3.1/§1)
Beyond Heidegger's Being-in-the-World
by Dr. Peter Meier actually
9Pp
with the ignition sequence
1Cd-3D>6/B5
and referring to the
philosophers with theirs, based on their
biographies,
Prof. Graham Harman
actually
3Oe:
1Em-2D>6/§3
Prof. Markus Gabriel
actually
9Cm:
1Cm-3D>2/H3
Martin Heidegger
actually
8Ke: 2Cm-0P>6/L3
 The
aim it to reframe "What
Heidegger Means by Being-in-the-World"
by Roy Hornsby, which in fact is about
philosophy at its wit's end with a mere
grasp of
pseudo-being. The required conceptual
frame cannot be F2-dealt with in
philosophical language, but must allow a
life-practical operational approach to
the actual being of
real humans and their systems towards
LifeFulfilling Platforms!
In short it is time to overcome the
inferiority of philosophy's Be-established
wordy boundary conditions
in §1-expressing
the >6 very best,
human being!
Abstracts
My main
interest is not just to raise the issue
of being in the world as Martin
Heidegger factually did in1962. I am
here to make sense
not just of what philosophy considers
the capacity to
make sense of things, but by
modeling the
personally relevant, innate relationship
truths of the being of real human beings
and their organized systems and
cultures. Additionally I do not just
wish to rekindle the notion of "being"
as forgotten by the Ancient Greeks!
Although what I introduce may seem
difficult to understand, this issue is
now of critical importance to
humanity surviving this century. The
prevailing knowledge work mislead by
philosophy is actually at its wits' end with its so far
cultivated OPTION
I think-systems!
OPTION II based on
the being of real humans needs to
become operationally available
for at least a
critical number of genuinely authentic
people in ways relevant to their
personal
lifefulfillment. And that
requires becoming life practical
beyond Heidegger's specific type of
human being, referred to by him as 'Dasein',
which literally just means 'Being-there'
(Solomon 1972). By using the expression
'Dasein', Heidegger called attention to
the claim that his kind of philosophical
object of a "human being" cannot be
accounted for, which is typically
just true under
philosophy's OPTION I, except as
being and existing in the middle of a
world amongst other things (Warnock
1970), and that Dasein is 'to be there',
and then, that 'there' is in the world,
as if we are all
of the world categorized by philosophy
excluding
OPTION II!
In this
content-free
generalization,
to be human is to be fixed, embedded and
immersed in the physical, literal,
tangible day to day world (Steiner
1978). Since that leads nowhere
desirable, the purpose of this
paper is to transcend Heidegger's 'Being-in-the-world'
to make
it personally relevant for life- through
task-fulfillment in, and beyond
OPTION I.
Actually what I propose here has already
been realized beyond the point where it
can just be honestly rejected. And by
the way, any philosophically minded
person who does reject OPTION II
and what it really entails, is simply
too complacent to face the issue of
personally
relevant existence in its
required depths sufficient for being
FIT421, 4 this decisive 21st
century. Such people even reject
the last hype in philosophy,
speculative realism, with
speculative nihilism thus being part
of philosophy's self-destructiveness.
My
approach here with my X=9Pp
being
fulfilling the F9-human
function of p-preparing
P-processes allowing to understand the basics of real human being reflects my
(1,3) think-system that
substantiates
serving#1
life- through task-fulfillment#3
with a C-creative
d-design modeling
being in
personally relevant ways#3.
And that beyond the context of the 12 possible
ideologies to be outlined with my
worked out innate
D-definition power. I
deserve to be taken serious to the degree I
qualify for my
D in
view of what is innately
>6 very
good in terms of
B5-life.
And what else can that be than the
impact of human beings fulfilling
their personal lives in relevant ways to
their X.
On the
other hand,
Prof. Graham Harman insists on his
concept of object-oriented ontology.
The larger grouping of philosophers
standing behind
Speculative Realism, include
Graham Harman,
Iain Hamilton Grant,
Quentin Meillassoux and
Ray Brassier. Personally speaking
Harman's philosophy is congruent with
his personal
(1,2) ideology of
serving#1
with object-orientation, and despite denying
any X-substance,
he talks it to being also relevant to
master#2
one's inner life.
The term "object-oriented
ontology" (OOO), is in fact a
non-qualified category error.
It was officially coined by Graham
Harman's D-definition power as a
philosophy professor, to become the OOOO-movement's
founder, based on his 1999 doctoral
dissertation "Tool-Being: Elements in
a Theory of Objects." It suggests
being of service#1
in the futile endeavor to Em-master
the E-evolution based on
just that of philosophy with its hypes
shaping history by expressing its trends. Since then, a number of theorists
working in a variety of disciplines have
adapted Harman's ideas, including
philosophy professor
Levi Bryant, literature and ecology
scholar
Timothy Morton, video game designer
Ian Bogost, and medievalists Jeffrey
Jerome Cohen and Eileen Joy. And that is
supposed to be so
>6 very good under OPTION
I, that Harman got his university
professorship with
personally-neutral#2 D-definition
power - until the next hype...
This
pre-trans- traping metaphysical
movement, in fact, is, as we shall see,
a cargo cult
science,
it rejects the privileging of human
existence over the existence of nonhuman
objects based on category errors. It is often viewed as a
subset of speculative realism, a
contemporary school of thought that
criticizes the post-Kantian reduction
of philosophical enquiry to a
correlation between thought and being,
such that the reality of anything
outside of this correlation is
unknowable thus throwing out the
baby with the bathwater to get
attention.
Contrary to the
zeitgeist flow#0>#2>#1>#0...,
Harman's
object-oriented#2>#1
ontology predates the so-called
speculative#0
realism. It makes distinct claims
about the nature and equality of
object relations to which not all
speculative realists agree. So in
reframing Heidegger's publicized#2
C-creative
onset to
m-master his "objective" "being"
so it can be dealt with under OPTION I,
I have to cut through what Heidegger,
with his virtual#0
P-position power about this
topic, and what Prof. Harman has set in
psycho-political
motion of diminishing the
meaning of real
human being to the level of
objects. In Heidegger's time that
led to sympathy with Adolf Hitler's
(2,1) ideology, then in tune with the
zeitgeist,
the philosophers
pseudo-substance! And now in our
time it makes
neuroscience challenging
traditional
philosophy as the basis and lead
science for
dealing with
what humans are supposed to be in a
position to know - to leave OPTION I
unchallenged...
In this
evil spirit[1] Martin Luther,
according to his theology professor,
did not need to have seen a bible to get
his theological doctorate - obviously
this nonsense did not prevent
Luther
from challenging the Vatican's dogmas
- quite the opposite. Thus philosophy
when in fact it means evil according to the
"black artist" Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe evokes
what is good - for OPTION I. It
is time to overcome this kind of
truly black art before the point of
NO return from what it evokes in weak
spirits such as in the past it has done
in Karl Marx, Alois Schickelgruber &
Co...
Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek und Graham
Harman admit: "In the face of the
ecological crisis, the forward march of
neuroscience, the increasingly
splintered interpretations of basic
physics, and the ongoing breach of
the divide between human and machine,
there is a growing sense that
previous philosophies are incapable of
confronting these events"... but
philosophers
united in denying any
actuality
they cannot criticize to their own
impotence, still turn a blind eye to what I
outline here...
Therefore
Prof.
Markus Gabriel to actually be on a
position to perform with his
X=9Cm,
F9-basics
of Cm-multiplying
C-communication in philosophy, he
declared himself and everybody else a
bundle of illusions. However, his,
like everybody else's "bundle", has an
ignition sequence based on his X-being
whether he denies it or not; he switches
his bundle on with1Cm:
3D>2/H3, in his words, serving#1
his socially other-determined duty in
C-creatively
m-mastering
the game with pluralism in realism
with his
personally relevant#3 D-definition
power. He qualifies
himself with what he calls "philosophical
terrorism" against what he considers
>2
bad, naturalism, to create platforms for
better ideas to deal with
H3-reality
as his fulfillment
- for which a "bundle" is a
pretty inadequate description, but
seemingly necessary to not being
considered "poisonous" among his circle
of philosophers, with his terrorism
already at their outskirts where
pre-trans- traping
mobbing sets in. And so his does not
care to become immortal in such circles
to rather go on
living in his flat...
[1]
Ontological, merely object oriented
considerations without metaphysical
actuality aiming at speculative realism
evoked with the principle of radical
contingency is of evil spirit in
the sense that it denigrates
lifefulfilling qualities with category
errors, non-sequiturs and denotational
fetishism and recoding once existentially
useful words! That is confusing life
fulfillment, say with "apple" as
something that makes
you godlike when you eat it. On the
other hand ideologies are making mentally murdering
God
as the Creator of it all politically
correct, in the sense of
Nietzsche and those who implemented it
like Karl Marx, Wladimir Iljitsch Lenin, Josef Wissarionowitsch
Stalin, Alois
Schickelgruber alias Adolf Hitler, Mao
and the Kim, 9/11 and other mafia and
bankster as
"masters of the universe#1",
clans &
Co. With them the
zeitgeist
evolution evokes
thinking-catastrophes with illogical
terrorism towards the know human
catastrophes;
the proper word for all of thie OPTION I
outcome which stems from
philosophy
claiming authority how
hypes
effect people, is "evilness"
to be overcome
with OPTION II!
Context
|
