability is compatible with identity only insofar as the “as relation” applies, as in “George and Robin are identical as Anglo Saxons” or “George and Robin are indistinguishable as Anglo Saxons” or “George and Robin share an Anglo Saxon identity” or “George is Anglo Saxon and Robin is Anglo Saxon” or “George and Robin are Anglo Saxons”, etc…

Again, I’m merely searching for common ground by bringing up the British philosophers Russell, Ramsey and (in a prior link) Parker-Rhodes. 

My predilection is the Scottish philosopher George Spencer Brown since I was introduced to his work “The Laws of Form” by a professor, Heinz von Foerster, while I was at the UofIL and found his unique blend of simplicity in engineering, mathematics and “mystic” philosophy quite comfortable.  Although I’m steward of the LoF mailing list I’ve quietly introduced some related content here only to be met with a rather imperiously hostile response (not by you, GW). 

With some trepidation, perhaps this quote from a GSB seminar will speak to the “mystic” and “esoteric” in you, without burdening you with _too_ much in the way of “equations” and such:

SPENCER BROWN: If you make a feedback, which Russell and Whitehead disallowed, you have a thing which if it is, it isn’t.

MAN: A paradox circuit.

SPENCER BROWN: A paradox circuit, yes. In putting it this way, this is the mathematics Of it. I can put it in numerical mathematics, it’s the same paradox. Make something self-referential, it either remembers or it oscillates. It’s either what it was before or it’s what it wasn’t before, which is the difference between memory and oscillation.

WATTS: In introducing the word “before, haven’t you introduced time? You have a sequence.

SPENCER BROWN: I have to apologize, because you realize that in order to make myself understood in a temporal and even a physical existences as by convention is what we are in, remember I have to use words about the construction of the physical existence in order to talk about forms of existence that do not have these qualities. And if that were easy this is one of the obstacles put in- our way. Basically, to do what I am attempting to do is impossible. It is literally impossible, because one is trying to describe in an existence which has them—one is trying to describe in an existence which has certain qualities an existence which has no such quality. And in talking about the system, the qualities in the description do not belong to what we are describing. So when I say things like, “To oscillate, it is not what it was before; to remember, it is what it was before, n I am describing in our terms, something that it don’t have. But, by looking at them, you can see.

Mystic ‘Nonsense’

This is why in all mystical literature, people say, “Well, it is absolute nonsense.” It has to be absolute nonsense because it is attempting to do this. But it is perfectly recognizable to those who have been there. To those who have not, it’s utter nonsense. It will always be utter nonsense to those who have not been to where the speaker is describing from.

The theory of communication is absolute nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever why you should understand what I am saying, or why I should understand what you are saying, if I don’t recognize from the blah, blah, noises coming out of your mouth, that mean nothing whatever, where you have been. You make the same noises that I make when I have been there, that is all it is.

For example, Rolt, in his brilliant introduction to the Divine Names by Dionysius the Areopagite, begins describing the form at first, and then he actually describes what happens when you get the temporal existence. It is all the same thing, but he is describing it in terms of religious talk, theorems become angels, etc. When he comes to the place, which he says most beautifully, having described all the heavenly states and all the people therein, etc., and he says, “All this went on in absolute harmony until the time came for time to begin.” This is quite senseless. But it is perfectly understandable to someone who has seen what happens, who has been there. One cannot describe it except like this. It is perfectly understandable. He had described the form and then he had done that, and this is the time for time to begin.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Aug 2021 16:25 | #

Distinguishability is compatible with identity only insofar as the “as relation” applies, as in “George and Robin are identical as Anglo Saxons” or “George and Robin are indistinguishable as Anglo Saxons” or “George and Robin share an Anglo Saxon identity” or “George is Anglo Saxon and Robin is Anglo Saxon” or “George and Robin are Anglo Saxons”, etc…

Distinguishability necessitates a negative and reactive identification of the Other ... an identification against.  It is quite different to the positive affirmation of “as”, surely.

This is the difference between racialism and ethnocentrism.

Make something self-referential, it either remembers or it oscillates. It’s either what it was before or it’s what it wasn’t before, which is the difference between memory and oscillation.

So, setting aside quantum mechanics and what-have-you and returning to the being of Man, if we now shift this statement into the context of the Transit, the something in question either exists as its permanent and vivifying, affirming self or in submission to the “cold state of mechanics”, ie, decline into a fumbling self-loss and confusion (this, of course, being our ordinary condition of waking consciousness).

... one is trying to describe in an existence which has certain qualities an existence which has no such quality. And in talking about the system, the qualities in the description do not belong to what we are describing.

From the cold state of mechanics, or the exoteric, nothing of the other estate, or even of oneself, may be knowable.  Hence you can, in your wisdom but still not without more speculation than you might be prepared to admit, aver that:

There is no reason whatsoever why you should understand what I am saying, or why I should understand what you are saying

But that isn’t to say that an order of being as per my comment at 32 could not supply us with a Rosetta Stone, if not a direct understanding.  You may judge from the sheer volume of my references to the Transit that, imperfect though it presently is, I believe it is such a device at least in the context of our universal fallen condition.

I had a crack at reading Rort’s Dionysius.  The faith assertions soon closed the door on me.  The poetics aside, his phrase about harmony and time are also redolent of the Transit.  If there is anything more in it, other than the deity and all claims attaching thereto, I should like to know what it is; for we have all “seen what happens” but only the religious folk of the exoteric think that the emotional nexus associated with, or activated by, faith addresses the habituation which fills waking existence.  But, to quote Simone Weil, attention is prayer.  Active attention she meant.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 04:48 | #

The fortune of the boomer’s position will apparently not allow them to see this lesson in what is required in responsibility, the social corrective, as their good fortune allows them to prefer focus, for their ego’s sake, on what they’ve done by themselves and ignore their social indebtedness - worse, subscribe to the likes of “Uh”, in chasing after the Jewish (((redcaping))) of sociology, its eminently relevant unit of analysis, the group (i.e., species systemic) - along with chasing after and away the (((red caped)), eminently relevant resource of post modernity proper, social constructionism, hermeneutics; chasing away these resources as properly understood and necessary to White homeostasis, with its governance though the emergent communications perspective; and its advance over the transmissions model of communication, which von Forester discusses in his statement that I will post below.

I have become reluctant to introduce this kind of thing here because GW is not honestly concerned for understanding and will treat this rather as an executive toy to display his superiority and to feed his ego, only able to see it from his boomer perspective as a perspective that has been exploited by Jewry, not seeing the neglect of what is being suggested here - that Europeans need to take responsibility for social construction and advocacy - to take the post modern turn from Cartesian estrangement and its vulnerability / mechanism as opposed to the exploitation of and from others, as it were.

But since James invoked Heinz von Foerster, I wanted to add this little tidbit…

While both Heinz von Foerster and Bateson were a bit more sympathetic to the mechanics of sheer cybernetics, they are both pointing the way to social constructionism and aware of its necessity for the European perspective in order to introduce homeostasis, systemic corrective for the species.

Von Foerster is of course pointing to the need of Europeans for a social constructionist take ...true that it can be exploited if whites fall asleep at the wheel in search for the innocence of mood signs below language as it were as GW seems to be doing, remaining in his boomer take, where he can make believe that he deserves all credit and all he has achieved is through his iron will in adherence to “the permanence of the transit” ..final stop, of course, his unmerited, gargantuan ego and the ascription of all permanent significance to himself, while each stop in the transit is a strawman excuse to deny any significance to anything that anyone else, save his narcissistically selective understanding of Heidegger has to offer, as the transit makes its gaslighting way back to his unmerited, gargantuan ego.

GW is too stupid and self absorbed to appreciate what is being said here by von Forester.. and the boomer will not stand corrected as his egotism is egged on by Nazis, Jesus freaks, Jews, scientistic reactionaries searching for pure warrant/foundation and sundry conspiracy theorists… who prefer the (((red caping))) of post modern philosophy proper, White Post Modernity, as it, the (((red caping))), provides instead the comfort of a security blanket, or a simple coloring book, as it were; simply fill in the the colors - red cape, “the left” ...no need to take responsibility, agentive, social responsibility ...no account necessary, “the left” is a found object and all that social advocacy stuff, just what the Jews are saying it is now too. They tell us how it counts, they would never lie. Just ask Nathan Cofnas. He would never use his skills and motivation to distract from the fact that “contradictions” in Jewry are not necessarily at odds on a systemic level, that perhaps Jews operate on different parts of an overall biological system in its overall interests, not always consciously, and not always in apparent unison with other parts of the system….no, we have the truth and science on our side, justifying our gargantuan ego and the spoils that have accrued to us… or do we?

...yes, our innate high i.q. is the sheer explanation of our disproportionate influence in 7-10 power niches and those critical are mere, jealous anti-semites. Anyway, we’ll pay the right wingers off to join us in staving off the “left” in case Whites get any upstart ideas, and we’ll allow the increased licentiousness of the liberals, whose license is already significant in the rupture of European systemic homeostasis.

.......

What is language? Or better, what is “language”? Whatever is asked here, it is language that we need for the answer. Hence, if we did not know the answer, how could we have asked the question in the first place? And if indeed we did not know it, what will an answer be like that answers itself?

How would a dictionary handle this case that is so different from most others? At the instant it is to tell what is language, it must turn mute for reasons we know now well. I am particularly curious how my favorite dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, would do it. After the entry “language” will it leave, say, two inches of blank space? Or will it have a small mirror pasted at this place so that I can see my own puzzled face? Or what?

Apparently the editors decided against employing such warnings. After an account of the noises (or scribbles) associated with language spoken (or written) they adopted the following definition:

The transmission of meaning, feeling, or intent by significance of act or manner.

If one had no idea about “meaning”, “feeling” or “intent”, one could think of these nouns to stand for some sort of commodity that could be packaged and transmitted. (In fact this seems to become now a popular belief. Take for instance, “information processing,” “information storage and retrieval” and other ailing metaphors). Hence I was going to check on “meaning.” I get:

meaning (me ning)  n. 1. that which is signified by something; what something represents; sense; import; semantic content: “Pending a satisfactory explanation of the notion of meaning, linguists in the scientific field are in a situation of not knowing what they are talking about.” (Willard V. Quine)

This precisely was (and approximately still is) the state of affairs when Gregory Bateson and a small group of people sensed that certain pathological disorders of an individual could be treated to linguistic pathologies of this individual’s social environment and that these disorders resisted all orthodox approaches because the attempted therapies themselves suffered from the same linguistic pathologies.

To me it seems that the crucial step toward the success of Bateson and his co-workers was that at the outset they rejected a terminology that would admit notions of “transport”, “transfer”, “transmission”, “exchange” etc. in an epistemology of communication and instead returned at once to communication’s underlying process, namely, to interaction.

Shifting attention from a specific to a more general form of behavior, and, at the same time, brushing aside the semanticists problem of “meaning” seems, at first glance, to be trivial and naïve.

Not so!

There is indeed a fundamental difference between the orthodox and the interactional view, a difference Bateson must have seen very early and which he put in various ways in his many writings. Let me demonstrate this, and the power of this view, on one of Bateson’s charming vignettes called Metalogues, fictitious (or perhaps not so fictitious after all) conversations of a father (I hear Bateson talking) with his inquisitive daughter. Here is the one entitled:

            What is Instinct?

D. Daddy, what is instinct?

If I had to answer this question, I may have been easily seduced—as perhaps many among us —to come up with sort of a lexical definition: “Instinct is the innate aspect of behavior that is not learned, is complex, etc…..” Bateson, however, ignores semantic links (they can be found easily somewhere else) and alerts us to the, shall I say, strategic, political, functional, “interactional” consequences when “instinct” is evoked in a conversation. Thus father replies:

F. An instinct, my dear, is an explanatory principle.

I like to refer to this contextual somersault as “The Batesonian shift from Semantic to Functional Significance.” Of course, it does not satisfy Daughter.

D. But what does it explain?

F. Anything—almost Anything at all. Anything that you want it to explain.

I wish to invite the reader to reflect for a moment what it means to arrive at something that explains “almost everything.” Does something that explains anything explain anything at all? Perhaps there is nothing that explains anything? What has Daughter to say about that explanatory principle that explains almost anything?

D. Don’t be silly. It doesn’t explain gravity.

Excellent! How will father get out of this?

F. No. But that is because nobody wants “instinct’ to explain gravity. If they did, it would explain it. We could simply say that the moon has an instinct whose strength varies inversely at the square of the distance.

D. But that’s nonsense, Daddy.

F. Yes, surely. But it was you who mentioned “instinct,’ not I.

Okay, so father got himself out alright. However, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to two points: (1) in contrast to the great didactic dialogues of our literary heritage, for instance, the Socratic dialogues, or Galilei’s Dialoghi (delle nueve scienze) etc., etc., in which the partners mutually support one another by assent, confirmation, complement, agreement, etc., (semantic continuity), this metalogue, by kicking the semantics around, thrives on a personal involvement (functional continuity); (2) explanations—should we like to have one—are in the descriptive domain.” ....“we could simply say that the moon….” More of this later. Right now, lets hear Daughter again:

D. All right—but then what does explain gravity?

F. Nothing my dear, because gravity is an explanatory principle.

D. Oh.

Who would not join in Daughter’s exasperated “Oh”? But she recovers quickly and I shall not interrupt now the fast exchange that follows, I only ask the reader to contemplate the profound consequences of Bateson’s insistence on seeing explanations, hypotheses, etc., purely in the descriptive domain. Watch his use of “say”: “If you say there was a full moon….” etc.

D. Do you mean that you cannot use one explanatory principle to explain another?

F. Hmmm….Hardly ever. That is what Newton meant he said, “hypotheses non fingo.”

D. And what does that mean? Please.

F. Well, you know what “hypotheses” are​. Any statement linking together two descriptive statements is a hypothesis. If you say that there was a full moon on February 1rst and another on March 1rst; and then you link these two observations together in any way, the statement which links them is an hypothesis.

D. Yes—and I know what non means. But what’s fingo?

F. Well, “fingo” is a late Latin word for “make.” It forms a verbal noun from fictio, from which we get the word, “fiction.”

D. Daddy, do you mean that Sir Isaac Newton thought that all hypotheses were just made up like stories?

F. Yes—precisely that.

D. But didn’t he discover gravity? With the apple?

F. No, dear. He invented it.

D. Oh.

With the epistemological somersault, the Laws of Nature become inventions, rigor is married to imagination, and Nature is fiction, made up by us acting together. Interacting. Ultimately, this means, seeing one’s self through the eyes of the other.

Heinz von Forester
Pescadero, California
March, 1981

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 15:10 | #

What is instinct?  A connate and immutable, primitive reflex (and, therefore, non-“social” in origin) which instructs the rest of the cognitive machinery of the brain non-linguistically and non-ideationally to select, as urgently as is necessary, for survival and the vivifying.

Let me see you hermeneutic that into invention, imagination or fiction.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:11 | #

Ok, asshole. Here is my response, which is that you miss the point as always, no matter how often you are told. Social contructionism and hermeneutics proper, not its red caped and misunderstood variants, do not deny the more factual nor even inborn, but recognizes that how these facts come to count has at least a modicum of social negotiation, contextualization, perspectives, at least post hoc; and if there is no post hoc, you are dead, can’t talk about it, others can/will talk and determine how those facts come to count for you.. Nevertheless, there are some things that are as close to mere fact as can possibly be and a person who would propose an alternative story will be (correctly) considered crazy or dishonest (or making a point, perhaps, like Bateson and von Forester).

The point is to invoke the fact of our shared social context, for what are these facts to us if we are not here amongst one another to discuss and deal with them? Hence the prioritization, a much needed adjustment among Europeans from the modernist Cartesian estrangement and instead to the centralization of praxis (our genus and species) as calibration, and the facts - such as instinct definitively spoken about - as feedback, which, by the way, as evolution reached human form, would have been furthered though social reproduction (not a sexuality). And again, even when we are talking of the instincts of our pre-human form, still requires social discourse for it to have any social import.

The bottom line being, Europeans especially, need the social constructionist perspective to sensitize our people to our social indebtedness to our kind and, if understood properly, rigorously, actually provides a better understanding of how knowledge is generated and how our lives work, what facts are.

There is no doubt that the marketing campaign against “the left” and directing White identity to the right and against the red cape misrepresentations of (proper, White) post modern philosophy - as if it were post modern philosophy - is meant to keep disrupting and rupturing (by right or by liberal, same sharp edged, purity and objectivist fetishizing root) our boundaries, keep us from this proper understanding and the homeostasis through structured accountability and systemic correctivity - i.e., the autonomy and sovereignty that proper understanding would facilitate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #

You have no grand point to make.  You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.  Yes, the human personality is an overlay upon the connate of impulses, attitudes, reflexes, and so forth derived in absentia, so to speak, and from Time and Place.  But the movement towards self-appropriation functions by detachment from that, and in so far as that is achieved the result is human freedom - not the freedom of liberalism, of course, but the freedom which is in Being.  The connate ... nature, instinct ... is the ground of that perfect estate, and the mediator of Man and Being.

Perhaps it requires an undamaged personality to open out and explore this movement, or even to work out that we are not trying to communicate a critique and make social change.  We are looking for a foundation for a revolution in the guiding idea of the age.  And before you say that is what you are doing, no it isn’t.  You are justifying yourself ... your personality.  That’s why, for you, it’s all about communicationism and social this and that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Aug 2021 12:13 | #

James, Heidegger’s contention, whether or not it is expressed in “incontinent logorrhea”, is that identity is a relation of “being together” of Man and Being.  But he also characterises “being together” as an event of unconcealing ownership, writing in his published lecture Identity and Difference:

It seems as if we were now in danger of directing our thinking, all too carelessly, toward something that is remote and general; while in fact what the term event of appropriation wishes to indicate really speaks to us directly from the very nearness of that neighbourhood in which we already reside.  For what could be closer to us than what brings us nearer to where we belong, to where we are belongers, to the event of appropriation?

The event of appropriation is that realm, vibrating within itself, through which man and Being reach eachother in their nature, achieve their active nature by losing those qualities with which metaphysics has endowed them.

However strictly accurate (and I don’t think Heidegger achieves strict accuracy here), language, as the indicative tool of the intellectual or ideational capacity of the brain, can only describe and perhaps, with sufficient poetry, represent.  But it can never deliver the experience itself, and perhaps certain forms of monastic seclusion constitute the only circumstance in which delivery is fully possible.  However, the conditions for possibility can be maximised in the common life, the lived life, of the people, which is why I’m interested in the question of the esoteric and exoteric.  Further, those conditions are not limited to a religious setting, as I have already said.  We do not have to see the esoteric and exoteric as purely religious domains.  I would contend that Germany in the period from 1933 to 1939 saw a great surge of national and, of course, secular self-appropriation; the development of which towards higher possibilities was always going to be corrupted by the finite, very coarse and ill-equpped nature of National Socialism.  But the example stands, and it bears examination; which is really a quest for the universal principles involved.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 10:09 | #

Potentially synthesising question:

If the Natural Duel in its physical expression is, or could be, productive of a moment of true existential focus in the duellist, much as cliff-climbing, say, or even motor racing can be, how much of that hyper-reality transfers to the duel as, basically, a repairing mental exercise?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 14:40 | #

Being physically confronted with one’s potential death is as close as any of us gets to the experience of Heidegger’s meaning of the phrase “Being toward death.”  Am I off-base in my reading of that phrase?

There are so many ways to die, and death so inevitable, that the variety of such confrontations is not only greater than “The Varieties of Religious Experience”, but experienced more widely by beings.

I’m not sure why you bring up Natural Duel here, specifically, unless it is to say that it is merely one among a multitude of such repairing mental exercises.

I emphasize such for a very important reason.

Some deaths are more meaningful than others.  Some confrontations with death are more repairing than others.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 15:28 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #

You have no grand point to make.  You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.

You stupid, dishonest, lying fucking creep with your narcissistic personality disorder. You never fail to disgust me at how you deceive yourself in order to adhere to your autobiography of the great slayer of academic pretense and chimera and your altercast of me as the your academic foil, merely regurgitating what professors of whatever Marxist stipe have told me.

Nothing, in the desiccated peanut that was your brain, now rattling around in the vacuous cavern that is your skull, will allow you to be honest:

To look at what I am saying as inference, significantly where not radically transformed in purpose from anything my professors have said or suggested where I have talked to them. If you were honest enough to make even a cursory effort, you could find NO such parroting on my part of things they said, nor sheer beholdenness and regurgitation of passively received information. Moreover, if you had any significant breadth of knowledge, you would know that many if not most of the things that I’ve presented I’ve generated apart from any conversation with professors; much of it not even erudition, but inference from life experience.

Moreover, I have several “grand points to make” and you are not just a stupid, ignorant man, you are a bad man, a ceaselessly gaslighting, strawmanning narcissist who places his unmerited, gargantuan ego before the requirements of our peoples.I’ll come back to the rest of your horse shit later, when and if I feel like it. For now, your first two sentences said enough of your dishonesty, ill-intent and bad will.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 21:37 | #

Being physically confronted with one’s potential death is as close as any of us gets to the experience of Heidegger’s meaning of the phrase “Being toward death.”  Am I off-base in my reading of that phrase?

It is a matter of degree.  I would say that Heidegger’s basic ordering of human Being is as:

(a) enworlded, temporalised and localised Dasein,

... itself constituted as:

(b) Being-with, a conjuction of the “isness” of beings;

(c) care, concern for the being of beings;

(d) Being-towards-death as the temporalising orientation of beings.

Because these latter three are constitutional to Dasein, and work together, they are inseparable, which is a point I have made to Daniel to absolutely no avail.  As constituent parts they each have a certain body or character which we can examine, and in the case of Being-towards-death we can say that the nearness of death itself ... so, the most interesting bit! ... brings to being the most full expression of care, obviously, but also loss of withness.

I’m not sure why you bring up Natural Duel here

Because the duel is focussed on the tip of the epee and the sight of the pistol, and so on true habitation of mind and body.  I think it’s more that than Being-towards-death, really.  The point being that active attention on the very knife-edge of the present brings the duellist and the monk together, and our respective thinking alike.  Perhaps.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:13 | #

Can one, without loss of meaning, substitute “human Being” for “Dasein” and vis versa, or must one qualify one of them to do so and, if so, which and how?

(a) enworlded, temporalised and localised Dasein

Can one, without loss of meaning, substitute “Being that is enworlded, temporalised and localised” for “Dasein” and vis versa, or is Dasein not necessarily enworlded, temporalised and localised, hence those modifiers are necessary?

... itself constituted as:
...
(d) Being-towards-death as the temporalising orientation of beings.

Since there were 3 qualities associated with Dasein in a) and 3 constituents listed subsequently, with one of them using the same root word “temporalise” as in one of the 3 qualities, am I to infer that the other 2 constituents correspond to the other 2 qualities and if so which to which?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 09 Aug 2021 03:45 | #

GW: Perhaps it requires an undamaged personality to open out and explore this movement, or even to work out that we are not trying to communicate a critique and make social change.

Perhaps it takes someone without your narcissistic personality disorder to be honest. Such a stupid asshole that you are, trying to apply these strawmanning cliche’s to me, and oblivious to the fact that anything concrete and empirical that you might point to as a more consistently predictive pattern is not mutually exclusive to the broader philosophical perspective that I employ; which, in fact, Heidegger employed to begin with.

The fact that you would try to strawman me by saying that “I am trying to communicate” goes to show that you are wedded to the transmissions model of communication which, if you were intelligent enough (and apparently you are not), you would recognize that von Forester, for example was, trying to disabuse in his illustration.

And that you would try to say that what I am after is mere “social change?”

GW, how stupid are you? How big of a lying shithead are you?

GW: We are looking for a foundation for a revolution in the guiding idea of the age.

That is already at hand; and if it were remotely as difficult to apprehend as you pretend for it to be, it would be of no good to a revolutionary public.

GW: And before you say that is what you are doing, no it isn’t.

I already have, fucker.

And as I said to your dumbassed Christard flying monkey Thorn,

Thornblossom, you (have the nerve) to ask, in the spirit of GW’s gaslighting, what have I accomplished?

I have solved the riddling, contorted misdirection of Jewry and charted the path to sovereignty; lies will never take it away.. and as I move with the sovereign, I will relish your dying with your lies; languishing in a pathetic and painful death.

GW: You are justifying yourself ... your personality.  That’s why, for you, it’s all about communicationism and social this and that.

This is a total projection. It’s all about justifying your mis charted puerile autobiography and your ignorance, your personality (unmerited, gargantuan ego). The fact that I deploy the communications perspective is conscious, recognized as a necessary and bountiful resource; and where I talk about “social this and that” it is because our social group (race, genus, species, ethnonationalism) are at the heart of the matter of anti racism (anti social group ism for Whites); the most relevant unit of analysis; correcting the (((red capes))) thereof a matter of the first order, while you doltishly chase after and chase away what we require, preferring instead the coloring book of cliches that you’ve been handed to fill in, as it satisfies your puerile autobiography to prefer it as opposed to an accurate understanding, oblivious to the fact that Jews have handed you this coloring book (color the enemy’s red cape as “the left, anti nature, Jewish sociology, anti fact and truth”), a construance by them in a marketing campaign in order to distract dupes like yourself from what post modern philosophy is supposed to be doing (and how) for ethnonationalism. Further, my posts and inquiries are not delimited to the communications perspective nor merely the “social this and that”, especially not as that might be treated as a separate concern from biology and genetics.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Aug 2021 06:58 | #

James, these are nice questions.  At the beginning of his thinking and in his 1927 opus H certainly differentiated between Dasein as there-being and common or garden human being.  After the war, when asked if Dasein is human being he would concur but add little.

My take is that being-there-then (to be pedantic) is ineluctable being in the momentary present, on the very knife-edge of advancing Time.  So, that is neither in the past nor future but now in the only moment of witness to the real, whether or not we are actually witness to anything but our own thoughts and dreams and illusions.  As such Dasein has an epistemological import, and results in an alternative model to that of Descartes, and furthermore a model which allows for naïve, direct, non-self-referential cognition preconditional to the action of thought, feeling, or physical sensation.

In contrast, our enworldment describes the totality of the shaping and informing whole in which, from first to last, we are posited without the slightest choice in the matter, and which we shall singularly experience.  Being-in-the-world, then, is our most basic and general, existential condition, our coming into which H further characterised as thrown-ness.

To answer your first question, then, I would always qualify Dasein by its specificities as distinct from the (temporally speaking) more over-arching human being.  Early in Being and Time H himself clearly intended that, and initially answers the question “what is the meaning of human being” by it.

To answer your second, I am still not happy to substitute the descriptors for the thing itself, or to accept that there is a tautology in placing the descriptors before it.

On your last question, yes, we might say that the three constituents form the sacred trinity of Time, Place, and suffering, man on the cross.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Aug 2021 22:47 | #

I am still not happy to substitute the descriptors for the thing itself

Nor can a mere name substitute “for the thing itself”—even a name as pregnant with meaning as “Dasein”.  Perhaps you meant to say “I am still not happy to substitute those particular descriptors of Dasein for the name Dasein...”?  The reason I ask is that clearly the name refers to the thing itself, and for the name to elicit in us the thing itself we must have received some description even if only in the form of injunctions that, like a recipe or experimental protocol that if followed, reproduces in us the thing itself (experimental/experiential results).

The “three constituents” of Dasein (Time, Place and suffering) are then only inadequate to describe Dasein insofar as we have inadequate understanding of those three constituents and their relationships?  May we also capitalize “Suffering” so as to call attention to the inadequate (at least exoteric) understanding of their meanings as adequate constituents of Dasein?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:08 | #

It’s a small point, but I don’t think names elicit directly in any active sense.  Point to or remind perhaps, in their effect something between a rosary or, maybe, a Tibetan bell on the one hand and a zen koan on the other, but a much weaker proposition than consciousness of the nearness of death - or, of course, the use of active attention, which really is how to “produce in us the thing itself”.  But here and now we are using mere words for defining and ordering purposes.  We are in the realm of the theoretical (which I suppose must make it harder to connect to your own very practical church project).

I agree on the matter of adequacy.  My use of the term “suffering” was to try, at least, to close that gap between theory and practise by giving a greater meaning and beauty to there-being than does H’s concept of an abiding care for being.  Care is always care, be it in the exoteric or esoteric circle.  It is the same in every instance.  But suffering, or Suffering, discriminates.  It can be something coerced and unavoidable, which aligns the recipient with the good thief and the unrepentant thief at Calvary, or it can be something voluntary.  The duel is voluntary.  The application of active or Weilian attention is voluntary.  Suffering voluntarily connects us to that suffering which is causal to care, and brings us into the esoteric.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 03:18 | #

Following Heidegger’s distinction between “being” and “Being” may we then draw a not-quite-similar distinction between “suffering” and “Suffering”—understood in the ontology of your project?  I say “not-quite” because only Dasein—Being qualified as Being-there-now—has as its necessary constituent, Suffering (voluntary suffering as opposed to involuntary (or “gravitational” in Weilian argot, or “mechanistic” in Cartesian argot) suffering).  To take this a step further toward Occam in this proposed ontology, might the constituents adequate to Dasein best be described as Suffering Circumstance where the so-capitalized Circumstance is the “there” conjoined with the “now” of “Being”? 

... a much weaker proposition than consciousness of the nearness of death…

As in so many activities that people seek out in order to vivify—at times, mechanically so to the point of “pathology” since, of course,  the extreme mechanism is known as “wireheading”:  Pressing a button to deliver electric shocks to the appropriate portions of one’s material body.  Less artful approaches to such mechanistic self-stimulation contributes much to masculine death rates and provides the proper grounds for suspicion of anyone who starts mentioning “duels” as possessing authentic value.

...or, of course, the use of active attention, which really is how to “produce in us the thing itself”.  But here and now we are using mere words for defining and ordering purposes.  We are in the realm of the theoretical (which I suppose must make it harder to connect to your own very practical church project).

I wouldn’t be so certain of the lack of practical importance in “using mere words”—of “the theoretical”—so long as we are careful with them and each other in their use to communicate.  For instance, when you say “active attention”, I am drawn to your mention of care as caused by Suffering (to “use a mere word” that I have been careful to capitalize, along the lines previously described for the practical purpose of communication—just as Heidegger is careful to capitalize “Being” and to not capitalize “being” so as to better communicate).  Or have I been less careful than I should have been with words herein?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:02 | #

Yes, we are talking about suffering as circumstance, in the same sense that Time and Place are circumstantial to being.  But we are not talking about design or staging.  That would be a leap into the faith proposition, and would bring us into the question of metaphysics versus materialism, which must bring us to God is All or God is dead.  Let us avoid that ancient trap.

Instead, let’s pursue the capitalisation of the “s”.  The lower-case version appears to me to correspond with the fatally ordinary notion that life is hard and pain lurks at every corner.  We eat to stave off hunger ... we meet to stave off loneliness ... we argue about philosophy to stave off boredom, and so on.  This is a reductive, “sum of all its parts” approach, and to do justice to the capital letter one must think more holistically.

To reprise, this part of our discussion commenced with my statement that H posits Dasien as:

(a) enworlded, temporalised and localised Dasein,
... itself constituted as:

(b) Being-with, a conjuction of the “isness” of beings;
(c) care, concern for the being of beings;
(d) Being-towards-death as the temporalising orientation of beings.

... whereby we can, should we wish, take care back to enworldment, withness to locality, and Being-towards-Death to temporality, as you suggested.  All three are quite loose and fragile connections.  But then they are missing a proper exposition, and may emerge from that differently.  In the “logorrhea” of his interrogation of Dasein, H invested an inordinate quantity of intellectual effort on minute detailing.  For example, he associated our life-trajectory towards death’s inevitability and finality with conscience, guilt and, thus, life-purpose, and posited resoluteness as Dasein’s bearing of these.  This detailing accompanied every conceivable aspect of how World, or circumstance, discloses itself to Dasein.  He was not concerned with the base reality of World as such, which concerns us here.  The difference is probably in his reading being ontological-existential rather than a foundationalist one.  We are straying into foundation.

Anyway, we can run with the three connections for now.  They do generate a certain shaping of H’s hyper-specific rendering of Dasein, and allow us to speculate that the circumstance (ie, the thing that is), in which Dasein situates and of which it is a part, has a causal relationship to it.  We can draw a line from locality to relation to Being-with, and another from temporality to change to telos (perhaps – still thinking about that one, although I do want to find a way, like H’s, to introduce purpose in being, notwithstanding the fact that it isn’t in Nature).  Suffering requires a prior cause, and that would seem to me to be the disintegrating power of “the blind and profane, homogenising forces without”.  Disintegration, then, goes to Suffering which, in turn, goes to care.

Now we have (at least potentially) three contexts for World, three modes for Being-in-the-world, and three constituents of there-being.  Whether they all work we can investigate.  There might be something relevant to foundation and cause, which would be interesting.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:17 | #

when you say “active attention”, I am drawn to your mention of care as caused by Suffering

It would be nice to get into a full discussion on the Transit, its declension into our ordinary estate of absence - which is the action, albeit upon the Mind, of “the blind and profane, homogenising forces without” - and its fulcrom or turning point of intent.  The declension is not limited to the individual human being, but operates accretionally at the level of the group.  Suffering goes to care within the group also, but a certain intent has to manifest for a group effort of the attention to crank into gear.  I have seen this process of relational and identitarian rediscovery during the Falklands Conflict in 1982; but the greatest single historical example is surely the identitarian purification of Germany’s people in the period from 1933 to 1939, as mentioned above.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Aug 2021 08:10 | #

On reflection, the ordering @ 53 does not, in fact, work.  But I do like this, which goes to the who, what, and why of it (although re-engineering Heidegger’s order becomes necessary):

Locality → Withness → Relation
Temporality → Being-towards-Death → Purpose
Disintegration → Suffering → Care

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Aug 2021 10:08 | #

To now contextualise James’s step towards Brother Occam ...

might the constituents adequate to Dasein best be described as Suffering Circumstance where the so-capitalized Circumstance is the “there” conjoined with the “now” of “Being”?

I have now somewhat messed up the articulation, ie, ordered two constituents differently as “modes for Being-in-the-world” (or existentiel if you prefer), and promoted relation and purpose, as human attributes, to the same constituent footing as care.  The difference between James’s appeal to Occam and my articulation is, I think, in the setting of a causal ground (Disintegration) for “Suffering circumstance”, which we need.  That ground may be attack-able by someone knowledgeable in the varieties of entropy, but for now I am content with it as a descriptive of the working of the universe against the life principle.

If the articulation of the three lines can be demonstrated logically (in a way that I reckon the lines @ 53 couldn’t), then we have a trio of constituents of there-being ... relation, purpose, care ... which have definite promise of taking onward and out of the foundational towards the structural.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Aug 2021 02:23 | #

I’m not sure what you mean by “messed up” but presuming @55 contains “definite promise”:

In each of the 3 lines are 3 orders.  What might each of these 3 orders be called? 

You use the phrase “causal ground” in reference to Disintegration.  The arrow sign, →, I presume, may roughly be read as “causes”.  If those two statements are correct, might the first order, applicable to Locality and Temporality as well as Disintegration, be “Ground”?  How might we refer to the other two orders?  You use the word “Transit” quite a bit.  Might the second order, consisting of Withness, Being-towards-Death and Suffering, be “Transit”? 

Regarding “of taking onward and out of the foundational”, do you intend to distinguish between “ground” and “foundation” or is this “onward and out of the foundational” the “Transit” out of “Ground”?  If so, then is the Transit “toward the structural”?  Might we then call the third order of Relation, Purpose and Care, “Structure”?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:34 | #

Messed up: (v) failed to make an idea articulate towards a functioning product, went down an intellectual blind alley.

I think H is a good general guide, but not always so good in his own detailing, and it does not necessarily serve one’s ends to tie oneself completely to his thinking - not in the small things, anyway.  To my mind Being-with (the isness of one’s own isness with the isness of other human beings) and Being-Towards-Death (the human temporal paradigm) are too systemic and preconditional ... too circumstantial ... to align as constituents of Dasein with Care, which contains a certain orientation towards Dasein that they don’t.  Dasein is oriented by them.  If we allow that Time and Space are grounds, I would have thought that there respective circumstances or existentiel, to employ a Heideggerian term, are Being-Towards-Death and Being-With.  Does that make sense to you?  We then need to move each of these lines or paradigms forward to the constituent order, arriving at something which aligns in its orientation to Being with Care.  But the line for Care also needs a ground and an existential.

We can agree, I think, that Suffering would articulate to care, but what articulates from ground towards it?

In this essay, which was written to establish a basis by which essence precedes existence:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/out_of_foundation_and_into_the_mind_body_problem_part_one

... mention is made of “the governments of Time, Entropy and Happenstance”, the sense of which is that the universe ... “the prevailing All” ... is blind and mechanistic, and its action is one of creating and destroying, integrating and disintegrating all matter.  This process of “absolute homogeny” renders existence an “austere and unlit, singular, factic thereness of a thing, and of all things”, and it is this estate which is conquered while that which began one time as “a bare sequence of information in auto-catalysis ... preserves its [organic] difference only as long as it engages in a Manichean struggle with the blind and profane, homogenising forces without”.

My contention is that it is that struggle which must be suffered, and cannot be avoided; and care which flows therefrom.  So we are looking for a ground term to capture the meaning of the ground against which this struggle proceeds; and Disintegration seems a reasonable candidate.  Obviously, I am open to improvements to it.

Pending that, we are now left with articulating the other two lines towards constitution.  As noted @ 6, “with does not extend to of or in (or any other preposition with ontological value)”.  It is odd because Heideggerians routinely affirm that Being-with expresses Dasein’s relationality, but in fact it says nothing at all about relation.  It has about it too much of the neutrality of ground.  But the principle of relation itself - or Relation - gives us the required shaping of the line to preserve the the final constituent order, and commits no sin beyond the one already done to Being-with (namely, moving it back one slot).  Of course this is a utilitarian argument, and really one needs to actually perform the (brief) formal articulation from Being-with to Relation to prove the proposition.

Assuming that to be unproblematic, we are left with the final projection, from the ground of Temporality to the existentiel of Being-Towards-Death to the constituent part ... what?  Even a cursory reflection upon the human temporal paradigm will reveal what H was up to with his vestigially Catholic advancement of conscience, guilt, resoluteness, and what not.  For me, the first two are epistemological in character, like love or hope or faith or grace, and do not belong in ontology at all.  Resoluteness goes out the window with them.  But being-there within the paradigm of human mortality calls out for - and to - the inherent value and sanctity in life, which is not nothing but something and, therefore, must be some thing, and some thing which, at life’s end, justifies.  There is an open-ness for becoming here, which is sufficient to be purposive, even though purpose as such is not in Nature.

I will leave this reflection here and move on in my next comment to the Ontological Transit, which I have clearly made a poor job of explicating.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 20 May 2024 16:44 | #

A conversation between Rupert Sheldrake and Mark Vernon (about whom I know little) that I found somewhat interesting as someone who is vitally interested in final cause aka telos (as I think we all must be despite our denials) and its relation to mechanisity.