Answers delimit the open inexplicability questions present. By so doing, the fear and anxiety associated with the unknown is shored up and stamped with the seal of a fixed stasis, even if this surety is emblematic of nothing but a condition of pareidolia. In effect, bringing the unknown and mysterious into fixed intelligibility settles things, thereby making the world `real’ in an objectively palpable sense. By extension, the metaphysical mind projects outward, assuming all the effective qualities of predication over and upon the inexplicable `other’. Thus, what resides in alterity to the finite limit of existence comes under the aegis of the defined, known, and predicated. That which breaches the sacred—the infinite ambiguity of what resides beyond the enframed parameters of `the known’—is delimited and rendered objectively ontic as a `being’. It is in this way that God is written as a propositional `He’, as though Being is but a being, merely an objective `other’ to which man may petition in times of need. In this meta-onto-theological morass, the idea (ἰδέα)—λόγος-as-answer—suppositionally allows representational thinking and predication to affix a definitive `there’ to the `other’ qua objective space-time: Heaven becomes a `place’—A PROPER AND THUS OBJECTIVE PRONOUN—and one’s entrance to such a sphere is predicated upon the linearity of mortal time-reckoning. Any and every `other’ becomes tethered in fixed and defined proximity qua the existential-phenomenal analytic of the ά/νθρωπος. At bottom the following presumption functions as the epoch’s potentate: Everything is already `there’ and merely waits for the representational mind to light upon “it” via disclosure (ἀ/λήθεια). Descartes makes grand use of this method. Such is the nature of “truth” during the now-passing metaphysical epoch. Such is how “things” are assumed-as-real by the Tradition, and such is the hallmark symbol for modernity’s zeitgeist.22 ---FOOTNOTE--- 22. Accurate representation is traditionally assumed to be a quality of the apperceptive mind, with the reflective content of this apperception being pinned to having previously experienced these abstract concepts as νοέω/εἶδος to the mind, i.e., as truths sans the senses (i.e., as noumenal thought-things). Such has been necessary so as to stave off the question of relativistic perspectivalism (this much as Nietzsche signals with his demolition of the Tradition). In effect, if the experiences informing conceptual reflection’s accuracy are seen to stem from phenomenologically grounded existential events and experiences, then “truth” becomes a period-specific interpretation, and the categorical imperatives thought to reflect the Platonic εἶδος (this via Kant’s analytical judgment and Hegel’s dialectic of Spirit) regresses to the issues Nietzsche rightly develops. Basing “truth” upon a Kantian matrix of synthetic judgment yields thinking over and unto nothing but the relativism of will to power. At bottom, such would never do for metaphysics; as such makes all truth relativistically contingent at bottom, all answers nothing but perspectives of interpretation and culture. (Deno Canellos (c)2011 (P) 2012 A Single Star in Sight (Wizards Beyond System Capacity))
Posted on: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:17:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015