Having a `world’ is not a problem with regard to accessing first-level atemporal experiences (as one is always there together and intertwined with(in) a world regardless of any subsequent thematic imposition-of-meaning). As such, the experience of the first-level’s flow is not at odds with, or in fundamental alterity to, the world and corporeal existence. The relation of Becoming, this as beings are involved within the process of coming-to-presence via an indefinite dynamic of φύσις, in no sense precludes having a world in its continual process of presencing (παρουσία). Though indicative of the immediate, the process of Becoming is, nevertheless, a process within a world. Such therefore speaks to a conclusion, contra Nietzsche’s oft-cited position on how one would scarcely dare to lift a finger if the world were nothing but becoming—as a world of becoming is a world nonetheless. Being thrown into a world of παρουσία όπως η φύση does not diminish the `thereness’ of one’s possibilities within a world. Rather, such merely speaks to a different vantage of experiencing and thereby seeing oneself in relation to said world and the beings therein manifesting—a different sense of the worldliness of the world, so too speak. Thus, it is here that Heidegger is again instructive for progressive thinking. Some reiteration is required. One need merely ask: is a process present in the sense of its active event of coming to presence as manifest? In other words, is a process `present’, even accepting the fact that the flux-of-becoming endemic to a process, i.e., to that which is always on the way of becoming what it never actually `is’ as a defined “presence-in-the-present”, precludes the fixed satiety of presenting an objectively `finished’ “thing” for thinking to seize, light upon, and definitely define? Of course this is phenomenally real (as real as life in its open-endedness of tomorrows mystery). Processes happen! Too be sure, if beings are allowed their ownmost sense of autonomy (and thus are free in their process of becoming), there would be no objectively rendered beings-as-object/things in any sense of extant presence; and as such, the reifying ligatures imposed via metaphysical notions of valuatory correspondence would cease to be applicable. Similarly, objectifying beings via labels and fixed forms of definitions (all of which speaks to utilizing a matrix of hierarchically rendering beings statically fixed in objectively finite terms) comes to reflect a sense of incoherency relative to how beings are experienced prethematically. (Each and EVERY right reserved) https://youtube/watch?v=r6rqCy83EcA
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 06:28:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015