> Tudor, could we say that data is the new matter? Especially if we do not
> insist on defining matter too narrowly (e.g., when we get down to
> seriously consider what, materially, the electron or better, the photon
> is, questions multiply; and then there is the matter of the dialectical
> materialists which muchly includes 'history' and economic 'forces',
> etc...). If you like, data is (the) matter for the information sciences
> which have now (in the lights of gestell) have begun to accumulate and
> recollect all forms of communication and linguistic discourses, including,
> very much, our own on this list. Well, that's my little bit for what it's
> worth... matters not.
If I were to give a Scriptural interpretation of Heidegger, I would say, ok,
Gestell is the work of the Devil, but not all things produced by Gestell
(e.g. computers and science) are devilish-"black"-colored.
Science comes from scio, sciere, i.e. to know, and I never got the
impression that Heidegger said that seeking knowledge would be a bad thing
to do.
He had another sort of commentaries, which I render it my own way: due to
individual human nature, its collective aggregation, and flawed ways of
aiming at knowledge (essentially, metaphysical incompetence), it will result
collective disaster. Heidegger, provided there was any chance of success, he
would have been a cultural pessimist, but, since there is no such chance (in
lack of a God to save us), he was not culturally pessimistic. Pessimism
supposes to think that success is improbable or highly improbable. But, when
you know what is going to happen, and you stated why so, then you cannot
DISBELIEVE something which you KNOW it is not true. Belief has to make with
expectations, e.g. one betting on a horse for he/she believes it will win.
Heidegger, I think he disbelieved that substance exists. So, he put kind of
phenomenological brackets to matter. He never said that the laws of physics
and chemistry do not hold, but he only doubted they are (now) meaningful at
explaining HUMAN life (Existenz).
In fact, if we comment on prof. Schuyt, building on Burke, he explained it
this way: when you see a soccer match on TV, you are attentive at completely
other sort of things that the sound engineer transmitting the match is
attentive to.
So, ok, phenomenology, on one hand, and physics and information theory, on
the other, they seem to diverge. In fact, they do not diverge, but there's
an explanative gap between them which has not yet been filled. E.g., no one
would deny the competence of the sound technician and that he has some
knowledge on what sound is and how sound behaves, but you only hear the
meaningful words transmitted by the commentator of the soccer match. Same
laws of sound apply to the sound technician and to you listening, only,
there is an explanative gap (i.e. ignorance, lack of science) how the laws
of sound produce aware, meaningful words.
To render what I got from Iordanescu's ontology, there are two states:
potential and dynamics and three planes: spirit, energy and substance.
Matter is a subplane of substance, i.e. it is structured substance, most
probably composed of Mendeleyev's elements. Elementary particles are
agglomerations of energy, and energy is the same as information (I won't
prove it here, btw). Energy is what is capable of transferring something (or
itself) from potential in dynamics or from dynamics in potential. Potential
is simply Being and dynamics is beings.
So, what Descartes said? He said soul and matter are parallel worlds.
Parallel lines are lines which never intersect, both being inside a plane.
Somehow these parallel worlds meet in the pineal gland, according to him.
Iordanescu said that spirit, energy and substance do not exclude each other
but they imply each other, i.e. spirit meets energy and substance, etc.
Basically, he was implying the old hermetic axiom "Universe is mental", i.e.
we are living in the Matrix (God's awareness) and Matrix is in fact God, and
inside His awareness there are different thoughts of Him: spirit, energy,
substance and so on.
So, from Descartes, it follows some sort of radical difference between
physical objects (e.g. the objects of physics and chemistry) and aware
existence (this is, the world of the Dasein). Between these two kinds of
knowledge there is, according to him, an explanative gap which, if he is
serious, then it is never to be filled.
Look what Descartes and Kant said: it is black. Heidegger said: it is not
black. Gadamer said: it is white. I say: it is grey. This (this synthesis)
is all I talk about. E.g., some people said the Devil is black, others have
said he is red, and Iordanescu said: Devil is brown. This is what synthesis
of theories means.
So, to draw the conclusion: Gestell knowledge is not something one should
keep away from. Because it is knowledge, it is good to know it. Only, if we
believe scientists were competent in their field, and they relied on
incompetent metaphysicians to draw the conclusions, then we are not allowed
to do withdraw from it, but we have ourselves to be metaphysicians and draw
competent conclusions.
A school manual is not made by the Devil, for the mere reason that it writes
on it "Physics", or "Evolution theory". Those who are metaphysically
competent, if they choose to attack some standpoints therein, they should
produce better knowledge than available therein and it would be indeed a
miracle if one is competent of discussing the truth of relativity theory,
provided he opened no physics book (or physics publication) in the last five
years.
It is all about knowing less and wanting to know more.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> insist on defining matter too narrowly (e.g., when we get down to
> seriously consider what, materially, the electron or better, the photon
> is, questions multiply; and then there is the matter of the dialectical
> materialists which muchly includes 'history' and economic 'forces',
> etc...). If you like, data is (the) matter for the information sciences
> which have now (in the lights of gestell) have begun to accumulate and
> recollect all forms of communication and linguistic discourses, including,
> very much, our own on this list. Well, that's my little bit for what it's
> worth... matters not.
If I were to give a Scriptural interpretation of Heidegger, I would say, ok,
Gestell is the work of the Devil, but not all things produced by Gestell
(e.g. computers and science) are devilish-"black"-colored.
Science comes from scio, sciere, i.e. to know, and I never got the
impression that Heidegger said that seeking knowledge would be a bad thing
to do.
He had another sort of commentaries, which I render it my own way: due to
individual human nature, its collective aggregation, and flawed ways of
aiming at knowledge (essentially, metaphysical incompetence), it will result
collective disaster. Heidegger, provided there was any chance of success, he
would have been a cultural pessimist, but, since there is no such chance (in
lack of a God to save us), he was not culturally pessimistic. Pessimism
supposes to think that success is improbable or highly improbable. But, when
you know what is going to happen, and you stated why so, then you cannot
DISBELIEVE something which you KNOW it is not true. Belief has to make with
expectations, e.g. one betting on a horse for he/she believes it will win.
Heidegger, I think he disbelieved that substance exists. So, he put kind of
phenomenological brackets to matter. He never said that the laws of physics
and chemistry do not hold, but he only doubted they are (now) meaningful at
explaining HUMAN life (Existenz).
In fact, if we comment on prof. Schuyt, building on Burke, he explained it
this way: when you see a soccer match on TV, you are attentive at completely
other sort of things that the sound engineer transmitting the match is
attentive to.
So, ok, phenomenology, on one hand, and physics and information theory, on
the other, they seem to diverge. In fact, they do not diverge, but there's
an explanative gap between them which has not yet been filled. E.g., no one
would deny the competence of the sound technician and that he has some
knowledge on what sound is and how sound behaves, but you only hear the
meaningful words transmitted by the commentator of the soccer match. Same
laws of sound apply to the sound technician and to you listening, only,
there is an explanative gap (i.e. ignorance, lack of science) how the laws
of sound produce aware, meaningful words.
To render what I got from Iordanescu's ontology, there are two states:
potential and dynamics and three planes: spirit, energy and substance.
Matter is a subplane of substance, i.e. it is structured substance, most
probably composed of Mendeleyev's elements. Elementary particles are
agglomerations of energy, and energy is the same as information (I won't
prove it here, btw). Energy is what is capable of transferring something (or
itself) from potential in dynamics or from dynamics in potential. Potential
is simply Being and dynamics is beings.
So, what Descartes said? He said soul and matter are parallel worlds.
Parallel lines are lines which never intersect, both being inside a plane.
Somehow these parallel worlds meet in the pineal gland, according to him.
Iordanescu said that spirit, energy and substance do not exclude each other
but they imply each other, i.e. spirit meets energy and substance, etc.
Basically, he was implying the old hermetic axiom "Universe is mental", i.e.
we are living in the Matrix (God's awareness) and Matrix is in fact God, and
inside His awareness there are different thoughts of Him: spirit, energy,
substance and so on.
So, from Descartes, it follows some sort of radical difference between
physical objects (e.g. the objects of physics and chemistry) and aware
existence (this is, the world of the Dasein). Between these two kinds of
knowledge there is, according to him, an explanative gap which, if he is
serious, then it is never to be filled.
Look what Descartes and Kant said: it is black. Heidegger said: it is not
black. Gadamer said: it is white. I say: it is grey. This (this synthesis)
is all I talk about. E.g., some people said the Devil is black, others have
said he is red, and Iordanescu said: Devil is brown. This is what synthesis
of theories means.
So, to draw the conclusion: Gestell knowledge is not something one should
keep away from. Because it is knowledge, it is good to know it. Only, if we
believe scientists were competent in their field, and they relied on
incompetent metaphysicians to draw the conclusions, then we are not allowed
to do withdraw from it, but we have ourselves to be metaphysicians and draw
competent conclusions.
A school manual is not made by the Devil, for the mere reason that it writes
on it "Physics", or "Evolution theory". Those who are metaphysically
competent, if they choose to attack some standpoints therein, they should
produce better knowledge than available therein and it would be indeed a
miracle if one is competent of discussing the truth of relativity theory,
provided he opened no physics book (or physics publication) in the last five
years.
It is all about knowing less and wanting to know more.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---