From: "Tudor Georgescu" <tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl>
Subject: RE: Back from Travels
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:56:46 +0100


> I never think about the tree life, just the road between the trees.
More
> clearly, I'm interested in potentiality. You wrote "On Potential" in
your
> site?

Well, it is just analysis of given ideas. I'm too young for the Big
Synthesis, though my personality as a thinker is defined. Heidegger
wrote Being and Time at about 38.

Meanwhile I do some Socratic destruction of the so-called certain
knowledge with e-mail. The fact that public does not like me it is the
best appreciation which it can offer me. See Introduction in
Metaphysics, paragraph 52.c.

> Okay I say so the move from potentiality to
> dynamics is a trintarian dialogue but how does it work, Tudor?

According to my master, energy, which is Tao, is the mediator between
potential and dynamics, energy having a potential side as well a dynamic
side. The governor of energies is commonly called Holy Ghost.

Personally, I'm the adept of four-foldness: to be, existence, becoming
and existences.

> Plato's good becomes being-in-the-world. I think that's
> what you said?

Heidegger interpreted Platonic Good as what enables. For example a road
enables one to travel. Since all existences were created with the
purpose of enabling each other, I draw the conclusion that which is
enabled is the existence of existences.

Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is]
good, save one, [that is], God." Since God is the to be, also known as
to exist, follows that to exist (in whichever form, potential or
dynamic) is the only good. What does it? It enables the existence of
existences.

> Value is hard to get a hold of

As far as I can see, Heidegger refuses the concept of value:

"Because we speak against 'humanism', exists the fear that we plead in
favor of in-human and that we bring an ode to barbarous brutality. For
what could be 'more logic' that to that that denies humanism rests only
affirmation of inhumanity?

"Because we speak against 'logic', exists the creed that we pretended
the renunciation to rigor of thinking, and that in its place was
instituted the arbitrary of instincts and feelings, proclaiming as the
only truth 'irrationalism'. For what is 'more logic' than the fact that
who speaks against logic pleads for illogic?

"Because we speak against 'values', they reject in horror a philosophy
that dares, they say, to leave prey to despise the most worth things of
humanity. For what is 'more logic' than the fact that a thinking that
denies values has, by force of things, to consider all worthless?

"Because we say that being of man consists of 'being-in-the-world', they
consider that man was descended from the rank of a being which belongs
only to world of 'this side', therefore the philosophy drowns in
positivism. For what is 'more logic' than to consider that he who
supports mundaneity of being man prices only 'this side', while he
denies existence of 'other side' and renounces to any 'transcendence'?

"For we send to Nietzsche's word regarding 'death of God', they
translate such a deed as atheism. For what is 'more logic' than the fact
that he who had the experience of 'death of God' is a man without God?

"For in all the above cases we speak against what humankind keeps as
great and holy, this philosophy preaches an irresponsible and
destructive 'nihilism'. For what is 'more logic' than the fact that he
who denies this way everywhere the real beings takes part of non-being
and, by this, preaches pure nothing as sense of reality?" -- Letter on
'Humanism'

We see that here Heidegger pleads for that tertium which according to
Aristotle, non datur. But it is obvious that Aristotle, while comparing
the two states, forgot that he is in the third state. I have a bath full
of cold water and a bath full of hot water. To know which is which I
need to be between the baths, with one hand in one and the other hand in
the other bath. I'm in the middle.

> the will is life otherwise it is death,

I think that will is capable of both Good and Evil, while it is neither
Good nor Evil. Will, when it is not desire, is our highest being and our
ultimate destiny.

New Age Thelema was expressed by Crowley: "do what thou wilt". Old Age
Thelesma was expressed by Hermes as discriminating the gross and the
subtle. Conscious choice as expressed by all major religion founders. I
do not see truth as an obstacle to will, but will as a path towards
truth.

Excess in nothing was the counterpart of know yourself.

To be is to become, to exist.

Jethro, Priest of On

 

Intellect Club mailgroup at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Intellect_Club


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Aristotelos
> Sent: Monday, January 28 2002 18:50
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Back from Travels
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tudor Georgescu" <tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl>
> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:56 PM
> Subject: RE: Back from Travels
> 
> 
> > > If one is seeking something then that means one does not have
> > something.
> >
> > You are searching for the tree of life. To put it in Heideggerian
terms:
> > if you do not know what a tree is, how would you recognize the tree?
> >
> 
> I never think about the tree life, just the road between the trees.
More
> clearly, I'm interested in potentiality. You wrote "On Potential" in
your
> site? The hard part is understanding the move from potentiality to
> dynamics
> or the birth of the Word in the understanding to put it in
neo-scholastic
> terms. In many of the classics of western religion the whole point is
to
> prepare a space for that birth and doing that is learning a language
with
> which and through a kind of listening call God's grace can reach us.
You
> move way too fast from potentiality to dynamics. Take a quote from
"What
> Is
> Freedom?" : "In a Christian language, the To Be is the Father, while
> Existence is the Son. The Holy Spirit is the energy, therefore that
form
> of
> existence that is able to move existence between the state of
potential
> and
> the state of dynamics..."  Okay I say so the move from potentiality to
> dynamics is a trintarian dialogue but how does it work, Tudor?
> 
> 
> > As for classicism, which is valuating what is still worth, I wonder
how
> > one that understood Heidegger still follows the lead of worthiness.
He
> > interpreted Plato's Good as what enables, what allows existing. No
moral
> > connotations other than "live and let live".
> >
> 
> He rethought Plato's transcendence that's in what I wrote to Rene with
> regards to GA26. Plato's good becomes being-in-the-world. I think
that's
> what you said?
> 
> > "But let us not forget this either: it is enough to create new names
and
> > estimations and probabilities in order to create in the long run new
> > "things."" - This is the opposite of Heidegger's thinking, which
wanted
> > to reach the reality behind names.
> >
> 
> Value is hard to get a hold of, I'm not sure what you are saying.
> Heidegger
> does think on how art works when he shows it to be the strife of world
and
> earth.
> 
> 
> > For me, will, be it my consciously manifest will or my hidden
intentions
> > which manifest despite it, is the only thing capable of giving
meaning
> > to a life which knows not the final meaning, for this meaning is not
> > possible to be formulated. God must have put it clear: I do not tell
you
> > which way to go, I can only say: this is a way that leads to life,
and
> > that way leads to death. This seems to me the core of the
Scriptures.
> > Yet, He nowhere said: this or that is the meaning of life.
> >
> 
> Okay, but your "this" and "that" are pointing nowhere. This and that
are
> ostensive indicators that can have pragmatic value if they do
something
> like
> clear away the will for the reception of divine gnosis, for example.
Using
> your words, then, the will is life otherwise it is death, dumb to the
Word
> of God. The classical focus is Plato's phaedrus where you have an
unruly
> horse and a good horse and knowing how to pull the reins on both of
them
> is
> knowing how to ride well and grow wings. There is so much in the
classics
> on
> this. Without this knowledge there is just no Christian language in
> operation.
> 
> Gulio
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---