Nihilism, wherein the highest values devalue themselves (but are not recognized as doing so), occurs precisely because the answered dictum of valuatory `address’ closes thinking from questioning the mode-of-being endemic to hierarchical valuatory behavior. The incoherent inexplicability of history, i.e., of metaphysics, finds ground in closing thinking from the question’s ontological priority. The `world, and all beings therein, are traditionally assumed to be settled as objective relations. This settling manifests via the epochs mandate-of-reason; doing so apriori. Such a delimiting, and the stasis it induces, is necessary insofar as to allow otherwise, and to thereby allow breach into the question’s potential for infinity, subjects the stability of metaphysical values—its hierarchically placed relations of vertical delimitation—into issue and question. Values, all of which are assumed foundational in thinkings meta-epistemic quest for certainty, come under suspicion whenever their validity is opened to the priority-of-question. As thinking opens into the region of the Question’s ontological priority, epistemic revelations show how the “good” and “right” reflect nothing but imposed renditions of period-specific contingencies, always intertwined with their dualistic opposites; and how any such truth is codified via will-to-power. All of this leads to the overt manifestation of realized nihilism qua an absence of meaning; this as the stable values used to anchor meaning come under disrepute—all “truths” become hollow and shake in their authority once the stasis of rigidity assumed inherently inviolate exhibits variability and begins shifting under the weight of the antifoundational turn. It is in the thinking of Nietzsche that the incoherent ground of metaphysics (and its quest of seeking the delimitation of the other i.e., of infinity, qua the will-to-truth), first comes to light as a farce. With Nietzsche, the irrational comes forth as an underlying foundation and signals the relevance of the will-to-power as the engine which grounds the dominant metaphysical paradigm. If truth reflects the edicts of the dominant paradigm [one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter], and only holds sway by way of how subjectivity is constructed within society, then truth during the metaphysical epoch is capriciously arbitrary in constitution. Truth, as heretofore constructed, is nothing but a projection of will-to-power. Though now difficult to fully grasp how thinking accepted the incoherently inexplicable as explicably coherent, we understand that the dilemma finds root in the essentialism inherent to seeking `the primary’ as a thing-in-itself (εἶδος as essence, Absolute, noumena, etc.). Though separated from the ancients and their flight into order, what is clear is how the underlying metaphysical dynamic seeks to evade `becoming’. In order to dispel that which is transient, metaphysics affixes the order of objective `being’ upon `becoming’, thus rendering what is inexplicable (e.g., the prethematic experience of φύση-as-process) deceptively “real” as objectively present. From such a position, beings take on extant qualities as forms of ontic representations and can be subjected to correspondence theories of truth. By extension, Being becomes defined as God and is devalued into a being; the present participle of some Absolute He. We may go as far as to say that the realm from which thinking moves, and which reflects a Nietzschean eternal recurrence of the same as a continual recontextualization of the incoherently inexplicable as a teleological trek of falsely constructed coherency (i.e., as Nietzsches world-of-fable), is the realm of fixed surety (though, of course, this surety is a false certainty only when seen from outside the delusional construct of metaphysics, always appearing stable and secure when seen from within the oblivion metaphysics generates). By extension, the region into which thinking now advances (in its reappropriation of the originary) reflects the opening dynamic of mystery, question, and the process of becoming. The question must ontological precede the supposed satiety answers are presumed to provide. The proposition that `ontologically the question proceeds the answer’ announces the advent and disclosure of thinking’s breach into the post-metaphysical epoch. This transition adherers to an ethic which supports the potential infinity of both the `one’ and the `other’ (with the `other’ supplementing finitude as such is circumscribed by existence in its alterity therewith). The ontological priority of the question is more than merely an epistemic or linguistic devise. Such plays out as a transitional mantra of sorts; this to the extent we understand the ontological dimension to which it harkens. It is imperative to remain cognizant of how the eternal recurrence of the same reconstitutes the will-to-truth in the underlying valuatory designs inherent to the metaphysical period. By remaining focused on how metaphysical suppositions bespeak the apperceptive priorities that grant privileged access to answers (and their delimiting authority to estrange), thinking begins to throw off the false premises of the metaphysical Age. With this movement, thinking opens into the region of the originary question: `What is to be done? (A Single Star in Sight: Post-Metaphysical Transition (c) 2011 (P) 2012 Deno Canellos; Beyond the capacity, ArtifexAstrum (10°=1□))
Posted on: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 05:25:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015