No, Heidegger!

The Demolishing (‘Clearing’) of Heidegger (All Paths Lead to Tyranny, O’ Royal Regia) (Notes):

‘There is’ a ‘worthless’ furnishing of (to ‘me’) ‘incorrect’ motifs prevailing ‘in this work’, the following is a ‘scholarly format’ of H’s comments and their disastrous implications (& already inherent):

Lecture 1: ‘‘Spirit and substance of the original’’(Introduction), ‘‘essential being as the keeper who holds us in our essential being’’, ‘‘in themselves, intrinsically, innately’’, ‘‘unbroken chain of hollow assertions’’[why unbroken, why sequential causality of thought/memory?], ‘‘appearance and that which has its essence in the appearance’’, ‘‘original nature’’, ‘‘the God’s withdrawal’’ [which ‘God’ since God’s has apostrophe before the s, instead of ‘the Gods’’], ‘‘source’’[where? Presumed?], ‘‘the leap’’[German idealist/Nietzschean nonsense, ‘and then ‘we’ will find ‘it’, oh object of our memoria...’], ‘‘cabinetmakers apprentice’’ (allusions to Jesus figure as carpetmaker).

Lecture 2: Constant theory about ‘inhabited space’, residence, ‘‘to reach a more open territory’’, ‘‘realm of the essence of technology’’(so ideas can have a constituted, vaguely delineated ‘realm’ hey H, for H’s inclined purposes, not exactly ‘objectively definable’): easy (& valid, not just for H) linkages with Lebensraum, Mitteleuropa, ‘modern Orphism’ ‘reinvigorated’ from Kant onward (usually as reaction or counter-reformation, though ‘imperative’s provoke applying substance’, romanticism, pre-Raphaelites, Sturm und Drang, a ‘chronology’ such as: Augustine(City of God as ‘formative residues’, internalization of Plato, Herodotus, Homer, ‘general Grecian pantheon’)-Dante(formative)-Shakespeare(generally paean)-Milton(formative)-Vico(preliminary)-Holy Roman Empire-Rousseau-Goethe-Fichte-Schiller-Schelling-Blake-Hegel-Coleridge-Byron(‘interestingly enough’ juxtaposed against Shelley’s Frankenstein)-Schopenhauer(‘inadvertently or by reversal’)-Marx-Nietzsche-Bergson-Spengler-Lenin-Thomas Mann(elements, contrast to Viennese societal influences, though a similar strain, ‘in-overt’, for e.g. Zweig, Freud, Rank)-Rilke-Pound(early)-Joyce-Eliot-Jung(elements)-Heidegger-Wittgenstein(later parts, ‘in-overt’)-Kazantzakis-Kaufmann-Tillich-Bloom-Fukuyama-Sloterdijk; these thinkers do not have to agree except ‘by form’, versions of a spiritual Geist/dialectical materialism/’systematic absolute classification’/’train of history’/’myth of Being’ (as Capitalized ‘subject’), ‘individual as society, society as an individual’, intimate with a Christian rendering of ‘selfhood’); and divisions of those who posit (a) mythological chronicles (b) were used/themselves sought ‘universal’ praxis are intercontextually combinatory. These could be delimited from those ‘strictly individual’ relative contemporaries such as (preliminaries eg. Descartes-Berkeley-Hume) Dickinson-Rimbaud-Pessoa-Cioran; & Russian literary/poetry sits ‘somewhere inbetween’, anarchist (quietist) & ‘revolutionary’.

Further nonvalent ‘incorrect mythical substantialist notations’:
Lecture 3: ‘‘Presence of their radiant appearance’’, ‘‘this truth is called beauty’’(‘‘poetic statement’’), ‘‘eternally non-apparent and therefore invisible’’, Platonic regard [why should anything of Plato be believed today?], anti-techne & psychoanalysis, formal logic/analytic philosophy, ‘‘the essence of technology lies in what from the beginning and before all else gives food for thought’’[‘in the beginning there was the word...’], ‘‘beginning of our journey’’[philosophy?], quasi-Marxist ‘description of working conditions’ (i.e. ‘anti-matter, for spirit, liberated from the machines’)(lecture 2); aversion to ‘‘every form of nothingness-the nihilistic phenomena’’, ‘‘unearthly’’, ‘‘joyous, beautiful and gracious’’[am ‘I’ reading Lessing?], ‘‘mysterious and gracious things’’, ‘‘lofty’’, ‘‘the essence of their sphere-history, art, poetry, language, nature, man, God -remains inaccessible to the sciences’’(fetishistic alchemy), ‘‘greatest riches’’, ‘‘character as a statement’’.

Lecture 4: ‘‘Representation ideas of those objects’’(‘vital’ forms?) ‘‘correct and incorrect idea’’, ‘‘soul’’, ‘‘as a marker on our path of thought, we quoted the words of the West's last thinker, Nietzsche’’(these lectures were given in 1951/52! Shows ‘split’ with Husserl. & H stated ‘thinker’, not ‘philosopher’-which ‘to me’ N was not, more a social commentator/classicist-, ludicrous), ‘‘Nietzsche neither made nor chose his way himself, no more than any other thinker ever did. He is sent on his way’’(‘I’ suppose H supposes ‘this’ determinism not materialistic, so reinvoking of ‘a kind of’ (& what exactly?) ‘divine providence’).

Lecture 5: ‘‘What if he had known that it was his own thought which would first have to bring about a devastation in whose midst, in another day and from other sources, oases would rise here and there and springs well up? What if he had known that he himself had to be a precursor, a transition, pointing before and behind, leading and rebuffing, and therefore everywhere ambiguous, even in the manner and in the sense of the transition’’(‘justifying’ or excusing world wars here Herr H?), ‘‘Let us not be deluded into the view that Nietzsche's thought has been found’’(this treating of N as an idol or ‘spiritual disciple’ tells us us of H’s desperation (and how far did ‘it’ extend!) to ‘find’, and when ‘found’, disappear again (pretend hide and seek) ‘demigods’. ‘One’ is not impressed.), ‘‘but no thinker can ever be overcome by our refuting him and stacking up around him a literature of refutation’’(so apparently said ‘thinker’ is inviolable, unfalsifiable, irrefutable, apply this maxim to any other field and the ‘wastelands’ will ‘truly arise’, ‘thought’ crumbles, tyrants reign, convention at one time remains/says ‘for all time’...), ‘‘back to its originary truth’’(and you think this will be made explicit, or even exists, cannot be disputed; no, just another means of obfuscation ‘but that was not what ‘X’ really thought… Commence a hermeneutics of gospels for thinker N?! ‘‘we must extricate ourselves again from the error into which we have fallen, that one can think through Nietzsche's thinking by dealing with it historically’’, confirmed, ahistorical).

Lecture 6: ‘‘Then what must happen to man as he is, so that he can make the earth "subject" to himself and thus fulfill the words of an old testament?’’, ‘‘through reason, man raises himself above the animal’’, ‘‘passing from the physical to the non-physical, the supraphysical : thus man himself is the metaphysical’’, ‘‘but we must never look for the superman's figure and nature in those characters who by a shallow and misconceived will to power are pushed to the top as the chief functionaries of the various organizations in which that will to power incorporates itself’’(too late to retract or rehabilitate yourself H in 1951/2), ‘‘reason's perception unfolds as this manifold providing, which is first of all and always a confrontation(...)A mere animal, such as a dog, never confronts anything, it can never confront anything to its face; to do so, the animal would have to perceive itself’’(and those who by definition do not have sufficient reason are then dogs? ‘We’ must not think, as H says, that such references to ‘other men’ so far are blithely stated with no underlying -‘underfoot’- motivations/actions), ‘‘Zarathustra tries directly to teach the people "the superman" as "the meaning of the earth." But the people only laughed at Zarathustra, who had to realize that the time had not yet come’’(why this universalising of a theory espoused by said finite organism, as if addressed ‘to all mankind’, applicable & ‘true’ to all, the certainty of ‘foresight’? Observe the use to ‘‘teach the people’’, who presumes holding power & access to knowledge, imposition by will), ‘‘his race is as ineradicable as the flea-beetle’’(from N’s Zarathustra, sincerely non-ominous), ‘‘but we must not equate such a shaking of the foundations with revolution and collapse. The shaking of that which exists may be the way by which an equilibrium arises’’(more odes to justify a ‘change of groundwork’, prospective slaughter), ‘‘is the man of today in his metaphysical nature prepared to assume dominion over the earth as a whole? Has the man of today yet given thought in any way to what conditions will determine the nature of such worldwide government?(...)No. Man as he is today is not prepared to form and assume a world government. For today's man lags behind, not just here and there-no, in everything he is, in all his ways, he lags curiously behind that which is and has long been’’(but thou wishes does thou not?), ‘‘I already characterized modern democracy, together with its mongrel forms such as the 'German Reich,' as the form of decline of the state’’(yes H denounces the Nazi’s 6 years later since they have lost/not acceptable to defend, but notice democracy is linked as a ‘‘mongrel form’’, so what does H propose?: ‘‘If there are to be institutions there must be a kind of will, instinct, imperative[example of Kant’s influence, derived Christian duty], anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations forward and backward ad infinitum [gulags? And ad infinitum means forever!, Thou flatters/disciples of N/H/all-above-mentioned!]. When that will is present, something like the lmperium Romanum [remember ‘Holy Roman Empire’]is founded: or something like Russia, the only power today that has endurance in its bones, that can wait, that still can have promise-Russia the counterconcept to that miserable European particularism and nervousness which has entered a critical condition with the foundation of the German Reich’‘[H says not modelled by the Soviet Union, but/then why Russia in particular?], ‘‘Nietzsche understands the standard that all men are not equal, that not everybody has aptitude and claim to everything, that not everybody may set up his everyman's tribunal to judge everything’’[like in any practical standard ‘equality’ extends past theory & bare legality ‘in the West’, at any time ‘securities’ retractable/mutable, conflating ‘general culture’ with apparatus of ‘hard’-power], ‘‘The rank order carried out, in a system of world government: the masters of the earth last of all, a new ruling caste. Arising from them, here and there, all Epicurean god, the superman, he who transfigures existence: Caesar with the soul of Christ.’’(H’s quotation of an unpublished N passage, something of an aristocratic dictatorship. If you wish to prove otherwise, why invoke Caesar or Christ?), ‘‘in one of Hoelderlin's late hymns: there Christ, who is "of still another nature," is called the brother of Heracles and Dionysos’’(recurring Pan/Orphic markers), For there is no universal schema which could be applied mechanically to the interpretation of the writings of thinkers, or even to a single work of a single thinker’’(so why as you before spoke H, did you say ‘‘not everybody may set up his everyman’s tribunal to judge everything’’(subjective opinion for example?), and that the ‘‘last great thinker Nietzsche’’ ‘irrefutable’, since diverse opinions means to ‘ultimate’ interpretation or creed, no one prescriptive framework for human action?). ‘‘But we shall never find the superman as long as we look for him in the places of remote-controlled public opinion’’(conspiracist paranoic?).

Lecture 7: ‘‘Blink is related to Middle English blenchen, which means deceive, and to blenken, blinken, which means gleam or glitter. To blink-that means to play up and set up a glittering deception which is then agreed upon as true and valid-with the mutual tacit understanding not to question the setup’’ - so when H quotes N again with: ‘‘We have invented happiness’—say the last men, and they blink’’, apparently either happiness doesn’t exist, or has some ‘fundamental objective essence’? Though if invented how everyone on earth can/has agreed with this proposition again is skirted around in both H/N’s hyperbolizing/hypostasis. ‘‘It makes no difference if we assert in passing that Kant was nonetheless a very significant thinker. Such praises from below are always an insult’’ - ‘noble aristocracy’, ‘kings of Being’ returns again. ‘‘Even when we make every effort to abandon the commonplace, the obvious as the standard of thinking’’ - Are not incantations to customary absolutes, creating/structuring your entire life ‘around’ phantoms such as ‘Being/substance/God (‘‘Being of beings’’)/in-itself/soul/beauty/history/overcoming ‘man’’ the most commonplace ideals of lust, complexes humanity repeatedly fixes upon? Wake up yourself, Heidegger!

Lecture 8: Wholly null of any thinking except talk (mere speculations) of ‘‘savages’’, ‘‘the thinkers' thinking would thus be the relatedness to the Being of beings’’ (leave your absolutes!)

Lecture 9: ‘’It is prior to all weak donothingism and shirking of sacrifice’’ - This ‘Deliverance from revenge’ would reject pacifism and see no allowed actual individuation, the refusal of participation to N’s master/slave dialectic...What would the H do himself, in practice over words? Side (by thought, by deed, ideology/creed) with National Socialism, who you cannot in any ‘reality’ say their prime motivation is not revenge (where the ‘elevation’ H?). ‘‘Time is not a cage in which the "no longer now," the "not yet now," and the "now" are cooped up together’’ - oh really? Where/how does memory arrive & retain ‘itself’ (‘collection of thoughts towards it’) then as you were waxing lyrical in the first lectures? ‘‘only that will is primal being which as will is independent of time, and eternal(...)it says that will is primal being only when it is eternal as will. And it is that when, as will, it eternally wills the eternity of willing’’ - either tautologous or ‘self-reflexive’, pick one. ‘‘The will that is eternal in this sense no longer follows and depends on the temporal in what it wills, or in its willing. It is independent of time. And so it can no longer be affronted by time’’ - where is Nietzsche now? You could be coherent, but use this Bergsonian/mythophysical garb, without this you have vitalism, ‘I’ can read Aristotle if to indulge that penchance, why do you report such undeserving ‘high standing’ in 20th Century philosophers?.

Lecture 10: ‘‘Sin is the lack of faith, the revolt against God as the Redeemer. If repentance, joined to the forgiveness of sin and only that way, can will the return of the past, this will of repentance, seen in the terms of thinking, is always determined metaphysically, and is possible only that way-possible only by its relation to the eternal will of the redeeming God’’ (sigh)

Avoid/'do not be fooled’ by preachers of theologized ‘philosophy’ (e.g. ‘seeking destination’, myth as tools, etymological roots super-excessively seen as important and referenced, ‘eschatology of the sign’, ‘lost meaning’, ‘origin of all things’ etcetc; notably sons/related to other ‘parsons’), totalizing dictators awaiting for your consent. + The wished primacy of speech ‘over’ writing, some extinguishing of persona (digressions, additions as mentioned) is favorable, tolerable, necessary for ‘what is called thinking’ (& ‘not simply negation’).

Lecture 11: ‘‘Good thinking’’(moral diktat’s commencing motion here), ‘‘the directions that come from what directs us into thought are much more than merely the given impetus to do some thinking’’(has to be ‘‘much more’’ for H or else his transcendental project crumbles, and if you oppose said project doesn’t reduce you solely to ‘dogmatic materialism’)), ‘‘that man is naturally the performer of thinking, need not further concern the investigation of thinking. The fact goes without saying. Being irrelevant, it may be left out of our reflection on thinking. Indeed, it must be left out. For the laws of thought are after all valid independently of the man who performs the individual acts of thinking’’ (yes, let’s ignore any inquiry outside my desired subjectivism, any logical or experiential knowledge, again H must ‘’le[ave it] out’’ as otherwise his reliance on ‘technological methods’ is apparent, must concede to what preceded neural correlates -comprehensive scope from his lack of clarification-). ‘‘"What calls on us to think?" strikes us directly, like a lightning bolt’’ - Homeric tradition of ‘phenomenal serendipity’ ascribed to Zeus, the subsequent paragraph on Greek roots ‘to call’ misses the ‘divine invocation’ to Gods hypothesis. ‘‘But it is unhabitual not because our spoken speech has never yet been at home in it, but rather because we are no longer at home with this telling word, because we no longer really live in it’’ - rather arbitrary selection of when we are ‘‘at home’’, at hearth with Hestia; ‘‘Say Heidegger, can you give a precise distinction in time from when we were at home, from when we were not? What were the effects of this expulsion (or was ‘the hearth’ destroyed?), whence did ‘we’ lie in ignorance unto hence? Were ‘we’, as ‘I’ assume means everyone, every-body of the community, nay, here in ‘X’: separated from birth, afterwards, adolescence, corrupted by the elders(wink), an early senility? Was the work of human or divine origin? Whence reason for the latter, and biases of the former? ‘I’ am calling for this clarification because, as you know, meanings can be mistaken and ridden with errors if ‘we’ do not resolve there conflicts and motives for misdirection, and when done, the horses neighing in their stables return to calm…’’ (in form of Socratic address, ‘X’ ‘calls upon’ H). ‘‘The current meaning of the word cannot simply be pushed aside in favor of the rare one, even though the rare signification may still be the real one. That would be an open violation of language(...)On the contrary, the presently customary signification is rooted in the other, original, decisive one’’ - lexical imperialism, the encyclopedists rejoice, in denial (again) of the manners in which ‘individualism’ can begin presentiment. [More ‘levity’ in this since the only ‘redeemable’ lecture so far, since albeit ‘from here onward’ H casts off ‘the prostitution of Nietzsche’].

Lecture 12: Anti-Cartesian verbiage (if H says only, ‘in hues around the words/lines/’pointers’, willing misdirection): ‘‘Sculpture, painting, and music operate and express themselves in the medium of stone and wood and color and tone’’, ‘‘What is perceived by the senses is considered as immediately given’’.

Lecture 13: ‘‘The nature of technology is itself nothing technological’’, ‘‘The nature of technology is not a merely human fabrication which, given an appropriate moral constitution, could be subdued by superior human wisdom and judgment’’ - according to H nothing can ever be ‘subdued’ because he has to create ‘hidden influences’, ‘irremediable essences behind things’ he wishes to denigrate, ‘‘What is called thinking?" is-if it is at all permissible to put this into words-a world-historical question. Usually, the name "world history" signifies the same thing as universal history’’ - Hegel speaks from the dead! ‘‘But can thinking, the philosophical, supra-historical knowledge of eternal truths, ever be grounded on historical findings?’’ - A new Reich dawns!

Lecture 14: ‘‘The soul then pours forth its wealth of images-of visions envisioning the soul itself’’, ‘‘essential nature’’, ‘‘Such thanks is not a recompense; but it remains an offering’’ - to Zeus again, ‘‘in our Alemannic usage’’(‘Holy Roman Empire’ precursor).

Lecture 15: ‘‘"Man" is merely included in our considerations as a distinguishing mark superadded to the living being’’ - Agamben may corroborate otherwise, ‘‘"Soul" in this case means not the principle of life, but that in which the spirit has its being, the spirit of the spirit’’ - why the use ‘spirit of spirit’ rather than as spirit (for H’s elect chosen persona), ‘‘man only inhabits the keeping(...)he does not create the keeping’’ - this would be ‘correct’ if meaning ‘consciousness’ instead of ‘soul’, ‘‘the boundlessness with which such sentences can be abused corresponds to the infinity into which they direct the task of thinking’’ - so language has utility as a tool, contrary to the previous passage, ‘‘The sentence "The triangle is laughing" cannot be said. It can be said, of course, in the sense that it can be pronounced as a mere string of words; we just did so. But it can not be said really, in terms of what it says’’ - a triangle can laugh, when you do not treat ‘subject-predicate’ descriptions as ‘whole in themselves’, ‘thinking all data’ is given by this sentence, that the triangle doesn’t point to something else (a resemblance, assemblage, ‘meta’textual utterance of someone speaking about something else, or a technological object in shape of a triangle?… ‘‘Logic becomes dialectic’’ means for H ‘we can have concrete propositions of language that abide to dialectical ‘reasoning’ (by an ‘essential ambiguity’ of H’s ‘techne’) that can give ‘our’ lives universally, rightly (an above lecture H speaks to this); basically confirmed by the following: ‘‘We readily see that all dialectic is by its nature logic, whether it develops as the dialectic of consciousness, or as Realdialektik and finally dialectical materialism. These, too, must always be a dialectic of objects, which always means objects of consciousness, hence consciousness of self (or one of its germinal forms’’. Nature(Logical, ‘thinking rightly’)?Consciousness(NL, dialectical, ‘subject of own predicate’)?Self(conscious subject)?Universal Subject(everyone)?Nature(according to its ‘ supreme will’, ‘soul’, or ‘nature’ ‘cloaking’ these: ‘‘logical, or no longer logical, or meta-logical (supra-logical)’’ -a ‘Jacob’s ladder’ of importance/stratification/’value of soul’-) How is this so? H gives evidence in the following: ‘‘These four questions, whose differences we cannot rehearse too often, are nonetheless one question. Their unity stems from the question listed in the fourth place[‘‘What is That which calls us into thinking’’]. The fourth is the decisive one-it sets the standard’’. Although the ‘fourth place’ question is pretext for what H wants the do, make the audience ‘think rightly’:‘‘We must ourselves discover the one and only way to answer the question "What is called thinking?" in its third form. If we do not find it out, all talk and listening is in vain. And in that case I would urge you to burn your lecture notes, however precise they may be-and the sooner the better’’ (Maybe a ‘harmless remark’ but not altogether different from Nazi burnings of novels, such as pacifists/nonconformists H declared as ‘‘weak donothingism and shirking of sacrifice’’(L.9), as linked with the next sentence that ‘‘however, this supposition means more than merely an admission of our weakness’’, meaning H demands: ‘‘the attempt and the duty[from Kant] to think-is now approaching an era when the high demands which traditional thinking believed it was meeting, and pretended it had to meet, become untenable’’. What does this mean? Here are H’s four treatises, in manner of Luther: ‘‘1. Thinking does not bring knowledge as do the sciences.[H means philosophy, which ironically in these first lectures stated precisely that ‘real thinking’ to be outside ‘all other knowledge’, and ‘unutterable’] 2. Thinking does not produce usable practical wisdom. [false ‘dialectic’ of theory/practice, as if they were separate, as if ‘postmoderns’ for example really mean their ‘theories’ have no ‘practical effect’, & even if they do, ‘it’ can be measured/translated as such] 3. Thinking solves no cosmic riddles. [H needs to universalise his framework on technology/’Being’, ‘right thinking’ so as not to be subject to ‘subjectivism’(whims of H), ‘no praxis’] 4. Thinking does not endow us directly with the power to act’’ [‘Directly’ can really mean anything or be construed ‘indefinitely’, please H tell us the gradations from indirect to indirect thinking, its mechanisms, how they circulate(since thinking cannot always be direct, as in memory, can it), ‘from whence they arrive and return’(arbitrary ‘source’), what makes something direct to indirect and its reciprocal’, etcetera. These ‘objections’ cannot be answered, H cannot elucidate his own theory, so can only resort to: ‘‘Thinking, then, is here not taken as an occurrence whose course is open to psychological observation. Nor is thinking conceived merely as an activity that obeys norms and a scale of values. Thinking can be guided by validity and authority’’...reverting to ‘right thinking’!, (which H & only those who ‘practice’ such have access to)…. ‘‘Every proposition is a sentence. But not every sentence is a proposition. "What is called thinking?" is not a proposition, though it is a sentence-to wit, a direct question’’ - ‘absolute’ nonsense, every meaningful morpheme ‘has an object’ or points ‘toward something’, so makes a statement (‘true or untrue’) about the set of circumstances ‘contained’ within the statement, namely, a proposition. H’s ‘‘direct question’’ is just a means to ‘transcendentalist logic’ (‘known by H’), as H says, ‘‘supra-logical’’. And H doesn’t know anyway: ‘‘Is(…) "The moon has risen," a proposition, or even a sentence? Of what nature is this statement? I do not know. Nor do I trust myself to discuss the matter’’. What circuitousness H demonstrates the pointlessness of this exercise! And why believe when H cannot trust himself at any logical deduction/induction/inference/’examination of grammatical cases’...

Lecture 16: So H can ‘legitimate’ (explaining away) universalizing (‘Being’/’right thinking’/’soul’/social or political machinations) a pagan-Christian fuselage of dialectical materialism (peoples, subjects, groups): ‘‘The call as destiny is so far from being incomprehensible and alien to thinking, that on the contrary it always is precisely what must be thought, and thus is waiting for a thinking that answers to it’’. This ‘‘call as destiny’’ H remarks: ‘‘The destiny of our fateful-historic Western nature shown; itself in the fact that our sojourn in this world rests upon thinking, even where this sojourn is determined by the Christian faith-faith which cannot be proved by thinking, nor is in need of proof because it is faith’’, unfalsifiable/’ultimate discourse’/’right thinking’. How can any of H’s thought (not just ‘person’) be argued non-fascistic is astounding, ‘hero’ (‘philosopher king’) worship, deliberate ignorance. And this (non)‘philosophy’ (more hermeticism) is irrelevant, can be surpassed by other ‘thinkers’, one doesn’t need to look outside of the 20th century. This hermeticism is promptly marked again by H quoting from Parmenides, and mentioning ‘‘a fragment of Parmenides, which has been given the number 6’’ - why else would 6, a commonly ‘occultic’/’messianic’/general hermetic/Orpheus-tic symbol be mentioned, nothing else of the usual method of citation is used (where specifically a passage from in the text, date, consideration of what collection, background…). ‘We’ cannot conclude anything other given the ‘‘question of the initial calling’’ deliberately (along with all beforesaid) than this hermeticism/’transcendental right thinking’ etcetc [no philosophy!]. More examples: ‘‘Thinking itself is a way. We respond to the way only by remaining underway’’(Orphic/Pythagorean myths (‘vaulted geometry’)/Trismegistus/Eleusinian mysteries resonances).

Lecture 17: H gesticulating that ‘‘But it would violate the meaning of interpretation generally if we cherished the view that there can be an interpretation which is non-relative, that is, absolutely valid’’ is a nonsensical/meaningless (‘direct’? Wink) ‘proposition’ if you resort to faith – ‘‘And the validity of the presupposed sphere of ideas can be absolute only if the absoluteness rests on something unconditional-on a faith. The unconditional character of faith, and the problematic character of thinking, are two spheres separated by an abyss’’ – as a ‘philosopher’ this is just ‘unintelligible’, unapproachable, irrelevant, vacuous ‘religiosity’, ‘no place for ‘thinking’’. Though ‘one appreciates’ an instance of non-concurrence with the Nietzschean (classicist) strain: ‘‘The view that the early thinkers, being first in point of time, are first and foremost in every respect-for which reason it is then deemed advisable to philosophize only in this pre-Socratic manner, and to pronounce all the rest a misunderstanding, a retrogression. Such childish ideas are actually in circulation today’’. ‘‘Proper use is rarely manifest, and in general is not the business of mortals. Mortals are at best illumined by the radiance of use’’ - divinatory silliness & mythic ‘right thinking’ (now ‘application’) once more. ‘‘"It" means something neither masculine nor feminine’’ - mistaken need to construct gender situations (or mono/fixed ‘essences’) for every character/grammatical case, when there can be multiple versions ‘simultaneously’ or ‘in fact’. ‘‘But its situation is not determined first by the pathless places on earth. It is marked out and opened by something of another order. From there, the dwelling of mortals receives its measure’’ - ‘transcendentalism’ (so many iterations that ‘we’ must discard any theory with these ‘undertones’/’radiant annotations’).

Lecture 18: ‘Objet petit a’/’God made manifest’ commentary (Holderlin), H ‘invokes fragment 7’ of Parmenides (‘calling Being’), then 8 ('forever mutability') hyperbolizing of ‘ancient’ Greek (Homer) root of ‘laying and telling’, ‘‘a word that later attains the supreme heights of theological speculation’’ (‘magical thinking’, attributing of ‘master signifier’ for e.g. status to words that H affixes with cultural activities/events/entire works of civilizations themselves), ‘‘without the Aeyew and its Myos-(how presented in html), there would have been no Age of Enlightenment(...)there would be no dialectical materialism’’, why is the possibility that other variant(s) would/could just as ‘meaningfully’ effectuate world systems? ‘‘Man's scenting is divination(...)this kind of divination is not the outer court before the [‘pearly’?]gates of knowledge. It is the great hall where everything that can be known is kept, concealed’’ (condemnable aspects of fabulous contents enumerated ‘throughout’).

Lecture 19: ‘‘As ratio assumes dominion, all relations are turned around(...)the Enlightenment obscures the essential origin of thinking. In general, it blocks every access to the thinking of the Greeks(...)at most that philosophy, despite all logic and all dialectic, does not attain to the discussion of the question "What is called thinking?(...)philosophy strays farthest from this hidden question when it is led to think that thinking must begin with doubting’’- anti-Kant, anti-Cartesian, fine, but your positions are untenable with the mystic garb, reliance on etymology (to ‘get to the heart of the matter’, ‘we’ need to intuit meanings now not mistranscribed/accrued ‘babblings’ of words/Lutheran re-injection shots with no relevance today (‘radical disunion of conscious life-worlds’).

Lecture 20: ‘‘They observe the signs in the sky, and are attentive to the signs given by God’’(Zeus’ mentioned ‘presence’ ‘from earlier’), the ‘‘frozen, spectral manner in which they haunt all philosophical discourse and writing’’ cannot be ‘thawed’ or ‘recovered’ anymore. ‘‘thinking transcends the particular being, in the direction of its Being, not in order to leave behind and abandon the particular being, but so that by this ascent, this transcendence, it may represent the particular being in that which it, as a being, is’’ - who wants to be touched by the dusty figure(s) of ‘Being’, ‘‘the particular being's participation in Being’’, their grammatical case ‘as’ ‘Being’? Can ‘we’ not renounce historical abject ‘roots’? ‘‘The style of all Western-European philosophy-and there is no other, neither a Chinese nor an Indian philosophy-is determined by this duality "beings-in being"’’ - Sinologists could reasonably contest this since ‘we are dealing in’ (circulating, ‘eternally returning’ around flogged horses, turning past (not only achronological, ‘matter, motion, time’) ‘towards itself’). ‘No longer’ can one have ‘privileged comprehension’ to ‘transcendental’, (inc. ‘being/Being/to be’) (or any whatsoever) terms as H says: ‘‘what the terms "being" and "to be" state, we find that such an examination has nothing to hold onto. All our ideas slip away and dissolve in vagueness. Not entirely, though’’, lingual substitutions operate as a rigidified Parkinsonism, by ‘pure age’, en-branched ‘scrunching’ out of ‘ideological (‘replicating signs in stasis’) niches’, decrepitude ‘wilted away’ faculties (‘connectives, substantives, headers; encoded grammatical sets’).

Lecture 21: ‘‘Leap and vision require long, slow preparation, especially if we are to transpose ourselves to that word which is not just one word among many’’, ‘‘If eivai (Being) did not prevail as a being present, the question of the presence of the object, that is, of the object's objectivity, could not even be asked’’ - but you haven’t ‘proved’ that ‘Being’ isn’t arbitrary, that it ‘is present’, so ‘what is the use’ with a foundationalism of ‘one’ underlying ‘pre-thinking designator’ (‘‘essential nature’’) instead of their multiplicate interlaced arrangements, one can refute or assert ‘one’ or ‘many’, ‘neither’, or ‘both’ (even as ‘essential non-essence’), & not in a ‘one-modal’(factorial) reducible logic?… Too similar to ‘sparks of noumenon’ ‘is’: ‘‘the presence of what is present, there speaks the duality of the two. There speaks from it the call that calls us into the essential nature of thinking, that admits thinking into its own nature and there keeps and guards it’’, again ‘‘"the light is not without but within me, and I myself am the light’’, H’s ‘real’ aims ‘‘rediscovery of man will point the way to the rediscovery of God’’, ‘‘reevaluate the meaning of everlastingness’’ - ‘Thoust is finite, ‘‘God’ is not’, not even infinite moments, (no ‘‘everlastingness of passing experience’’) persist(s) hither’, no ‘‘reality that is eternal’’! (& ‘only then’ can ‘you’ ‘adequately’ ‘appreciate’, ‘think’!).

Summary on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2750835326