This is an RJL comment on two letters to the Sane site about Putin's Poison. Go see those two letters. This is the third letter, slightly altered for our own IASPS site.

 

These letters ratchet up the NuVo discussion. In parallel with the ruin of the philosophic effected by Science is the blunting of experience itself --the "ontological disfiguring." Where this has taken place --in all Western societies --it becomes impossible to make any correction in speech. Speech is incoherent in the societies of the Redirection; from the point of local motion manifest in life as Thought manifest, ultimately as Speech manifest. What is meant by Science Certainty in the first instance, understanding here that the new science is a metaphysical project (Descartes says as much in his Reply to Hobbes in Meditations), is there is no longer any possible metaphysics. You can test this without ever reading a modern philosopher from the time of the French Revolution. Only read a university catalogue. Metaphysics is a byeword for "reactionary" thinking.

 

There is why there is no need (or possibility) for clarification of the Terms of Existence when they are once disfigured as a matter of teaching. The Western university is in the sole business of teaching the implementation of the World State. In other words, our institutions and speech teach this. This is what is meant in pointing out there is no possibility to confront the Redirection in Speech. As for Thought, this is the point of the Completion: Thought is entirely monopolized by symbolic mathematization of existence or Science.

 

But as one of the previous letters mentioned points out, we are blunted now with respect to the counter-terms replacing them. The human impulses are the same, however --for as long as the human holds its own. Men are bound to confront the Terms of Existence as the Truth of Existence. In simple English, there is no less fierceness, of terror and urgency to establish and maintain the World State and the Solitary Self in the making of the Completion of the Whole in the Part, than there is of these same emotions and impulses to sustain what is natural to men in Gd, Self, Society in World.

 

But there are two points of what we must call extreme mitigation.

 

The first point is men in the Epoch of Science or the Completion

serve the Fall from Being. There is no limit to the murder and urgency for it, that is for Nothing which Is as itself order; as itself the Truth of Existence. In the Terms as given in Being there is no World State, and no murder of every last being. Still the differences remain similar in kind, at least until the point (we have passed it) that disfiguation is apparent in what is human simply. Imperial regimes, Rome for example, produced magnificent things and great men. The Romans, at their best, were a superb people and order. But they were depraved, and became horribly so. But the comparison with the World state order shows the "difference in Kind."

 

Compare Stalin, Hitler; the Elites, the Muslims. This list is not exhaustive, but it covers the range of order from Totalitarianism in active to passive phases. Kojeve is the expert I rely upon as clear-minded in his hatred of Gd and of Being simply. He was a very superior thinker as well as the Superior to the Progressive Elites for Hegel (one of the three Founders of the Redirection). He was clear that the Realm of Freedom is the correction of the Error of human being. Every one of  this erroneous species must be annihilated. This is the purest logic of it. He was enough of a an adept to know you could begin with multiculturalism and reason your way to the active phase. Recall the enthusiasm of Stalin, the one-time Seminar student. "They are lying to us. There is no God." He immediately entered his role as murderer extraordinaire. Whether men such as Marx and Lenin realized their teachings (about capitalism and so on) were frauds; or if in truth these teachings are transparent for correcting the Error --and Kojeve was a "graduate" of Marxism and Soviet communism because of Hegel (and Robespierre), these are pertinent questions. By "fraud" I mean was Marx a fool? Did he take communism and dialectical materialism at face value; or did he understand he was writing a prescription for the annihilation of the human simply? Hegel certainly had no mixed motives. But the dialectic in Hegel, ends in annihilation on purpose and in reason (in context of science). Marx' dialectic is, well, bourgeois. 

 

These are pertinent questions. They are not obviously answered. By now it seems no one could fail to realize what is going on. The Completion, if Science, is transparent in this way, seems too hard to overlook. But the incoherence of Speech penetrates all of us. From local motion to Thought Manifest, to Speech manifest in Hegel-Kojeve, Hegel Robespierre is Kojeve's argument. But the "local motion" starting point in conception never entered his mind that I know. He cherished science, of course (and excoriated Hegel for his "insensate" criticism of Newton; the first Descartes success). It is a principle I observe in dealing with great men of mind that you do not suppose you know anything they did not. Descartes understood himself to be "curing" the human of its absence of Being and Telos. He realized, too, that his teaching was very deceptive; for example, the Mind Body distinction. It is subtle in the extreme; even in Rules where he left everything unpublished in his lifetime. 

 

The second point of extreme mitigation, the first being limit (Kojeve called for the annihilation even of "forms" of the human when he was satisfied, in his last years, that Hegel's conception  that Mankind was Speech in Time or History, an accident bred in the State of Nature in the absence of any possible explanation for human existence, or any justification for it, was true. He pointed only to the survival of form in the Japanese. All else, the Western  societies had clearly put themselves on the paths of extinction, was clear to him in mid-'50s.)

 

So the second point, the first being Being in Rise v Fall as what limits the means and urgency for order, now solely available in the "annihilation of man and philosophy, properly so-called", is the rarity of any clarity about this distinction. This second point entails all else. It starts, here taking account of the Reciprocal (Science-certainty  = Democracy or the Open-Uncertainty) with the incoherence of Speech. Our Western societies, with no exceptions, are constituted in the order of what you could call the truth of Contradiction as Order. Who can participate in discussions about "equal rights" and so on without being embarrassed for the human race? And so, NuVo. I am taken with this notion for it provides the only public assertion of hope.

 

Good start from Jay Tyler and Michael Rodney.

 

RJL

Printer-Friendly Version