TIDE TO FOCUS ON THE HEIDEGGERIAN RETURN

 

Heideggerian Eternal Return

NOTE: In the Xotinx we translate Heidegger’s “Sein” not as “Being” but “To-Be” or “ToBe”

#RUNE der (E-Hod) #Jera (Eternal Return) Anyone who wants to understand the Xotinx, must have an understanding of #Heidegger. Much of the POV of the Xotinx is formulated thru a kind of “Heideggerian Eternal Return”. Western Occultism may call this Eternal Return, RITUAL MAGIC.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” ― George #Orwell, 1984.

Understanding Heidegger’s Nietzche’s ETERNAL RETURN (der & dor #Jera) is like grasping Water. We can not understand Water until we become Water. We can not understand ‘Eternal Return’ until we become the Eternal Return. This can become possible thru the Xotinx in the Realization of No-Thing-ness (der & dor #Berkano). The usual Hod (state of consciousness) that we understand Eternal Return is in the Æ-Hod (dær #Æhwaz). This is the State of consciousness we would call the Intellectual, Scholarly, Logic etc. It is a calculative Hod that projects into ‘Reality’ Time & Space. This Æ-Hod tries to comprehend Eternal Return in Time & Space but it’s Understanding of Eternal Return is an Ossification of No-Thing-ness. Only when we move into an E-Hod (der or dor #Ehwaz) or the O-Hod (der or dor #Othala) can we begin to appreciate the Eternal Return. –Tiwaz

To understand the Runes, for example we have to understand the NOW (present). This is done thru a Heideggerian NOW, as unveiled (#Aletheia) explored in “Sein und Zeit” (Being and Time) thru a methodology Heidegger calls “Hermeneutics” . We will simply call this HEIDEGGERIAN ETERNAL RETURN. When we use Heideggerian Eternal Return to understand the Runes in this NOW we can understand the Runes of the past-future. This understanding of the past-future, thru the “Heideggerian Eternal Return”, gives us a deeper understand of the Runes in the NOW. This deeper understanding of the NOW, in turn, thru the “Heideggerian Eternal Return”, gives us a deeper understanding of the past-future, etc. until we finally consciously fall into a kind of #Nietzsche ian Abyss unveiling “Open-To-Be” (Enlightenment, Buddha-hood, Godhood, O-Hod).

“Open-To-Be” is not a linear THING with a past-present-future. It is in the NOW revealed thru the “Heideggerian Eternal Return”. Past-present-future are TIME & SPACE projections of Open-To-Be thru the Eternal Return, that ossifies thru projection into Time & Space as  THINGS. Science deals with THINGS and can not understand “Open-To-Be” because there is NO-THING to understand. All THINGS, all thoughts, emotions, physicality must fall away before “Open-To-Be” can fully reveal itself as Enlightenment, Buddha-hood, Godhood, O-Hod, XOT-HOD.

To get a handle on Heidegger, it’s best to start with the source book, BEING IN TIME by Heidegger. If you can read Deutsch it’s even better to read the original SEIN UND ZEIT  by Heidegger. A very helpful book that will give you a handle of what “Sein und Zeit” is saying is – Commentary on Heidegger’s Being And Time : Michael Gelven.

https://archive.org/details/CommentaryOnHeideggersBeingAndTime

 

NOTES:

BEING & TIME

III.INTRODUCTION

Martin Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit first appeared in German in 1927; the English translation, Being and Time, appeared in 1962.1 Since the appearance of this work, the reputation and influence of its author has spread to such international dimensions that it may be said that Heidegger is the most important and widely influential philosopher of the twentieth century. Even now, as the century enters its final decade, no thinker is more significant in terms of intellectual impact and controversy. There are many who deeply resent his works, who detest his personal association with Nazism in 1933, who defy his most fundamental principles. But even among these, his most ardent enemies, he is recognized as the singular dominating force with which to be reckoned. Among his countless admirers he is considered the greatest European philosopher since Immanuel Kant. Interest in this Freiburg philosopher is in no way waning; indeed the future seems to promise ever expanding respect, and in some cases even reverence, for his vast accomplishments. Although Heidegger has written voluminously since 1927, there remains little doubt that Being and Time will continue to be recognized as his major work, and shall be for many decades to come.

1Being and Time, trans. John Mcquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1962). http://www.tiwaz.com/blog_xoting/rr22-ingwaz/heidegger/gelvens-commentary-on-heideggers-being-and-time-annotated/

 

Open-To-Be

Othala-Tiwaz-Berkano

Aletheia

(Ancient Greek: ἀλήθεια)
Main article: Aletheia

Heidegger’s idea of aletheia, or disclosure (Erschlossenheit), was an attempt to make sense of how things in the world appear to human beings as part of an opening in intelligibility, as “unclosedness” or “unconcealedness”. It is closely related to the notion of world disclosure, the way in which things get their sense as part of a holistically structured, pre-interpreted background of meaning. Initially, Heidegger wanted aletheia to stand for a re-interpreted definition of truth. However, he later corrected the association of aletheia with truth. See main article on aletheia for more information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology

 

http://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm

 

ETERNAL RETURN

In Bk 3 part Two of ‘Nietzsche’ Heidegger says:

“Reckoned chronologically, Nietzsche pursued the thought of the eternal return of the same before he conceived of the will to power, even though intimations of the latter may be found every bit as early…Nietzsche himself was never able to explicitly think through its [eternal return of the same] with will to power as such, nor elevate it into a metaphysical conception. The reason for this is not that the thought remained in any way obscure to him, but that like all meta physicians prior to him, Nietzsche was unable to find his way back to the fundamental traits of the guiding metaphysical projection. For the general traits of the metaphysical projection of beings upon being ness, and thereby the representation of beings as such in the domain of presence and permanence, can be known only when we come to experience that projection as historically cast.” (p. 164)

‘Recurrence’ understood as a principle in a metaphysics of becoming is the permanentizing of what becomes: it is the point where becoming of what becomes (eg., an entity) is secured in the duration of its becoming.

The ‘eternal’ is the point where the permanentizing of such constancy in the direction of its circling back into itself and forward toward itself. What becomes is the same itself.

That’s the metaphysics.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at November 18, 2004 10:52 PM | TrackBack http://sauer-thompson.com/conversations/archives/002545.html

 

HEIDEGGERIAN

Heidegger’s fame and reputation have developed to such an extent that he is now recognized as the single most important thinker in the twentieth century. The labels of twenty years ago have, thankfully, fallen away, and Heidegger is seen as a figure of such stature that there is no adequate label to designate him except his own name. The far-reaching impact of his thought promises to extend well into the future.

— GELVEN ‘s “Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time” (pp Xi) http://www.amazon.com/A-Commentary-Heideggers-Being-Time/dp/0875805442/

 

Hermeneutics http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/b_resources/b_and_t_glossary.html

Hermeneutics = the science of interpretation

Heidegger asserts that a phenomena can be grasped in and for themselves in immediate perception. The function of language (logos) is to reveal what phenomena show. However language has a different Being from the phenomena it describes, so the danger is that language will only a ‘appear’ to tell us what the phenomena is. In other words, the inherent danger of describing phenomena in language is that the Being of language (because it is different from the Being of phenomena) can effectively a cover up the being of phenomena.

Therefore, in order to sort out the covering up of language from the truth of language, we need a method of interrogating language which is both systematic and reflexive enough to hopefully alert us to any potential covering ups. This method is what Heidegger calls, “hermeneutics,” or the business of interpretation. As Heidegger asserts – our investigation will show that the meaning of phenomenological description, as a method, lies in interpretation. It is therefore through hermeneutics, as a systematising approach to interpreting, that the authentic meaning of Being can be articulated. Language, in the form of words (logos), when it represents the phenomenology of Dasein, always has the character of hermeneutics. [ref. ¶7, page 61 – 62] There are three points about this to bear in mind.

  • The phenomenology of Dasein is a hermeneutic in the a primordial signification of the word. That is, in the sense that hermeneutics can be defined simply and most primordially as the business of interpreting (although see point 3 for more clarification).
  • Because of the priority of Dasein over other entities for working out the question of Being, it follows that, through the hermeneutics of Dasein, the horizon for any further a ontological study will be revealed.
  • The ontical condition for the possibility of historiology contains the roots of what can be called ‘hermeneutic’ only in its vaguest sense. When we think about this in the context of the derivative sense of the methodology of those human sciences which are historiological in character, it becomes clear that unless we can articulate a hermeneutic of Dasein’s historicity in an ontological way, it is not a true hermaneutic. This reiterates the point that Hermeneutics when applied to Dasein does not mean interpretation, in the sense that the two terms are precisely synonymous, but rather that Hermeneutics should be consideres as a “science of interpretation” in that it systematises the interpretation using a conscious method. [ref. ¶7, page 61 – 62]

 

NOTHING

This inquiry into Nothing presupposes a thinking capable of grasping “Being in its own truth and truth as “aletheia” and of reestablishing the relation between man and Being. This is what Heidegger calls substantial thinking (das wesentliche Denken). (14) Thus, inquiry into Nothing leads thinking beyond metaphysics and by attempting to reestablish the relation between man and Being is expected to change “the essence of man”. (15) http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContIyi.htm

 

THINGS

Entities http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/b_resources/b_and_t_glossary.html

The term entities is used strategically throughout Being and Time, so that Heidegger can avoid talking about “things”. This is because the term “things” already presupposes an understanding of their existence, which Heidegger thinks is false and seeks to contest. As he points out, we are on dangerous ground even by addressing entities as ‘Things’, for in doing so we have “tacitly anticipated their ontological character”. This was, in a nutshell, the mistake of Descartes and his forebears. Heidegger argues if you talk about the world in terms of things, the only “thing” you are ever going to uncover is the totally erroneous conception of the “Thinghood and Reality.” [ref. ¶ 15, page 95]

ToBe

In the Xotinx we translate “Sein” not as Being but “To-Be” or “ToBe”

Being http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/b_resources/b_and_t_glossary.html

Since the whole of Being and Time is an attempt to answer the question, “What is Being?”, it would be a little presumptions of me to attempt a summary here. However, there are three preliminary remarks that can be extracted from the ontological tradition in philosophy, that will help us initially to clarify the question:

1/ “Being is not a genus”.
It has been maintained that Being is the most universal of concepts, thus an understanding of Being is presupposed in our conceiving of anything as an entity. Being transcends any categorical distinction we care to make in our apprehension of the world. It does this by existing above and beyond any notion of a category that we can form in our understanding.

2/ Being is indefinable.
The term entity cannot be applied to Being because it cannot be defined using traditional logic, (i.e. a technique for understanding which derives its terms either from higher general concepts, or by recourse to ones of lower generality). In other words, because Being is neither a thing nor a genus it follows that it cannot be defined according to logic, whose job is to set out the rules that govern the categorisation of phenomena and concepts.

3/ Being is self-evident
Whenever one thinks about anything, or makes an assertion, or even asks a question; some use is made of Being. But the intelligibility of Being, in this sense, is only an average sort of intelligibility (common sense understanding). This average intelligibility is also indicative of its scholarly unintelligibility, i.e., the way that the question: “what is Being?”, is often ignored in philosophical investigations. [ref. ¶ 1, page 22 – 23]

Subsequently Heidegger elaborated a more considered conceptualising of Being into five characteristics:

1/ Dasein is a Being who understands that it exists, and what is more the Being of Dasein is, in part, shaped by that understanding.

2/ The above statement can be seen to serves as a working definition of the formal conception of existence,

3/ Dasein exists and moreover Dasein and existence are one. For example if Dasein is ‘the human Being’ and existence is ‘the world,’ then Dasein and the world are one. The consequence of this is that Dasein and existence cannot be separated – even analytically separated.

4/ Dasein is also an entity which I myself am. In other words each one of us (as human Beings) defines existence in terms of our own existence, a concept that Heidegger terms Mineness. Therefore the only way that Being can be understood is as My Being.’ This applies even when Being and Dasein are considered in general.

5/ Mineness belongs to any existent Dasein, in the sense that how I regard ‘my Being’, creates the conditions that make authenticity and inauthenticity possible. [ref. ¶ 12, page 78]

 

 

 

« »