No teleological interpretation of history, the universe, or individuals, is proposed in this analysis. Each “end” or effect is merely a staging ground to be infused with subsequent affective energy. It is this `energy’ which transfigures hermeneutics [understanding and interpretation] anew; this as an evocation of `another future’. Put differently, the gathered atemporal `moment’—the `now’—is the site of ecstatic [εκστατικός] manifestation and reflects the coming-to-be of the future as such is opened to the possibility of becoming’s gathering unity. In how we carry interpretations forward, we influence understanding. In this, we allow for different affective `events’—and thereby different understandings—to come forth; and, due the difference of these `new’ understandings, this vis-à-vis how previous experiences are understood and interpreted, we further and progressively develop an understanding of the world, casting the world anew again and again in a never-ending series of ecstatically gathered `moments’.49 This in no way implies that the understandings developed here are “right”, “correct”, or mirror a “true” metaphysical reflection of the “good”. Nor does this imply that any previous method of interpreting or understanding the world has superseded the circularity inherent to history’s hermeneutic of metaphysical nihilism. Prior to paradigmatic transition, the underlying meta-epistemic spirit of the Age remains in force and is merely recontextualized through appeal to the dominant paradigm’s rendition of “truth”. As such, pre-Transition “truth” reflects nothing but an eternal recurrence of the same. In effect, the process of world-creation, this via the 2500-plus year old interpretive dynamic of erecting `truth’ from fiction, belief, and fable, merely utilizes the same ground that is endemic to the metaphysical Age. When seated firmly within the dominant historical paradigm, the process of thinking through the transition beyond metaphysics (via the nihilistic turn), and thus the process of experiencing the eternal recurrence of the same as a continual rebirth of the metaphysical period’s underlying nihilism qua the fallacy of answers and their obfuscation of what is forgotten and which can never be obtained via metaphysics, has yet to be assimilated. Even now in making the suggestion of a transition via the void of nihilism and the nothingness therewith attendant, we in no way imply an `end’ in any normative or teleological sense. With the oblivion-of-Being (in Heidegger’s sense), it is not merely our lostness to the everyday world of beings and the world as an objective image that greets us qua en-framing (Gestell). Oblivion is not simply a product of how religion devalues Being into the He of a participle (God). Nor is the sole existential relation we face connected to an epistemic premise which denotes the forgetting of our forgetfulness regarding Being [Being]. Rather, and for the first time since the world was made `rendered’ and subjected to stasis, the important point to be gleamed is that with the oblivion-of-Being we come upon the potential for beings to turn unto their ownmost sense of self-appropriation. This is precisely what transition yields: a movement of beings in their ownmost process of appropriation in, of, and by Being. Transition brings forth beings in their ownmost sense of `procession’ or process. As is the case with any and every process, beings are as always on-the-way and thus outstrip the impositions of definition. In this, beings bespeak their ownmost presence, not as extant forms of `being present’, and therefore not as present participles, but precisely in the fact that beings outstrip objectivity and thereby exuding their mystery and inexplicability. As such, there can be no meaningful normative teleology implied (as any such implication can only be the product of speculative conjecture, the opined belief of metaphysics, and the violence such a metalogical does to beings through rendering them objectively fixed and definitively static). Historical analysis traditionally presupposes that thinking will advance to a zenith-of-ends, some concluding `state-of-consciousness’, a modern sense of realized progress, an achieved state of enlightenment or rapture. This `end’ is assumed to be a predestined teleological “truth”; a “truth” that is obtainable via philosophy and its cannons in theology. With the move into a post-metaphysical hermeneutic, metaphysics falls to the extent that processes (as states of continual becoming) remain open-ended, always denoting an absence of finitude. With the move into transition, a counterintuitive manner of perception advents. We come to realize that we do indeed alter the world in an incremental and progressive manner, doing so through projections of understanding, this as we have more or less always done. However, thinking comes to realize that understanding develops its own adaptation through gathered nonthematic experiential stimuli, and that existence is phenomenological at bottom. By extension, it is thinking’s move into the dynamic of absence which signals something different (as both Derrida and Lyotard anticipate in their thinking). This is not merely a recontextualization of Nietzsche’s point regarding nihilism: that the goal is lacking, the aim finds no end (this as a nullity). Nor is this merely some exercise in Derridian deconstruction whereby what is lacking or absent in any specific text or analysis takes on the locus of `difference’ relative to presence (all of which is a surface extension of Heidegger’s work). Rather, `lack’ or absence (as is develop below) is the intended destinal advent of the event wherein thinking transitions qua the abyss of the nothing. Post-metaphysical transition simply holds none of the familiar properties or definitional characteristics that are endemic to the old paradigm’s lens-filters. --FOOTNOTE-- 49. Insofar as the ground beneath the seminal understandings involved in the effective-affectivity dynamic harken to a metaphysical premise, Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence of the same remains in force as `abysmal’, thereby reflecting the absence of the overman achievement in its post-metaphysical advent. Hence, the import of the experience at the gateway arch and the “timeless moment” in his Zarathustra. (A Single Star in Sight; (Beyond the Capacity); In the Highest Workings there is no "Object" at all. MEITHRAS XI°; ArtifexAstrum (c) (P) Seal of the XI°)
Posted on: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:38:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015