Heidegger

In a message dated 8/22/2006 2:13:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tgeorgescu at home.nl writes and quoting Jud:
“As *nothing* does not and cannot exist - all of the cosmos is
> material. If all of the cosmos is material, then strictly speaking
> individual entities do not *have* their ‘own’ laws but exist in
> accordance with the mutual existential character of all that is material
> i.e., the cosmos. Hence the cosmos exists in accordance with it OWN
> existential imperative and not in accordance with that of some non-
> existent *God.* who, being nonmaterial, could not exist in the first
> place. The all-material cosmos has no place for non-existent, nonmaterial
> heavenly hitchhikers.”
The above statement is marvelously descriptive of the dialectical use of the
double negative (negation of the negation) to arrive at a substantive or
positive premise about everything (the whole cosmos) is or has being as material.
But, not so astoundingly it makes use of tautology to achieve this: e.g.,
“nothing” qua “does not” yields something (material). This is, of course,
achieved by the two dimensional (dyadic) logic of one on one predication
(self-predication or by use of tautology). Such logic of identity (1>1)= (1) employs a
tertium non dature. It represents the primitive logic of the small child,
primitive peoples (and why they are called “primitive”), and the various forms of
pathological mentation and “magical thinking.” In the example addressed
tautologism is built in, e.g., “Hence the cosmos exists in accordance with it OWN
existential imperative.” This is called “self predication, “I am because I am”,
“it is because it is and by which the tertium is only secretly given: “I am
[is] I am,” “it is [is] it is”, etc. Parmenides uses this form of logic as his
first and last premise by which to posit “it is” (by which the One is All). In
this way the Logos uses itself (as arche) to establish itself and commence its
own generation, or what the Stoics referred to as the seminal action of the
*logos spermatikos.” Noticeably, it must all begin (arche) by reversion (what
Heidegger called “falling back” Giambatista Vico called *recorso* and what
modern depth psychology refers to as “regression.” In all case to the dyadic
state (1 > 1), or original state (arche) must be virtually returned to before
the generation of ratio may be carried on. But if such generation continues to
use its two dimensional ancestor form of tertium non datur thinking. It then
remains stuck in The One (is) All form of tautological self predication. In
Depth Psychology this One > All is refered to as The Mother and its one on one
identification with Mater as matter and, as such, understood as an infantile
state. Yet in the aetiology of the infant development the “I - Is” soon appears
(at about three years old) and by which the Ego begins to assert itself to
extricate from the infantile state of mother bondage/identification. In a process
of personality maturation and individuation such unconscious identification
is retained if not concealed by a philosophical, theological or politicatical
ideology. Nietzsche, for example, renounced a process of individuation to
hasten his hasty and compulsive recorso to the realm of the mothers. Yet Neitzsche,
as Cornford notes, kept some perspective by claiming philosophical assetion
is a form of self-confession. C. G. Jung is perhaps harsher in his assessment
of Martin Heidegger. He notes:
” Heidegger’s modus philosophandi is neurotic through and through and is
ultimately rooted in his psychic crankiness. His kindred spirits, close or
distant, are sitting in lunatic asylums, some as patients and some as psychiatrists
on a philosophical rampage. For all its mistakes the nineteenth century
deserves better than to have Heidegger counted as its ultimate representative… for
all its critical analysis philosophy has not yet managed to root out its
psychopaths. What do we have psychiatric diagnosis for? That grizzler Kierkegaard
also belongs in this galère. Philosophy has still to learn that it is made by
human beings and depends to an alarming degree on their psychic constitution..
In the critical philosophy of the future there will be a chapter on “The
Psychopathology of Philosophy.” Hegel is fit to burst with presumption and vanity,
Nietsche drips with outraged sexuality, and so on. There is no thinking qua
thinking, at times it is a pisspot of unconscious devils, just like any other
function that lays claim to hegemony. Often what is thought is less important
than who thinks it. But this is assiduously overlooked. Neurosis addles the
brains of every philosopher because he is at odds with himself. His philosophy is
then nothing but a systemized struggle with his own uncertainty. Excuse these
blasphemies! They flow from my hygienic propensities, because I hate to see so
many young minds infected by Heidegger.” (C.G. Jung in a letter to Arnold
Künzli on February 28, 1943).
But of course, Jung himself was part philosopher and his vigourous critiques
of Nietzsche and Heidegger represents something of his own self-confesion and
which perhaps voices a silent sub-text to his Memoirs.
Sincerely;
Bernard

(bxbovasso)

Posted on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006 at 1:10 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback