The Dog

Is unleashed to run free in the park
yet fences restrain it, as it wishes
to chase the cars on the street.
The chase: a subservient following
that actually believes it can get ahead!
Getting ahead is in fact remaining behind.
Remaining behind is where the love is found.
The love of the chase, of the trying
to get ahead, where you lose the love,
the passion, the desire that we crave.
And we love our craving. And we love
our love, the love that loves the
want to have, and the want to have more.
Yet our having more only leads to the
want to have even more! Satisfaction?
Can we ever attain it? Only within
the freedom within the fences: with
a dissatisfaction, no longer wanting
to chase but enjoying the freedom within
the fences. To keep it unconcealed, the job
we have to do for the truth. Concealed is
the truth, and to bring it out is the truth.
But it was always already out, and all I do
is ensure that what keeps us happy remains
unconcealed.

Seek Love

To think, a challenge,
a destruction of love,
of indifference,
in its determining:
a gathering that segregates.
Physis began, and the mystery
of nature emerged
from a forgetting.
Creation became discovery
and the beginning became
a conception found
in possibility never
actuality.

We must refind love, lost
on the battlefields
of thinking to a strife
that seems impossible
to conquer. Perhaps only
seek to refind a love
that once weakened will
fall again, and we can
do nothing but seek.

"Allowing in" as key to creation

I haven't written in forever and I need to write just to remind myself how. But each day I don't write I seem to lose myself more and more: I have convinced myself that one must forfeit being a writer to be a reader, and vice-versa. To read: to lose oneself to the other, to place oneself in the mind of the other, or rather to place the other's mind in the place of ones own. One questions the thought of the other, but only to ones own dismay, as the writer is right, if you properly choose who to allow in, that is. Yet we can only argue against one writer with another, until you yourself become a writer and can argue against the others. Nevertheless writing is also an allowing in. If you are never yourself but always your influences, if you are teaching and hence allowing a bringing-forth of the new into your learning. We learn as we write even if we only reiterate what we have already learned: perhaps the ability to discover the new does end at twenty-four, yet perhaps the new really is in the rephrasing of the old. Perhaps all that can be discovered has already been discovered and we re-discover what others and ourselves have already discovered. This is why the how of discovery is so important right now: perhaps we each have a different method of discovery or perhaps we all align when we try to discover, in the trying itself, as if we must all recognize, in order to properly discover, the coveredness of the covered as covered, and then to see in this coveredness the unconcealment of the concealed, the moment of revelation: having stretched to the limits of the understanding what is within these limits begins to reveal itself in the being of its appearance. The being of the appearance is allowed into unconcealment against its will to remain concealed. The appearance of a being is the way it is. The appearance of the concealed is the way (how) it is, concealed, yet as appearance thus unconcealed.

But what about acting? The appearance is unconcealed, and the concealed does not appear. But as concealed it appears: we know the actor is an actor and we can, from this, infer certain characteristics of the actor that correspond to actors as actors. Yet there is still more that is concealed than we can see in the concealment: it seems that the dialectic of concealment-unconcealment mimics that of the concept of stochasm: from the concealed comes unconcealed and concealed, from that concealed comes unconcealed and concealed, the unconcealed being held as unconcealed, in an infinite progression. Then we must look into the concealed to reveal to us the truth, and not into what we have already unconcealed. The concealed's concealedness is what unconceals the concealed.

But back to the allowing in of reading and writing. It is a possesion of a revelation, a revelation by language to the author in the reading, a possesion by language of the writer in the revelation that wants to be written. To read or write one must be possessed, possessed by revelation, what grants inspiration to simply do, and not not do. The allowing in is the allowing in of inspiration, the allowing in of a revelation to grant inspiration, the allowing in of the other through which one sees oneself, and from this seeing oneself the world is opened, truth becomes, and Being becomes what it is, the way we see it. Allowing in is the key to discovery, and hence to its brother, that is its identical twin, creation.

There is more I can write about this.

How I understand "horizon"

horizon is a boundary throughout the history of philosophy. But I see not a simple boundary but a confined area, not an empty mediating concept, the concept of the mediation itself, but the area between the abyss and the sky. We mortals have built the sky, that is, we dwell in it, and preserve in it the fourfold. The sky is the realm of "truth", of belief, of "fact", of knowledge. In the sky lies all those things we hold, things that seem to stand fast. But what do they stand on that enables us to hold them and not let them slip through our hands like butter? Reality, some say. The correspondance of assertion to reality, perhaps. But what is reality but another empty concept, an "error" or "vapor" that evaporates with the emergence of the sun. A concept simply created to ground our beliefs, to enable "truth", to allow the arrogant and condescending who cannot bear to lose to be "right". Everything stands on a leap, a leap from the ground over the abyss (where reality disappears as a mirage), to the horizon that grounds the world in identity and non-contradiction; in other words, the horizon is the not-ground grounding the possiblity of holding, creating the ability to stand. The horizon is tautology, as if the "is" were always an equal sign (=) and the "is not" its negation, nevertheless in tautology. Synthetic statements are grounded in analytic statements, if such a difference hasn't collapsed. The horizon, for me, is not only a boundary but the ground of the sky, that grounds as a not-ground the (not-ground of) standing/holding after/above the leap over the abyss from an endless nowhere, from a veritable, beautiful, eternal nothing.

Culture

Nietzsche describes a "genuine culture", in "Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks", as a "unity of style". This unity of style enables the activity and force of philosophy to take effect, for philosophy to free itself from "exile among barbarians", to begin the do-ing of philosophy; that is, only in a culture can philosophy work its magic, a magic that is inherently doing, to reality, and no longer confined to the play of the mind or idea with itself. But what is a "unity of style"?

The many ways of saying being

Being: the way in which being(s) is(are).
being: the totality
Essence: the whatness of (a) being.
Existence: the thatness of (a) being. Sometimes the totality, in contrast to not-being.
Perhaps both essence and existence are really the how it came to be of (a) being.

What about the not-Being that is not the way in which (a) being is?

I will have to continually alter this blog until I can get it right.

In-difference

In-difference. A hyphen stands within indifference as the most significant signifier to have ever been. The ground of all being is a relation, is a relation, is a relation… A relation always expresses the in-difference of subject and predicate: an affirmative relation expressing indifference, even if to highlight a difference; the negative relation expressing the in difference of the subject and predicate, even if to outline similarities. In-difference is both indifference and in difference, both indifferent and in difference to/with itself. Being contains nothing and their sublation within itself: phusis is what gives beings over to being in an unfolding that it itself is. As all beings need an opposite or simply something in relation to it in order for it to be, phusis is the en-abling of be-ing, through the permitting of such creation, that is of opposites, to unfold. Phusis en-ables the reciprocity of in-difference to/with itself in Being. Phusis lets being be in-difference. Susan Schoenbaum writes: “What I hear in the German phrase [das aufgehend-verweilende Walten – the emerging-abiding sway] as a whole is something like a dynamic, emerging pulsion of emerging interrelationships among emerging things. The “sway” of phusis is the way in which the coming into being of things determines each thing to be in relation to all the others, so that each has sway or influence over the other.” Does this mean that phusis is what brings about the coming into being of things or that it is the coming into being of things? I think it would mean that phusis is what, in the coming into being of things, allots each thing its relationships through enabling the hen panta. Yet within the one there are differences, or at least we mortals create differences, if even we can create anything at all: this is precisely the reason why, as Schoenbaum continues, “the traditional meanings [full of differences to other beings/things, full of oppositions, ie. techne, nomos, ethos, thesis – with regard to phusis] of both these words [being and phusis] need to be called into question in such a way that the originary – for Heidegger the unitary – meaning of these words is able to emerge.” Time has allowed for difference to invade the sole total encompassing originary word meaning, a word now in difference to itself, a word then indifferent to itself.

The oblivion of the time of fate and the ground for the possibility of givenness

What is forgotten is forgotten.
The Nothing reminds beings of being
as such and as a whole: the difference
that is the oblivion of being;
in oblivion of the oblivion.
To progress would mean to remain oblivious.
Yet it would be the progression of an illusion.
To heed the Nothing would be to clear,
to permit the unconcealing of the appearance
of being, its presence. An unfolding
would re-veal, yet being-given,
the givenness of being, as if for the second time,
as we are behind THE AHEAD of ourselves yet always
already ahead of ourselves, nevertheless behind:
the forturn of fate that we trail in our time's turning
behind fate's time: the oblivion of time.

The oblivion of being does not end with the recognition of the preferance for beings over being, a preference that, phenomenologically, can nevertheless find the being-givenness of being in those beings it prefered: all beings mimic, in their essence, the Being of being, that is, the way in which being is, its nature; this Being, the ultimate goal of metaphysics, remains concealed in beings themselves. Yet it is not true that the Being of beings is equivocal to the Being of being. All we can hope for is that this latter Being shows-itself, somehow, out of the (Being of the) beings we can ground. This would be the ulitimate giving, a giving we cannot suppose will/can ever occur. This is the goal of philosophy, a goal that may never be attained.

If B/being is given, it is not that it always already was and is subsequently discovered, but that fate, ahead of us, creates and chooses to reveal to us, in our turn, behind its turn (in which it has done the creation), what it is that we are allowed to discover or "have". This has been the oblivion of being, the oblivion of the time of fate, of the necessity for our being behind time if it is possible that things are given, if fate is possible. Predetermination means that we are "post" of the determining, that we are behind the time that has come "pre" or before our own. This is the condition for the possibility of givenness.

What has always already been is given to us from out of the future.

Creation or Discovery?

Do we create the questions for which we create the answers? Or do we discover the questions for which we discover the answers? Perhaps we create the questions for which we discover the answers, as if the answer were built into the question? Or perhaps we discover the questions for which we create the answers? Perhaps creation and discovery are one and the same...

My first book

Or my dissertation: The becoming-tranparent of Opacity: The Hermeneutics of Obscurity and the Obscurity of Hermeneutics; Heidegger with Heraclitus. Probably a dissertation because my first book should be "The Reign of Apathy: The Power of Indifference". Perhaps a redundancy, but this topic would surely cover the span of ethics, the relationships of eros, politics, epistemology, Hermeneutics, and finally and perhaps most importantly, the end of philosophy, its very beginning. Yet, to return to the dissertation, I must say the "becoming-transparent" rather than "making-transparent", for it proves to be Opacity's self-uncovering, the way in which it dissolves its horsetails into clarity, that Heidegger discovers in Heraclitus' obscurity: "Listen not to me but to the logos", and the logos will begin to radiate an illuminescence through the dark one, of the discovery of the self-showing, the discovery of discovery, the essence of creativity. How to discover the obscure and the limits of a hermeneutics that assumes no limit shall be the theme: on the one hand I will push the bounds of the understanding through the possibility of interpretation, and on the other, confine the understanding through the impossibility of finding truth in excessively radical interpretations or relations due to the finitude of ambiguity, the limits of meaning in being. Multiple interpretations with varying degrees of accuracy due to varying degrees of immediacy or mediacy (which I would like to make the cut-off point, that is, anything mediated is not sufficient to be called an accurate interpretation), perhaps so, yet unlimited interpretations cannot be the case. We will further this later...

Ursprung

Seinsfrage? Sein oder nicht sein? That is NOT the question. Why? For we do not have the choice to step out of being to survey which would be preferable. Yet nor do we have the choice to step out of being to see why there are beings and not nothing. But, on a certain level, this question can still be seen as it unfolds from within. Is this unfolding of the question or of the answer? If the latter it can only be an appearance of itself, whereas if the former, the question unfolds and is discovered to be a leap. A leaping to the grounding of an un-ground. An abyss over which a horizon unconceals itself as a tautology, being never able to step out of language. The leap, in language, made by language, "attains the ground for all genuine questioning by leaping and is thus an originary leap", a leap "spurred" on by the question of questions, the questioning of the interrogative in that question, for which a ground comes out of concealment as a necessary illusion. For without that illusion no question can be asked: behind all questions lies the "first" question, asked alongside all others, the fundamental question of metaphysics, the question of the ursprung. This "happening", alongside the exit from the confines of the only being able to act "as if", proves to be an "untimely" "foolishness": untimely for it is of yet to come into its own yet it always already has, "unfashionably"; foolish for as soon as it is asked it is an endeavor into the possibility of unfaith, the possibility of the banality of logos, the possibility of a not-ground not being able to ground, an ursrpung that cannot penetrate the abyss but must remain forcefully trying to subcede and precede the horizon to which it is confined: the horizon of logic, the horizon of tautology.