3.3/§3) A typical way of pretentious philosophy

It is philosophy's lacking §3-inetrgrity to any substance that has disallowed it to created any F3-truly desirable perspectives! It is its Bm-mutiplied discipline which rather evolves like a >2 bad coffins in its wordy forms of denotations. They allow  manipulating them in the evil triangle of temple-palace-subdued people. Actually philosophy concerns itself in the non-substantial categories of the mind and competes among itself in filling it with their spin in the service of OPTION I in some circle - thus some 84% of what philosophers publish is not even their own genuine opinion, it is rather being opportunistic to rise under OPTION I in fame...

So let us focus on the now required timely exchange of project-oriented competence to get FIT421, 4 this decisive 21st century:  

Heidegger was concerned that philosophy would not be capable of telling us the meaning of being, of the where and what - and that as a threat to the claimed universality of philosophy rather out of concern for his true being. And so he reduced being to what philosophy can handle, that which he called "Dasein", being here. With his personal (2,0) ideology Heidegger was publically grounded in the humanities#2 and reducing being in terms of the zeitgeist, pretending he was referring to an original ways of expressions#0 of the being. In his age of the nationalistic mainstream when being just withered away his point of view seemed reactionary. But since philosophy's think-systems are based on wordy denotations while living being is individual, philosophers cannot really afford to understand what being really is and can only impose a personally-neutral meaning of being, e.g. voice the more or less mass-attractive opinions, myths and dogmas embedded in the permanently self-destructive zeitgeist which philosophy claims to lead. Too often in history the lead, even at the abyss, moves the zeitgeist a step further!

As mentioned above, out of the 12 ideologies, 9 are non-essential in terms of OPTION I philosophy. They might be necessary, but only the other 3 ideologies (s,3), s among [0,2,1]  aim at the personally-relevant#3 being as what is essential, for each of us as the innermost self, and which requires sufficient understanding to make sense of it, to fulfill it by making desirable usage of OPTION I rather than succumbing under it, what it has so far produced as ways of expression, social structures and technology. Ignoring this point of setting purpose and means straight, Heidegger postulated simply the trivial necessary, but not the sufficient, that the world 'is', and that this fact is naturally the primordial phenomenon and the basis of all, if that is all, substance less ontological inquiry.

For Heidegger the reality world is here, now and everywhere around us. Based on appearance we are totally immersed in it, and after all, he asks rhetorically, how could we be anywhere 'else'? Husserl had previously spoken of a 'Lebenswelt', a life-world, to stress the solidness of the human encapsulation within reality, but Heidegger's 'grounding' was more complete - in fact a subtle analogy to the psychology-centered projected encapsulation of humans under OPTION I! Heidegger articulated this entrenchment with the composite, "In-der-Welt-sein", 'Being-in-the-world', a 'to-be-in-the-world', according to Steiner 1978. Thus for Heidegger, lacking any other understanding, "Dasein" becomes an entity which, in its very Being, comports itself towards that Being - a self-fulfilling prophecy! And further, "Dasein" exists; furthermore, Dasein is an entity which in each case he though he himself is. Mineness belongs to any existent Dasein, and belongs to it as the condition which makes authenticity and more important for most philosophers in their denying substance , inauthenticity possible. 

All this rather meaningless arguing is precisely a matter of denotational object orientate philosophy which just leaves people opinionating about what should not be understood under OPTION I, OPTION II! Thus Heidegger stresses that Dasein may exist in either one of two modes, authenticity or inauthenticity, and that it is modally undistinguished. Instead of what one can be authentic to, one's real being, Dasein's character should be understood a-priori as being 'grounded' in the state of Being that he called 'Being-in-the-world' (Heidegger 1962). And that claim's consequences of the exclusivity of OPTION I is beyond the scope of philosophy and so it has ever tried to side-track from it to wash its invisible hands in innocence!

To cope with such subtle evocations of OPTION I requires more then 'Being-in-the-world', to solve its problem more than such thinking catastrophes that lead into it and simply considering it, meaning OPTION I, like Heidegger suggested, as a unitary phenomenon that needs to be seen as an exclusive whole and simply calling for an awareness that its expression has to have several components to its structure. There is indeed a duty to examine not just the ontological structure of the 'world' to define its 'in-the-world-ness', but to transcend it with OPTION II before its otherwise point of NO return, which among others the Nazis, hocked on philosophical bits and pieces such as from Nietzsche et. al., missed after Stalingrad.

Also, the identity of the 'Who' that is within the mode of Dasein's average everydayness needs to be sought out, and, the ontological establishment of 'Being-in' needs to be proposed (Heidegger 1962) making philosophy the prime imposer of allowed politically correct identity based on it own evolution of zeitgeist speak. And again, just being able to denotationally refer to the reality of the world with word and borrow from hard science and its speculative realism, philosophy is impotent to fulfill its claims beyond stating them in personally non-committing ways as is established practice#2 in philosophy.

Heidegger was concerned with Dasein's distinctive method of being-in, which is at variance with the manner in which one object can be in another (Dreyfus 1991). In fact this statement is a reflection of the basic category error philosophy is suffering from in pretending it's think-systems can do justice to being when in fact they talk about being under their OPTION I! It has resulted in its capacity to spread thinking-catastrophes which have evoked the know human catastrophes not just in its Marxism which gave rise to Fascism, Maoism and admittedly, even since its onset, to Islamic Fundamentalism and so on. To then claim philosophy was needed by Einstein to come up with his relativity is ridiculous considering that Einstein basically required the Lorentz Transformation from Lorenz, a mathematicians – a think-systems outside the scope of philosophers which make such claim to ride on the fame of physics in a cargo cult science manner. What is necessary for life is not such mental pornography, but love based on understanding what live is really about; personally relevant fulfillment since life is living an individual path that only in truth lead to its fulfillment and not a philosophical object just to be tagged with fancy words, which everybody, above all the philosophical spin doctors can override in their meaning with their opinions stemming from sublimating OPTION II. It is not a matter of just arguing about it's being under OPTION I, but to make its fulfillment operational towards LifeFulfilling Platforms. In fact I have never met a philosopher or someone with a philosophically framed mental operating system who could answer the most important question: "Who are you?" in any personally relevant way beyond personally neutral cultural coordinates. Yet such people get away with projecting they are the expert about the question of being. In fact they just hide their impotence and nonsense behind words such like "ontology" and let people pay for their ivory towers in which they plot how to deny people substance to make it easier to suck them under OPTION I for which they are the scribes...

You cannot do justice to "being" with denotational words; to start with, because it is something individual. Some 5000 year ago the author of the Chinese I GING had the insight to try doing justice to the individual aspect of being with 64 Kuas, hexagrams consisting of six YIN (memory) and YANG (program) lines, the lower three lines for subjective input, inner state and output, and the upper 3 lines for the same, but the objective basic processes of input, production, delivery or removal of waste. Jesus Christ defines himself as the path, that in truth leads to lifefulfillment thus opening up minds for considering being as open-ended generative principle (oegp) as introduced above. Real human beings are not like an atom in a molecule, not an object in an bigger one, not "humans" as defined by philosophy to maintain OPTION I on top of them, but each a principle of life- through task-fulfillment to transcend OPTION I before its self-destruction!  The resulting model about which this paper is a report, is life-practically operational and has been sufficiently tested among others in German mother-child clinic in terms of the psycho-somatic interface it models a long what I call the ethical mental spine in correspondence with the physical spine to which it is the interface. Unlike a cook recipe or a formula of physics, the application of science#3 requires a real human being in his or her capacity to understand and apply relationship truth in specific scenarios real human minds can work in. In short, consciously transcending the story telling, the metaphor and the ego-taboos, OPTION I science prescribes to conserve its closed think-systems of which only mathematics is open-ended, though not personally relevant as required to model human systems. Philosophy just tells the story of the opinions of philosophers, uses non-sequitur metaphors to open up Pandora's box of as many possible interpretation as required to get famous at the leading edge of the zeitgeist – the hidden agenda for a pay-odd to sublimate one's own OPTION II and suppress that of as many people as necessary to get mass-attractive up to Nietzsche: "God is dead!", God: "Nietzsche is dead!"...

Context