Heidegger

If there is a God, then we have to save God. God already created the world, put into place order in the universe, and it perpetuates, or perambulates on. Occasionally something large spins out of orbit and collides, but for the most part as far as the eye can see, and the ear can attune, there is the prepetual mobility of objects and progression of processes.

That leaves therefore a need to resuscitate God, and bring God back to life. God is an old woman, who may need to be awaken so she can go out and do a little housecleaning. Perhaps she needs a better mop, of if God is an old Man, then God needs a little boost, a sound song by a young child to awaken him from his reveries of old age.

I like the saying, first mentioned by John the Presber, “God helps them who help themselves.”

Anyway, if we search into the meaning of technology, and declare that it is this which threatens the earth, then technology needs to be re-invented and attuned to needs of the whole planet including coral reefs.

The answer is not more technology as is the case with the nuclear option. In fact the nuclear option is much worse than any of the ‘worst case scenarios’ of the climate change scientists.

Climate change caused by humans has one very serious impact which requires a God, and that is the threat of species and habit extinction.

Climate change will cause many species in the Arctic and Antarctic, the Oceans and especially in Africa to become extinct, including many large mammals which are economically important to humans.

Some worst case scenarios suggest that 90% of all coral reefs and their species will perish in the next 20 years, and that scenario is unfolding with great rapidity leading to further emissions of carbon into the ocean and atmosphere.

Some parts of the interior environments of large continents will become inhospitable to most life including humans, and that is already the situation in many parts of Africa north of the Equator, and some days in the southern US where diurnal temperatures reach at least 44 degrees celsius.

Since God is Good, knowable as the beautiful, it is a corequisite for God and Humans to work together, but first the knowledge of God, or the Ultimate Reality, has to be awoken in the sleeping, quiescent creature…that takes imagination and sympathy.

Since it would be beautiful to restore equilibrium to the earths cycles and climate, and reduce overexploitation, then it would be necessary to find a new pair of crutches for a God who is still not used to walking again. After all God is not a baby, but an older person who has sea legs.

chao

John

Tudor Georgescu wrote:
I have to makes some observations:

Heidegger and Revelation of God/Apocalypse:

He maintained: “only a God can save us”. By “a God” he meant: Jesus Christ.
Except from advancing half-hearted political measures, Al Gore should agree
with this: when technology, economy and democracy are actively destroying
our habitat, the only person we could turn to is God.

Heidegger and hypermaterialism:

In general, Heidegger speaks only about “things” that can be perceived by
everyone (e.g. religion can be perceived through the effects it has on
people). But, he leaves the door open for the supernatural, soul and
spiritual realms and so on. He sticks to what can be proven about Being
without requiring faith in the other-worldly, but certainly he employed the
many-worlds hypothesis (which is now part of modern physics), therefore he
could not reject the existence of the other-worldly.

Heidegger and soul being in-here:

Soul has been conceived as in-here, in the measure the esoteric discourse on
soul mentioned soul as inner being or inmost heart or so. The
exoteric-minded people understood this function of their ability to conceive
the soul, thinking that would mean it is close to the biological heart,
chest, or bone marrow or so. However, that is ridiculous.

Heidegger recognizes that what is out-there is at the same time in-here in
the measure that out-there means actual manifestation and participation to
the objective world and in-here means the virtual space which is private to
this or that soul and mind. So, for Heidegger, soul is everywhere, both
“here” and “there”.

Heidegger and Satanism/Anti-Christianity

Heidegger is no rank-and-file Christian believer, that’s for sure. However,
he would have considered seriously doing theology as science of a positum
(revelation), for he advocates it in his Pathmarks, even if he would keep
theology as a private occupation. Therefore, Heidegger would apply same
Destruktion (restoration of original meaning) to the Bible.

Being a man under the influence of Nietzsche’s denunciation of good and evil
as primitive ethical oversimplifications (proper for herd mentality) and
having lived personally the experience of the “death of God” (we know He
died on the Cross), Heidegger would believe in a God which is beyond good
and evil (there are enough Bible verses, which, read properly, even in an
acceptable translation, testify about this).

He would agree that Being is God, if just we don’t think of God as a
material object, or some improved subsistent being, as in traditional
theology.

He would consider that the Substance of the world is the Word, according to
John 1:1 and Acts 17:28, and that the Word is manifest in every being.

But, he would have kept all such meanings private, because he formatted a
philosophy which does not have to rely on making leaps of faith toward a
theology in order to become accepted.

Greetings,

Tudor

> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au [mailto:heidegger-
> bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Bernx at aol.com
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:21 AM
> To: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> Cc: Bernx at aol.com
> Subject: Re: Probing CLouds…Dasein and alienation III
>
> In a message dated 2/24/2007 9:47:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> tgeorgescu at home.nl writes:
> [Tudor]:Now, speaking of objects (and, implicitly, of subject) that is
> old Cartesian-Kantian talk, which Heidegger aims to replace with
> something
> new: Dasein as being-in-the-world. Heidegger speaks of phenomena,
> which appear
> (show themselves) to one or more Daseins.
> [Bernard]: Then phenomena for Heidegger would be limited to the showing
> of
> the object, thing, event out there in the world. What is so new about
> such a
> notion? It is a parochial materialist view
> [Bernard]: Being is thereby divested of itself by the object “out
> there” so
> that Being has no other predication but through what is out there. A
> concept
> of Being an sich is thus reduced to nothing. How could Being as
> nothing
> serve to predicate the object out there and a manifold of dasein?
> Right off in
> his *An
> introduction to Metaphysics* he asks “Why are there essents rather than
> nothing?” It may just as well be asked ‘why are there essents rather
> than Being?’
>
> [Tudor]Now, I don’t think that’s the way Heidegger understood that
> line. For
> him, Nothing was non-Being, the absolute negation of all beings.
> Speaking of
> “all beings” as each of them, taken individually, each has its own
> being,
> participating thus in Being. So, Heidegger conceived Being and Nothing
> as complete
> opposites, Being as the prerequisite of all existent beings and the
> Nothing as
> their complete annihilation.
> [Bernard]: Yes, of course, no-thing is non-being and which is a
> tautological
> statement. A tautology may do well in a dialectic logic but not in an
> onto-logic. Heidegger too easily arrives at “non-being” as the negation
> of being and
> which is a statement without substance. He is thus defining Being
> according to
> essents “out there” in the world so that Being and the manifold of
> objects in
> the world do not require any predication by a notion of Being as it is
> because
> it is. Being thus stands on its own, following Parmenides original
> notion,
> without any identification with things in the world or, that is to say,
> objects
> of sense perception. Equally, “In the beginning was the Word (Logos)
> and that
> is all there is too it, taking “beginning” to mean archai or original
> state of
> Being. This refers to God as a manifestion of Logos and Logos as the
> agency
> of order. Order and cosmos mean the same thing because they are the
> archai
> “thing” or original Being.. But this draws a wide line between Being
> an sich and
> beings as the elements of dasein. In effect, Heidegger reduces Being as
> archai
> (qua original in the sense of ur-grund and identifies it only as the
> self-evident manifold of the world of object/things he calls da-sein.
> This immediately
> intends being out there (in the world) in distinction to what? If there
> is an
> “out there” (world) there must also be an “in here” what? Well, of
> course,
> “in here” and Being an sich are one and the same. But it only has
> reality, in
> the sense of The Real as “in here” and which in the Heideggerian
> inference
> perdures as Lethe, the hidden or concealed. Thus, for him Being
> performs as a theos
> in absconditus, Being or God as concealed and unrevealed. This is
> particularly an anti-Christian of Satanic view that denies the
> possibility of Revealation
> and Apocalyptus. That is why he had to come up with a concept of the
> “onto-theo-logical” and which is a completely tautologically and
> redundic
> self-predication insofar as “Onto,” “Theo” and “Logos” mean the same
> thing as predicates
> of the Being an sich as the first and only synthetic “given.” This, as
> Sir Carl
> Popper noted, can never be refuted and thus cannot stand as a
> scientific
> statement. Accordngly, is Heidegger dealing in apriori and hence given
> metaphysical propositions or empiricist, aposteriori sceintific
> statements? Is he hinged
> in the realm of Ontos or that of techne? Or is he spread-eagled between
> the
> two in a schizoid posturing? Indeed, paraphrasing Nietzsche it may
> equally be
> said Being is dead because forcibly migrated ‘out there’ to
> object/things.
> This amounts to a kind of hyper-materialism and by which dasein
> indicates
> things and objects in themselves may perdure without the monistic
> singularity of
> being-in-here and which is certainly no-thing. I can only draw the
> conclusion
> from this that Heidegger is a hyper-materialist and spokesman for a
> daseinocratic world view.
>
> [Tudor]:Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man says the same thing: the citizen
> of
> consumption society identifies himself/herself with the objects around
> him/her,
> loosing thus his/her identity and authentic human being. In fact,
> Marcuse
> criticized a slavish attitude towards material objects, wherein the
> crudest
> materiality dominates human life, like in a prostituted Marxist
> ideology which makes
> peace with capitalism because capitalism is the perfect rule of
> materialism.
> [Bernard]: Yes, and Jean Baudrillard picks it up from there.
>
> [Tudor]:Habermas, educated as he was by Heidegger, had a similar
> concern,
> namely debunking Cartesian-Kantian metaphysics of subjectivity in order
> to
> replace it with linguistic intersubjectivity.
>
> [Bernard]:That is, of course, understandable because Heidegger’s view
> is
> exclusively object directed or otherwise an extraversion where the
> social object
> circumstance has priority. In this way intersubjectivity abolishes
> subjectivity as simply the relation of two object circumstances.
> Accordingly, Psyche
> (soul) is displaced by the world out there. Social intercourse thus
> negates
> subjective introspection. That is the perfect formula for political
> totalitarianism and a prospective post-Nazi New World Order.
>
> [Tudor]: Now, I don’t think one has to seek Heidegger’s being-there in
> extraverted social intercourse, but one has to seek it in the mystical
> discourse of
> union between mystic and the world, between the mystic and God. Such
> union is
> beyond the distinction introversion-extraversion.
> [Bernard]: That certainly would be the case insofar as the “mystic” in
> his
> state of apophatic introspection “introverts” or seeks inward insofar
> as
> introvert indicates subject-seeking rather than object-seeking as would
> be Heidegger
> in his dasein and projection of Ontos, God, Logos out there in the
> world as if
> he were a johnny- come- lately Incarnation. But no, Heidegger is in the
> first
> place a deconstructed German Christian and with nothing mystic or
> metaphysical about him and which is to say he is not of a
> transcendental cut but steeped
> in the magicism of linguistic manipulation and which may be suitably
> compared
> to the magic of Adolf Hitler”s oratory projection. In both cases
> magicistic
> rather than transcendental would be suitable insofar as the magicistic
> is
> grounded in the chthonian or ur-grund underworld and Helheim. It may be
> noticed here
> that Baldur, the ancient Teutonic solar god was brought to death by
> Loki, the
> underworld trickster-god, descended into the night world and as the
> sun
> never rose again. In the Wotonic religion, re-embraced by the Nazi, the
> Sun is
> dead and never to rise again. That would be rule for whomsoever is
> dedicated to
> world conquest: Life as a living death.
> [Tudor]: Now, speaking of Jung, if we look at how he is talking, he
> speaks of everything in the world as psychical images (psychical
> phenomena)
> which appear to one or more psyches.
> So, for both Heidegger and Jung, only phenomena matter. Heidegger
> analyses
> the phenomena as given to the Dasein, and Jung analyses the phenomena
> as
> given to the psyche.
> [Bernard]: That may be true for Heidegger but not for Jung if you delve
> into
> his *On the Nature of Psyche* where he discusses the entropy of closed
> systems: or his *The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche* co-
> authored with
> Wolfgang Pauli, Noble Prize physicist (for his prediction of the
> neutrino).
>
> [Bernard]: That is an oxymoron of a statement since dasein indicates
> out
> there (in the world) and psyche indicates in here as the soul.
> [Tudor]:I think it is a false dilemma. First, because psyche has not
> been
> properly defined; it is assumed to be inside, but that could simply be
> a
> prejudice.
> [Bernard]: That is better clarified in the Jung/Pauli book where inner
> and
> outer, psyche and world are related by an acausal connecting principle,
> i.e.,
> “Synchronicity.”
> [Tudor]:Then because the Dasein is out-there virtually, i.e. he/she
> participates in what he/she sees with his/her thoughts and emotions,
> and only in the
> last resort he/she applies the commands of the brain in operating with
> the
> physical objects. So, the Dasein is not out-there in a real (i.e.
> physically
> extant) manner, but it is there because his/her soul participates in
> that world.
> [Bernard] That may be so but no so axiomatically simple.
> [Bernard]: The psychic image is only semiotically related to the
> object,
> i.e., as a sign of the object and
> nominalization of the things out there of dasein.
>
> [Tudor]As far as I have understood Jung, he would consider the
> perceptions as
> belonging to the broad category of psychical images, i.e. perceptions
> are the
> virtual imprints of objects upon the soul.
> [Bernard]: Yes, he refers to intuition as the endopsychic perception of
> inner
> objects that materialize as images.
>
> [Tudor]: So, for both, world consists of phenomena, not of objects.
> Objects (meaning subsistent things) only exist for them as much as
> they can
> be noticed in phenomena.
> [Bernard]Yes, that goes without saying.
> [Tudor]: For both, even if they refuse to state it explicitly, the
> constitution of the world is not matter, but soul, kind of implicit
> panpsychism: everything matters inasmuch as it shows itself to the
> psyche.
> So, both start from the psychical life in order to explain the world,
> they do
> not start from material objectuality in order to explain the psyche.
> [Bernard]: In this view, which is certainly not Jung’s, matter is
> displaced by soul while in psychic fact they are distinictly related,
> Mater
> qua anima.
> [Tudor]: As far as I have understood Jung, he brackets the existence of
> matter and he only considers matter inasmuch as it becomes part of
> psychic
> experience. He does not deny that there is matter, but, as a
> psychologist, he seems to
> take interest of it only inasmuch matter has an imprint inside the
> souls of
> his patients. So, I do not consider that in Jung’s conception matter
> was
> displaced by psyche, as in an all-out panpsychism, but he was restating
> some of
> Berkeley’s empiricism, namely that objects matter (I don’t say objects
> exist) as
> long as they are perceived, and the perceptions of objects is the only
> form of
> contact which we, humans, have with objects.
> [Bernard]: From the psychological standpoint we do not percieve things
> or
> objects whether or not they are dasein or psychic, but the image of
> such which is
> conditioned by the nature of consciousness so involved. A primitive in
> the
> bush, for example, may forbid having his photograph taken for fear it
> will rob
> his soul. For him picture and image are one and the same as his soul,
> anima, or
> animating force.Capture his image on a piece of paper and he has thus
> has
> lost it
> Sincerely:
> Bernard
>
> to be continued
>
>www.bernardxbovasso.tdparts.com
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Tuesday, February 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback