Heidegger

> Goethe was merely dismissing the question of religion in the collective
> soup of feeling that complements the (elitist) individualistic thinking
> of philosophers and their royal constituency who funded them. After
> all, Goethe was a self-admitted neo-pagan qua ‘ein dezidierter nicht-
> Christ.’

Rudolf Steiner said that Goethe was the father of Christian (Rosicrucian?)
esotericism. You know, he could have been both a Christian and a pagan at
the same time, just as Jesus is for the Jews a tsadik who converted himself
to paganism, which implies that Christianity is paganism.

> Oh, I see. Then a psychologist is thus a frustrated and disappointed
> philosopher. More likely such a freak was one not in line with the
> aristocratric tradition and its hosts whose elitism was gained through
> draconian intellectualistic “thinking.” How else to keep the mob in
> harness!

Now, now, those were the modest beginnings of psychology. Now psychologists
and psychoanalysts earn big money and the ordinary philosophers are good
enough for driving a taxi in New York.

As one who are well read in psychoanalysis, you should already know that
thinking benefits from intuition, not only from the intellect.

> Yes, of course, it was neither with subject or object but in and by
> itself cogito (denken) ist prima. This was the no man’s land barred to
> the commoner. Such was more the case on the continent but lost ground
> in Britain after the Magna Carta.

Now, there is a Romanian story about a king and his governor. The governor
was so mean that a mob rebelled and required that the king gives them the
head of the governor. The governor argued: “Yes, but they are stupid!” The
king said “Stupid, but they are many.” And he ordered that the head of the
governor be chopped off and given to the mob.

I hope you sense the humor that a rebellious mob makes a petition to the
king, instead of chopping off the head of the king.

> [B]That is most true when the human is bereft of the being eugenically
> endowed the landed aristocracy and their handmaiden philosophers with
> their thinking machine minds at royal court. A pure democracy would
> demolish this status quo of being and the hoi polloi in turn plunged
> into anarchy, the end of Archai, and the primordial radix of being.
> This would, of course, result in the “fallen-ness” of the thinking
> Elite and aristocratic class.

This is of course funny. In any time and in any place, the political class
ruled. A government of the people by the people is impossible, because the
people does not have the slightest idea of what it should do with itself.
People are always governed by politicians, and Alvin Toffler says that
democratic vote is only a reassurance ritual meant to keep the hoi polloi
under control.

> [B]Yes, that is true except that ethical individualism had little to do
> with personal moral deciusions but the last vestige of the aristocraric
> forebearance. The early American Constitutionalists were hard put to
> keep at bay any notion of pure democracy but suceeded in establishing a
> four part Republic but more secretely maintained the aristocratic
> forebearance in their very private pro-masculine Masonic cult that
> barred feministic “pure democracy” and “collective phantasm.” On two
> counts “fallen-ness” set in for the USA: one, after the success of the
> feminist abolitionist (anti-slave)movement, and two, when women were
> granted the right to vote. They are interchangeably the cause and
> effect of the immediate American delemma in its coming presidential
> election.

Well, I am at least reassured that US is still under the control of Leo
Strauss’ apprentices. Because the hoi polloi are many, but they remain
stupid, i.e. controllable by those who are intellectually sophisticated.

> [B]If not there would have been no need for dasein. Yet, it may be
> clear that the windowless monad was in fact the unus mundus of the
> ruling elite and its corp of abstract thinkers. Dasein was the
> necessity to achieve fallen-ness in the world and whose only result
> would be the survival of the collective phantasm under the rule of a
> Führer phantasm that would burst of its own accord. Heiddegger earns
> title as the philosopher of the NAZI but which is hardly the case. His
> (unspoken) destiny of dasein was merely in parallel to that of the
> Third Reich and if nothing more he stood as its prophet of doom. The
> coincidence of the two were born of the Weimar Republic and the
> todestriebe that arrived after its defeat and then their utter
> suppression by the Western Allies.

Well, see above about Leo Strauss’ apprentices: Strauss was also born of the
Weimar Republic.

> So we may just as well blame the
> English and the French for the destiny of both dasein and a Germany
> endured of enforced depression and collective dissolution.

Lord Keynes did blame them and when he was proven right, everybody admired
his prophetic genius. In fact, he was merely doing a mathematical
calculation. This means that the English and the French produced the Second
World War through their own greedy conditions imposed upon Germany.
Despaired people do desperate deeds. (Well, I just saw a TV program about
the hopelessness from Karadzic’s poetry.)

> [B]Only philosophy may suffer the endured pretense of (sic) “true”
> alletheia more so that psychoanalysis is grounded in the concept of
> lethe and the UN-conscious. Indeed, Psychoanalysis would be the shadow
> or inferior side of Philosophy the latter of which represents the Head
> in relation to the body.

Then you surely know that the body is not the shadow of the head…

> [B]One cannot be used to predicate the other because they are not in
> the same mode of logic. Leave the question of “evidence” to ontocalists
> and materialist thinkers.

Actually, I use Jung’s analytic method to interpret symbols and extract
abstract conclusions from such symbols (instead of analyzing someone’s
psyche). Psychoanalysis is phony by its mere pretension that the therapist
analyzes client’s set of symbols. Instead, it should only seek to educate
the client to psychoanalyze his/her own set of symbols. It should teach an
analytical method, instead of offering pre-chewed interpretations of
client’s dreams and phantasms.

> [B]Then surely you are saying that the collective phantasm makes
> such judgement and by which art is autheticated by democratic
> consensus. This was never the case insofar as Art served only the
> aristocratic elite (and still does).

As Leo Strauss said, the working class does not have the time to think,
because they are tired and they need to sleep. The same applies to art.

> The droll exception to this was
> the POP Art of Windy Airhole who served back to the members of the
> American collectrive phantasm what they could only understand as “Art:”
> advertizing and commercial design.

If you love feminine participative democracy, I would say that you should do
it coherently and do away will all art that is not advertising or commercial
design. But by the mere fact that you are an artist, you will never be one
of the working class and your spirit will forever remain alien to their
concerns. Even if you are opposed to “aristocracy”, all you do is help the
bourgeois avoid being bourgeois in a typical bourgeois manner, namely by
participating in art (as Allan Bloom said in The Closing of the American
Mind).

> [B]The “statistical standpoint” is of course the sacred rule of the
> collective phantasm and its various shades of national “socialisms” and
> soon to come global socialism and the spurious phatasm of pure
> democracy.

Now you do distance yourself from the working class. Bravo Bernard! An
artist is always an artist.

> [B]He only cried because he lost the game and its materially expensive
> failure.

Well, could be. He was the beloved child of the political elite, and later
his own moral scruples turned him into a dissident (I was going to write
defector).

> [T]Modernity has many points which can be admired, but archetypal
> adequacy for building a well balanced (thus: classical) Self is not one
> of them.
>
> [B]You are right about that: the Self is as dead as God, more so in the
> post-modern world of Heidegger & co.

“The Self is dead, we killed it.” Just as Nietzsche wrote “God is dead, we
killed him.”

Frankly I never understood what Heidegger has to do with postmodernism.
Well, except his Freudian slip “by choosing your assumptions you are able
demonstrate anything”. Reading his books I figured out that he never liked
the postmodernists, and that they should not have liked him. Heidegger was
100% a philosopher, in the ancient tradition of episteme=science=aletheia.
He could never have agreed with “episteme is the latest fashion from Paris”.

> [T]Well, you made here a nice point. But then you have to admit that in
> the past five thousand years suicidal behavior was the rule rather than
> the exception.
>
> [B]Then we will leave it all to a historicistic phantasm just as Faust
> dismissed for Goethe in answer to Gretchen, Gefühl ist alles, if that
> is all a woman is worth for great thinkers, i.e., “feeling” as the
> uterine way qua hysteria.

Women were hysteric because they did not have access to proper education. In
fact, the hoi polloi are by their very definition hysterical. And philosophy
is simply the tool used to divorce the minds of the leisure class from
hysteria.

> [B]No, the normality of “the people” is Gefühl and which is the ignis
> gehennalis for the thinker.

That is a nice thought again. Basically, most of what you wrote above,
besides being very serious and very funny at the same time, could be
inferred from Allan Bloom’s book: continental philosophy is preparing the
coming world tyranny, if the US demos does not timely intervene. Now it
seems that the ghost of a Jewish disciple of Carl Schmitt is in control of
the US, so it could be said that continental “Denken ist alles” took over
“We, the people”. For how long? I don’t know.

Greetings,

Tudor

Posted on Sunday, August 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback