It is assumed that “answers” yield certainty. “Certainty” is the valuatory product which confirms the apodictic nature of an answer. This `product’ is esteemed as a “good” and is hierarchically placed over and against the “lesser” products of speculation. In other words, the product of assumed certainty is always relative to the devalued posit of the less desirable determinations therewith concomitant. This placement is achieved, and is thereafter rationalized as “good”, via appeal to the very same paradigm of dualistic valuatory opposition upon which the meta-narrative rests. The good’s certainty is therefore derived via tautological hermeneutic fallacy. For the post-Socratic mind, the `question’ of the possibility of “good” is already presupposed as cogent via appeal to the bias of the language-game utilized to state the proposition. It matters not in the least as to whether the basis for conjecture resides with Aristotle, the Church, Kant, Derrida, a Gospel, or a political party, at bottom the quest for a stasis-of-answers speaks to the macro-epistemic influences that are determinant for the meta-epistemic epoch. During the metaphysical period, thinking always already assumes the veracity of the concepts it uses. Fixed declarations are deemed authoritatively “true” and are presuppositionally assumed to reflect the `good’. The “true” and “good” are never questioned from outside the circle of the dominant language-game. The “good” stands in its authority via assumptive appeal to previous declarations-of-authority; all of which reside under the aegis of the metanarrative of the Age. As such, the hermeneutic circle advances as a closed-dynamic, adverse to anything progressive. In this, it is not as though what has withdrawn lays hidden in a field, merely awaiting the initiative of excavation. Rather, the tools required for any such search, for any such digging, have been rendered forgotten. In effect, the high-values promoted as such yield the complete inversion of their import. Hence, the true spirit of nihilism advances as the zeitgeist of the Age. The “good” is deemed `better’, this by associative and disjunctive rule. It is precisely because this process affixes epistemic exclusion to what is `other’, i.e., to beings or anything that is in alterity to the One as such resides in dualistic posit relative to the answer’s (α-πάντησ/η) privileged hold, that thinking’s lack advents: thinking becomes privatively closed to its originary ontological dimension during the period of metaphysical closure; as the `other’ is deemed worthless by virtue of the exclusionary axiom in use, and is rendered precluded from further address apriori. In other words: if `A’ is understood as “good”, and one assumes certainty to this premise, then the `other’ (B as “worse” or “bad”) is devalued via the exclusionary rule which grounds the premise of `A’s’ valuation. In this, the epistemic exclusionary rule of history reflects a fundamental delimiting of the ontological realm; a delimiting of an original ontological space of τε αυτός. This mode of hierarchically delimiting `one’ from the `other’ advances through common cultural narratives-of-fear.24 In effect, the need for “certainty” creates the pathology-of-duality that grounds thinking’s cognitive dissonance and the mind’s inability to see how what is different is connected as `the same’. --FOOTNOTE-- 24. This fear is multifaceted. It is the fear of the unknown, alternatives, of confusion, the mysterious, of what could potentially threaten `w’ if `x’, `y’, or `z’ were to be granted access as admissible via their desirability (and thus via their ascribed sense of value vis-à-vis other valued postulates). In short, the exclusionary principle which founds and grounds man’s valuatory dynamic is based upon a fear of difference, the `other’, and anything which might usurp or threaten an established dynamic of power and the processes put in place for said power’s increase and preservation. Insofar as man has feared chaos, indecision, disorder, and relativism, said fear serves as the engine to exclude the ambiguities inherent to a realm of mystery and awe. In sum: the history of philosophy—the quest for wisdom—has been a process of excluding that which is needed for procuring wisdom: the awe of mystery and the unknown has been jettisoned during the metaphysical Age. In this, the path towards wisdom is walled off via the imprinted dissonance any such foray advances for thinking. The irony of ironies is that by suppressing this `other’ in favor of a simulacrum of the `one’, the malformation of consciousness inevitably leads to the event of projected reaction. Nihilism thus becomes overt, the anxiety now becomes palpable to philosopher and non-philosopher alike, and the feel-good narcotic of belief-in-faith ascends as the period’s mantra-of-power. (More Dangerous than Any Antecedent (c) Deno Canellos 2011; (P) Metaunstable/ArtifexAstrum 2012)
Posted on: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 06:06:53 +0000