Heidegger understands Dasein as the being
that we ever are ourselves (Being and Time, 1927, p. 7) as
the being of man (Being and Time, 1927, p. 25) and
thus demarcates his philosophy against a philosophy of pure consciousness
(cf. transcendentalism) and also against a merely material-empiricist
conception of Dasein (cf. positivism).
Heideggers translator wrote:
This being, which we ever are ourselves, and which has, among
other things, the being-possibility of questioning, we grasp terminologically
as Dasein. (P. 7).
Heideggers translator wrot:
To be sure, Dasein is ontically not only close or even the next
- we are it ever ourselves. Nevertheless, or precisely because
of this, it is ontologically the most distant. (P. 15).
Heideggers translator wrote:
Dasein, i.e. the being of man, is circumscribed in the vulgar
as well as in the philosophical »definition« as zwon
logon ekon , the living, whose being is essentially determined
by being capable of speaking. (P. 25).
The existence of the human being is used by means
of an analysis of existence to reveal the essence and meaning of being
(present in the human being).
The basis for being and the doctrine - the basic doctrine of being -
is offered by Heidegger's fundamental ontology, laid down in his main
work Being and Time, and denotes the results of his investigations
of (human) Dasein for the purpose of opening up being (as a being that
is also present in Dasein, a being that understands itself) and the meaning
of being. The fundamental ontology shows how that is manifested in Dasein
(see: existentials); it wants to be the basis for all empirical sciences.
The existentials are the ways of human existence, the categories of
human being, with Heidegger above all the angst (fear, anxiety),
furthermore the being-in-the-world, the concern (worry, care,
welfare, getting, providing, managing, anxiety), the understanding,
the mood, the thrownness and many others.
I once tried to approach music through science. One can do that, too,
but there always remains a rest that science cannot explain and will never
be able to explain, because science does not think: Science does
not think (Martin Heidegger). One can also not explain physics with
physical means. Such a thing can only be done by thinking (philosophy).
And it's the same with music. I have already said something in this
thread about the things, phenomenons and situations and called all this
language:
Kultur wrote:
Language - from semiotics to mathematics inclusive - has a very
high significance. Everything in it tells of itself to us, it speaks,
and we are the ones who have to figure out how to properly retell what
has been told .... **
**
What do you actually think of the thesis of Pythagoras that the moving
celestial bodies sound in certain intervals (harmony of the spheres) and
that this harmony can not be perceived by us only because it affects us
continuously?
Satyr wrote:
Here (**),
Sloterdijk is describing degeneration, where immediate gratification
is the rule.
American individualism has no 30-40 year horizon, it needs immediate
returns because of human lifespans.
What was that saying that says - I'm paraphrasing - »when men
stop planting trees they will never lie beneath a culture is dead«.
American individualism shrinks people's percpetual-event-horizons to
that of a lifespan or worse, more immediate returns.
This is a dumbing-down - shrinking human consciousness, its field of
interest - divide and conquer.
The ego becomes the centre of an individual's care. This is where nihilism
emerges to protect the ego from emerging self-cosnciuosnes, threatening
its sense of well-being, exposing it to new sources of anxiety.
I trace nihilism as a school of thought - an attitude - to this organic
development; an ideological defence, reacting to organic self-awarness.
Jaynes traced the Olympian gods and heroes to this evolutionary development.
I suspect that Sloterdijk German ethnicity prevents him from saying
more. **
That may be. Sloterdijk does not always say everything he knows. Sometimes
he intentionally keeps a low profile, only to do the opposite at another
time. But somehow these are also ups and downs that everyone knows about
the own self. Nevertheless, sometimes it is exaggerated in Sloterdijk's
case. Anyone who knows him well notices that.
Sloterdijk wants to assign the human being on the
one hand like Spengler either only to one space, namely the nature (environment),
or several different spaces, namely the cultures, on the other hand like
Heidegger only to one space, namely the world, i.e. to understand it as
an being-in-the-world (**),
and therefore to assign only one society to the world, what Luhmann has
also done in the context of his theory of society. According to Luhmann,
since the beginning of the modern age - by which only the occidental modern
age can be meant, which, however, remains unmentioned by Luhmann as well
as after him by Sloterdijk (!!!) - there is only one society: the world
society (**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
According to Luhmann's system theory, before modernity there were societies
with forms of differentiation by (a) segmentation (cf. descent, genealogy,
filiation, tradition and the like), (b) center/periphery, (c) stratification,
but since modernity there is only one society - the world society
- with the form of differentiation by (d) function (**).
**
|
JSAK und HK |
|
JSK und AHK |
|
JSK und AK und HK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Primitivkulturform.
(2) Historienkulturform. |
|
(1) Primitivkulturform.
(2) Agri-Historienkulturform. |
|
(1) Primitivkulturform.
(2) Agrikulturform.
(3) Historienkulturform. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luhmann and Sloterdijk interpret our occidental modernity as something
it is not, or at least not yet: a human modernity. This interpretation
of Luhmann and Sloterdijk (if he does not simply follow Luhmann) and the
concomitant alignment of humanity modernity and world
society are to be understood as an eve-landing (westernization)
of the world, an eve-landing of all people (**|**).
The modernity of mankind and the world society
are projections of occidental people on all people and the world, therefore
they have nothing to do with reality, if one disregards certain institutions,
which meanwhile spread their rules over the globe, although they are occidental
institutions too, even if they are accepted by non occidental people.
The subject is just only relatively valueable. As long as the science
of history cannot prove the modernity of mankind and the world
society, these two occidental constructs, representing
more wish than reality, are not yet counted among the historical facts.
If in Sloterdijk's spherology the foam is the metaphor for the very complex
society according to Luhmann's system theory and if according to Luhmann's
system theory it is necessary to reduce complexity or to sink into the
entropic (chaotic) complexity, then Sloterdijk's conclusion from his trilogy
of spheres can only be that it is necessary to reduce the foam or to sink
into the entropic (chaotic) foam ( ).
**
But the point is that both Luhmann and Sloterdijk - Sloterdijk in particular
- repeatedly let it be known that they also judge it in the same way as
I do, so that my criticism would not even be necessary if there were not
something like political correctness at work here.
But please do not get me wrong: I understand that they do it this way,
because if they did not, they would never have become known worldwide,
and almost all of us had to miss their magnificent philosophy.
I have already said that that Sloterdijk is wrong by making the world
and all human beings occidental (**|**[**|**]).
In connection with all humans and occidentals
Sloterdijk does not always use certain words semantically correctly: antiquity,
middle ages, modern ages, culture,
civilization, modernity and others. I choose here
as an example the use of the word modernity: Sloterdijk uses
the word modernity in the sense of a modernity of mankind,
although he means and can only mean the modernity of the Occidentals.
The Occidentals have indeed tried to bring their modernity closer to all
others, namely to the Non-Occidentals, but they have only rarely succeeded
in doing so, and their prosperity-enhancing technology alone has not been
sufficient to successfully pass on their modernity, the basis of which
is their culture with all its values and norms, to the Non-Occidentals.
It is still the case today that the Non-Occidentals want to have the technology
invented by the Occidentals, because it brings high prosperity, but they
strictly reject everything else invented by the Occidentals. The Non-Occidentals
want the prosperity of the devil whom they hate. There is
no mankind consisting only of occidental people, consequently there is
also no modernity of a mankind consisting only of occidental people.
Satyr wrote:
The absence of accessible frontiers places us in a behavioural
sink situation.
Cultural uniformity is a by-products of cross-contaminaiton - cultures
cannot remain separate and distinct because of the earth's containment
and technologies shrinking spaces - boundaries can no longer prevent
ideological contagions from spreading. **
Cultures cannot remain separate and distinct only if (and
because!) the history of the occidental culture - consistently thought
to the end - is extended into the infinite space (because it should and
must become according to the Ursymbol [see Spengler's concept of Ursymbol]).
The globalists are westerners and want to dominate the globe and thus
all people forever. Thus, all rhetoric is geared towards this. This does
not mean, however, that this will actually remain so.
Moreover, one should not forget that Islam (part of the magical culture
[see Spengler's concept of the magical soul]) and other civilizations
(India, China) are still active and do not want to be westernized. Even
Slavs and Hungarians do not or not really want to be westernized. Black
Africans and others also do not want to be westernized. Well, they all
have - as a people - not much to say, so that one can pass over them.
But that still doesn't mean that globalism (which, as I said, is western!)
will prevail forever.
When there will be no more money in or from the West for the non-westerners,
it will become uncomfortable, very uncomfortable.
I also think that the attempt to mix the western peoples is counterproductive
and will finally only ensure that the Great Chaos, which will
inevitably come (in parts is already there!), can and will then be ascribed
to false (!) causes. So this mixing of peoples is only good
for the globalists. But I do not believe that they will have success with
it forever.
With it we are back to the question of Spengler, whether there will
still be a new culture in the future or not. - I don't know, but I doubt
that globalism with its rhetoric (the One World as the One
Civilizationã) will be able to hold its ground in the long run
or even in the medium run. I say only: War!
Technology - even Western technology - can also be (made) forgotten.
If the globalists will fight among themselves, as the Caesar(ist)s
once did, then, following these wars, everything is possible again, but
in a wintry form. It is also possible that all humans will
disappear - due to the Great Chaos.
What we are experiencing at the moment are really the last moves of
history, giving it all once more, after which it will become quiet, very
quiet. Whether this will happen in the sense of the One World,
i.e. as the final stage (civilization) of the occidental culture, or rather
even again quite primitively, I do not know exactly, but I know that it
will be wintry.
Satyr wrote:
Nihilism is an ideological contagion - a memetic virus. It's
utility lies in tis detachment from reality - offering opportunity to
construct whatever the mind can imagine. Their only criterion is cohesiveness
- it must be self-consistent - and hedonism - it must be seductive,
offering pleasing possibilities to alleviate existential anxiety.
**
Yes. Nihilism is very successful, it works like an exponential function.
At first, only a few are infected, but suddenly the infection rate increases
exponentially. Nevertheless, there are also people who are immune to it.
Most people come from a high culture (I call them history cultures
because they have a history based on writing, unlike primitive cultures),
and that is why these are mostly affected by nihilism, even if the present
nihilism is an occidental nihilism. Those who have the most immunity to
any nihilism are the members of primitive cultures.
Let's go to the jungle!
Satyr wrote:
Music like existence does not think....but man does.
Man tries to make sense of existence using binary semiotics.
I defer to Schopenhauer's description of existence as a cosmic symphony,
and each particle a note.
I would include in this allegorical description the factor of chaos,
as background white noise, experienced as silence.
The allegory works for me, as all art does - including music.
I feel its truth ... yet some, like I, want to know the source and the
reasons, whereas those like you simply want to surrender to it.
It is true that finding the source may decrease the enjoyment ... like
knowing why we dance and what it symbolizes inhibits the dancer from
letting go ... and few want to lose the »magic« or the amazement,
the mystery ....
Like I said ... a feminine disposition.
I can indulge, but I cannot surrender to this impulse ... even if it
costs me its enjoyment. **
Basically, I am also the one who always asks for the sources and reasons.
I just learned at some point that sometimes it is better to surrender
to the music.
So basically, I am a pretty rational one, but I can also be different.
Satyr wrote:
The »modernity« of the »western« - occidental
- is infested by a messianic parasite which urges it to make its disease
universal - global.
This is why I mention Messianism.
Founded on nihilistic binaries: good/bad, paradise/hell, utopia/dystopia,
salvation/damnation.
Like selfish genes selfish memes hijack the organism's processes, for
tis own purposes: self-maintenance and self-propagaiton.
To put it ideologically, the nihilistic ideology/dogma - meme - is programmed
to be imposed on the world, otherwise it perishes - like capitalism
must grow, constantly produce more wealth, otherwise it atrophies.
Nihilism cannot survive outside brains, because it is anti-rela, anti-nature.
It needs a host - a proxy.
Nihilism is impotent beyond the minds it infects - dominates - because
it is entirely abstract with no external referents. It's only avenue
to power is via hearts and minds, so it must spread as much as possible
- it must proselytize, or integrate the masses into tis principles;
its »magical force« is entirely dependent on exploiting
and manipulating psychology, so it needs organisms with sophisticated
neurological systems to infect.
Nihilism is entirely semiotic ... and cannot exist without symbols/words
- semiotics are its DNA.
See the conventional definition of nihilism.
It negates, or describes a world void of human abstractions that have
never nor can ever exist outside human brains. For the infected psyche
the world is »negative« because it lacks what the human
brain fabricated and expects to exist.
One-God, universal morality, cosmic meaning, i.e., purpose, intent,
motive...In fact if these did exist independently from human minds then
experienced existence would cease and life would be improbable.
**
I think I understand your meme theory pretty well, and admit that it
was your writing that drew me to this web forum.
|