11\/5\/10 – Addition of paragraphs 3 and 4<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————–<\/p>\n
Jemeinigkeit, Heidegger\u2019s notion of being-toward-death, is Dasein\u2019s (the \u2018there\u2019 of human being) utmost possibility.\u00a0 The possibility of the impossible is Dasein\u2019s own most.\u00a0 It cannot be outstripped.\u00a0 It holds open the possibility of Dasein\u2019s authenticity.\u00a0 Death is not a he or a she.\u00a0 Death is mine but it cannot be understood or apprehended.\u00a0 No light can penetrate my death.\u00a0 Death cannot be seen.\u00a0 It cannot be taken hold of.\u00a0 It even resists the notion of \u2018is\u2019.\u00a0 Death \u2018is\u2019 but its final tragic comedy is the erasure of my \u2018is\u2019.\u00a0 As such, death is alien.\u00a0 It erases my \u2018is\u2019 while it writes my \u2018is\u2019.\u00a0 Death is \u2018it\u2019.\u00a0 It is a referent that does not point to another referent but ends, as in the Greek notion of telos, culminates, and gives referential meaning by point backward in the genesis of me as arche and telos, alpha and omega, the circle that has no outside.\u00a0 Death is singularity; singularity that gives birth to me.\u00a0 In death the neuter, the \u2018it\u2019 that begins and ends in \u2018itself\u2019, is identity.\u00a0 It \u2018is\u2019 it\u2026It \u2018is not\u2019 it and thus, contradicts itself in tautology\u2026this is the absolute impossibility that nonetheless is possible.\u00a0 All the notions of linguistics, the laws of physics, betray each other in singularity.\u00a0 Death is the unmoved mover, the impenetrable ground of being and thus, the history of light.<\/p>\n
The history of being is not tangled in the scaffolding of logic, of logos.\u00a0 It is a retreat from an absolute not, the absolute negation of Being\u2026In the beginning, before God and mortals, there was nothing\u2026the nothing that is my most intimate moment, kairos, the supreme moment of moments from which all in-between moments flow.\u00a0 The conundrum \u2013 this moment is death; it is nothing.\u00a0 The nothing of death is not some abstract notion of nothing but sunyata, aperion, the fertile void.\u00a0 It gives life from death, makes possible from impossible.\u00a0 As the absolute \u2018not\u2019 of Being, as thrown from nothing, suspended from the void, there \u2018is\u2019 (the there-is) antithesis.\u00a0 Antithesis is the history of Being, the tragic comedy of light\u2026the logic.\u00a0 Dasein is the aufhebung, the sublation, the synthesis of thesis – death and antithesis – Being.\u00a0 The absolute, irrevocable \u2018not\u2019, death, reverses the Hegelian direction from thesis to \u2018not\u2019 to lifting up to light.<\/p>\n
Death is the absolute \u2018not\u2019 of me.\u00a0 It is the end of my freedom.\u00a0\u00a0 Death negates me.\u00a0 Yet, death as the utmost possibility of Dasein that grounds Dasein and is the thrown nullity of Dasein is the antithesis that has become the thesis.\u00a0 The \u2018not\u2019 as the referent that \u2018is\u2019 the telos and arche is absolute.\u00a0 It is not preceded by Being and freedom.\u00a0 This would be a lapse into the transcendental metaphysics of Hegel\u2019s Logic.\u00a0 Freedom is made possible by jemeinigkeit, by Dasein\u2019s thrown nullity.\u00a0 Only a being-towards-death has the possibility for freedom.\u00a0 The awareness of death makes everydayness inauthentic.\u00a0 Without jemeinigkeit circumspection would not be rooted in sorge, Care, the temporalizing ecstasies of Dasein.\u00a0 Such a being would simply be immersed in the necessities of biological life until that being was no more.\u00a0 The history of light would not be possible for such a being.\u00a0 A being as this could only be thought in terms of \u2018subject to the laws of physics\u2019 from the circumspection of dasein.\u00a0 Logic as the logos of Plato could only be \u2018thought\u2019 to exist from the type of being that is Dasein.\u00a0 To suggest that the Forms exist or precede existence in a Kantian, categorical fashion for a being without jemeinigkeit is to take the step back into metaphysics.<\/p>\n
The reversal of Hegel\u2019s trifecta comes from the contradiction that is tautology, the nonsense of singularity, the moment of death that makes all other moments possible for dasein.\u00a0 The thesis as the absolute \u2018not\u2019 of death and the antithesis as Being are lifted up as dasein.\u00a0 The thesis is the antithesis and the antithesis is the thesis.\u00a0 The normalized characteristics of each are reversed. For Hegel the reversibility of thesis and antithesis maintains and preserves the positive and the negation as thesis and antithesis but does allow either to give rise to, have absolute dependence on, the other.\u00a0 The \u2018not master\u2019 is the slave and the \u2018not slave\u2019 is the master.\u00a0 Each negation already asserts what is negated. \u00a0\u00a0However, the formal placeholder of A -> not A = A AND not A is always maintained.\u00a0 The negation will always assume and posit what is to be negated.\u00a0 In the reversal A \u2018is\u2019 not A and not A \u2018is\u2019 A.\u00a0 The negation, death, does not posit an apriori, a concurrent, contemporaneous Being.\u00a0 To think death as the telos and arche of dasein that \u2018is\u2019 is a conundrum.\u00a0 Death is not an \u2018is\u2019.\u00a0 When death \u2018is\u2019 I am no more. \u00a0Death is the absolute denial of \u2018is\u2019. \u00a0The result of this reversal is the absolute rupture of dasein.\u00a0 It is the inability to ever be pure Spirit.\u00a0 It is what will never allow the system to be complete.\u00a0 It is the trace of the erasure that cannot be summed up or canonized.\u00a0 It is the narrative that must always essentially have counter narratives.\u00a0 The tangle of rhizome can never be straightened out and done away with.\u00a0 The will can never rise above the other as self-determination and self-limiting.\u00a0 This term of Error refuses, withdraws and conceals and forever denies absolute rest to absolute Spirit.\u00a0 An other step into this quagmire is posed by Levinas.<\/p>\n
Levinas notes the neutrality of death and the evocative of the face of the other and asks, in effect, why neutrality?\u00a0 Why \u2018it\u2019?\u00a0 Why give precedence, priority, the proper to the unmask-able circle of nothing and light.\u00a0 Why prefer the repression of the mysterium tremendum, the dreadful night of the soul, the \u2018it\u2019 that cannot die but must to the radical alterity of the face of the other?\u00a0 Why face the totality of eternal light from the abyss of death when the other faces us; the other that is not \u2018it\u2019, that does not stand in our logic and fall with our presence?\u00a0 What choice has history made for us?\u00a0 What violence are we willing to promulgate to cling to our light?\u00a0 As Nietzsche wrote of the waning freeze of the heroic Greek in logos, logic so light and \u2018its\u2019 logic freeze our dying cry of desperation.\u00a0 All the while the other stands before us as mother, father, friend, enemy.\u00a0 The other not as the hermetic seal of logic and neutrality but \u2018its\u2019 interruption.\u00a0 The other is the small still voice, the call that is not of my origin nor of my history but is not alien either.\u00a0 The caress that cajoles, evokes and washes over me from a time that is not my time.\u00a0 What if Levinas is correct?\u00a0 What if jemeinigkeit is the mould of the face of the other, the plastic cast that freezes our infantile narcissism while its cracks beckon us towards the face of the other?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
11\/5\/10 – Addition of paragraphs 3 and 4 —————————————————————————– Jemeinigkeit, Heidegger\u2019s notion of being-toward-death, is Dasein\u2019s (the \u2018there\u2019 of human being) utmost possibility.\u00a0 The possibility of the impossible is Dasein\u2019s own most.\u00a0 It cannot be outstripped.\u00a0 It holds open the possibility of Dasein\u2019s authenticity.\u00a0 Death is not a he or a she.\u00a0 Death is mine […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[103,238,124],"class_list":["post-862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-western-philosophy","tag-hegel","tag-heidegger","tag-levinas"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/862","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=862"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/862\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3894,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/862\/revisions\/3894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}