The irrationalism inherent to imposing reifying answers upon beings reflects how metaphysics imposes circumscribed finite limitation upon the unknown and potentially infinite horizon of the others potential. Via inverse identity ascription—this because there shall never be the `one absent the `other if either are to be cogent in meaning (as each is intertwined from the very start for epistemic coherency)—such a delimiting of the `other conversely enframes the `one as finite and of limited potential. This has been the “gift” every so-called “good” of the meta-onto-theology epoch has proffered. For nigh 2500 years the beast willfully seeks the very means by and through which its potential for transcendence is abated. Further elucidation is required. It is precisely because man is opened unto and thrown into the unknown horizon of Question, replete with its infinite potential for alterity vis-à-vis what `is’ (i.e., replete with that which shall pass and is of finite constitution and horizon), that imposing an answer’s delimiting valuatory stasis upon the `other’ is tantamount to delimiting oneself. Insofar as this beast explicitly seeks the `infinite in its doxologies of belief and faith, such is then irrational (as there can be no other way to understand this form of phenomenological insanity). Whenever we see this happen, this as such is typical of politicians, priest, and ideologues who profess privileged access to the truth, the tint of an absolutely exclusionary dynamic manifests. This happens because those enframed believe they have the answers; and as such, no real progressive development-of-ascension is required: they are self-anointed as complete, forgiven, and shall “enter” by virtue of faith-in-belief. https://youtube/watch?v=f4jPDfziBqA
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 03:38:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015