ÇáÒãÒæã
2024-09-22, 22:16
THINK OF THE CHAOS, AND THE "OTHER BEGINNING" OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF
PHILOSOPHY
22.09.2024
Aleksandr Dugin
In the chaos, it was not part of the context of the christian faith. The christian faith has been built only as a philosophy of the Logos, and, to us, to such a state of things is, as usual, that (most likely correctly, from the point of view of history, we identify with the philosophy of the Logos. We don't know of the other, philosophy, and, on the whole, going in the direction of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, along with the philosophy of the post-moderna, contemporary, we have to acknowledge that his own philosophy, founded by the greeks, and it was built around the Logos is exhausted out of your content today. It is incarnated in a techne, the topography of the subject and the object, which proved to be evidenciária for no more than two or three centuries, until a final note, watch in the philosophy of Western Europe. In fact, we are on-line or at the point of the end of the philosophy of the Logos.
Today, it gives an insight into the whole process of the evolution of the philosophy of logocêntrica, which began with Heraclitus, and in the pre-socratic, it reached its peak in neoplatonism, and Socrates, and has been developed in a manner that is very violent and in the early fathers of the christian Greek and Latin, and, subsequently, in the scholastic and renaissance neoplatônico, and then, in the new era, has become, together with Descartes by the topography of the subject and the object is in its final stage, autorreflexivo, which, in turn, ended up with the past as such. According to Heidegger, it is precisely Nietzsche (who also is called, the philosophy of Western Europe. Thus, we now have a finished story with a beginning, a climax and an end, it's all about the culture of logocêntrica. The Logos, from the cradle to the grave. But then we have to wonder: who was This?
On the one hand, This will definitely quit this process, of the philosophy of the west, and put it on the stamp, but, on the other hand, it potentially paves the way for something new. The purpose of philosophy, it is by no means clear, but the question of the “other Beginning” ("der andere Anfang) is still open.
It is clear that it is the philosophy of Western Europe, being logocêntrica, sold out its full potential. However, we have to ask ourselves: what is the role of the chaos he has played in the philosophy of logocêntrica? He was rejected from the very beginning, the left hand scratched, because it is the Logos of based on the exclusion of the chaos, in a statement there is an alternative to the rigid of it. What is the main difference between the logos and the chaos? The Logos is unique to you, the Logos, is the separation of the Logos, it is a clear idea of the one and the other; and it is no coincidence that the Logos have received your form submission to the logic of Aristotle, in his basic laws: the law of identity, the law of the negation and the law of the third has been deleted. It is necessary to emphasize that the study of modern and post-modern, they show up correctly, which is the understanding of logocêntrica in the world, is male, that is exclusively male, and exclusive. It is in this way, so real, that the man thinks about the world and the world of the order. The Logos is the principle of male hierarchy, which has been streamlined in the philosophy of Western Europe, reached its high point... and collapsed, he was knocked down, it's gone. Today, the “great man”, and the “man in a cosmic” has been broken up into fragments. He collapsed, and along with him, his philosophy, in miami, as the Logos, and the masculine principle is in fact the same thing. This is where it comes to the correction term in the critical post-modernist “I-logocentrism”. The whole of the philosophy of Western Europe, was built on the principle of the male, from the beginning to the end. This is the end is here. We are living in it. This means that the Logos, it is sold out. Therefore, we have, or slide docilmente for a night out, or to search for a new path.
If we review this process of the emergence, establishment, and decline of the philosophy of Western Europe and the emergence of the Logos in its pure form, and, consequently, to the extent that the desmasculinização still (according to Plato, is the only one that is a true man; in other words, the male is the one who filosofa; so, today, we are talking about a world-encompassing, and as part of a spiritual men, because they are no longer able to engage in the arts), and in the Logos of fall, we see before us a picture of the mixture: fragments-second of thought to a logical, masculine mixing turbulentemente between each other, thus forming an amalgam of post-masculinista. It is precisely this mix, this is the phenomenon of turbulence in the parts that are not part of the whole, which is shown by those who use the concept of “chaos” in the science of moderna.
Here, we may say at once that in the chaos of which the science of moderna, physics, moderna, and the theory of chaos, operate, it is, in fact, a set of structures in order to be more complex. It's not that complex systems are by no means any of the alternative in the order of how to do this, but it's only one version of the flamboyant, baroque and here, too, the ideas of the post-modernist Deleuze in his essay The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque”, are valuable) in order complexificada, twisted, and very kinky. What is now called “the chaos” by representatives of the scientific establishment, and, in part, to the cultural condition of the world is a post-of course, in a world that is still situated in the part of the Logos in its orbit, while in the periphery, away, and in the last frontier. A name is quite accurate to such a state of affairs that was given to you by René Guénon, who called for in this situation of “the confusion” (French: “mix”, “jumble”, “all enredando at all”).
The concept of the “chaos” of the dominant ciência moderna do not correspond in any way to the chaos of the Greek imperative, organic, and spontaneous, but rather as the product of the collapse of the philosophy of logocêntrica and culture logocêntrica, which was based on it. The fact that we are dealing with a so-called “chaos” refers to the fact of the collapse of the Logos, and the separation into the different pieces. It is precisely for this reason that the scholars of the “chaos” can be found inside the structures, residual, or the extravagant, the eccentric, of the Logos. These can be studied and quantified only in the more complex procedures, and with the help of a special device, which was adapted for the measurement and description of the processes bifurcacionais, the equations are not built-in (Ilya prigogines ones), and fractal (Benoit Mandelbrot). The theory of “chaos,” the study of processes that are uniquely dependent on the initial conditions. The definition of “chaos” in the science of moderna is now considered to be the following: - a dynamic system with the following traits: sensitivity to initial conditions, mixing, topology, and density of the holes from time to time. For the mathematical, specifying, that there shall be “a chaotic system must have a non-linear, and to be generally stable, but they also have, at least, to a point of unstable equilibrium of the type-vibrating; in addition, the size of the system must not be smaller than 1.5 (that is, on the order of a differential equation, which must be no less than 3)”.
In fact, there is a chaos in the Greek, which is proposed in the concept of “chaos”, but is a product of the scattering and the decay of the Logos. This is why we are not yet out of the confines of the Logos: in the chaos, which is the science of moderna handles are integrated into the Logo, some within its interior space-while in orbit, the most extreme ones), as far as possible from the axis of logocêntrico, on the border far away from the ground, the conceptual platonic, in the world of the Titans. Therefore, we have, strictly speaking, to call this situation a “copy of a remote,” which he almost lost his connection with the original; you should not, under any circumstances, calling it “chaos”. Here, the term “mixed” (“la confusion” than Guénon it is more appropriate to the concept of post-modernity of a “fire drill”, and Jean Baudrillard interprets it as a copy without an original.” This is an area intralógica (although the maximum distance from the city centre. it has nothing to do with the initial image of the chaos in the Greek, which, according to the myth, it is prepended to the Logo before the order is, or will be, in the world. The true chaos that is the pre-cosmic, pre-ontological. In the “mixing” or “chaos,” science, moderna this is a post-electrified, although there was almost no to be inside of her, she was still there, which means that it's kind of ontology. Here is the aporia of Zeno on the fast-Achilles and the tortoise is at all relevant. It does not matter as much as with the “mix” to try to get away from the go, it is later unable to make it, as shown in the René Guénon, a line-x, which moves in the direction of 0, it will never be equal to 0, but only if you approach will always be 0 as it will always remain at a distance from the infinitely large (although it is infinitely small) part of it.
When you search for "chaos" (the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze describes this as a form of co-existence, so monads are incompatible; Deleuze calls these "monads" of the nômadas"), ciência moderna you are searching for the intralogos, the post of logos, in the order dissipativa, rather than an alternate order, and, as expected, the post-modernists of the nihilistic mentality.
Here, it is important to pay close attention to the concept of "nothing". The Logos will attract all of this for you, and gives all of you the quality of self-identification with the same-or in other words, with the Logos. The Logos and everything attracts everything for you, with the exception of that which he is not, but that's what it's not, it's nothing. The Logos will delete everything that is not, and how to include it all, just nothing, stay off of it. On the other hand, it interacts with severely, with this all, according to Parmenides, there is no non-being. Something about your order, and it serves as a border crossing. When you look at something through the eyes of the Logos, it is clear that we can't reach this boundary. For more of us to do our best in order to bring to nothing any difficulty in interpreting that to us cultivate to stay within the limits of something, and it is not out of nowhere, in the order under the hegemony of the Logos. And although this dominance will weaken at its extreme, it never goes away completely. So, on the way to the release of the power and domination of the modernist and post-modernist once they are in the position of "despot" in God in the traditional society, in a society like this, then was the reason that, long after the man himself, the structures in the ********, in the context of post-structuralism, etc.) On the condition that there is no non-being makes it to be unbearable for those who claim it as their own weight in the way. All references to "chaos", or calls the "monads" nômadas and inconsistent, they are unable to provide the desired result, namely, the eradication of the final and final of the "will to power", which is the main objective of the program is the liberator of the age of Enlightenment, do not and will not be a success through and through.
Those who are interested in the situation of the crisis of Modernity (and in particular to Martin Heidegger's) return to the roots, in the West, to the parent of the Greek, which was the origin of the philosophy as well. This study thoroughly for the birth of the Logos, and follows his career to the field of the art, Machenschaft. To describe it, he introduces the concept of Gestell, in which the theory is reference to the fact that is brief, ranging from Plato, and even of Heraclius) as far as the civilization in the mechanical market-wrote moderna, of the decay of the global maximum, but is continuously focusing on the West. Having examined the history of philosophy, (which is also the history of how to do so), from the beginning to the end, Which finds that she has ended up in the wrong way, precisely because it was so bad. As an alternative, he proposes that the design of the "other Beginning."
Having described the first philosophy, which has led to the logos, and, finally, in this regime, the ontological and post-logos-and post-technical dissipativo in which we find ourselves, Which identifies him / her as a result of a fundamental error committed in the former, even in the preparatory stages of the development of the philosophy of the european-western one. According to his view, the history of philosophy, culture and religion in the european west, is a failure to paramount in our contemplation of the ****physical. In line with This, two and a half thousand years of history, man has been in vain, since, from the very beginning, somewhere in the area of the first formulations of a status of the Logo for a certain error is allowed to accidentally inject an error, that is, as Heidegger puts it, we must first recognize and then overcome. This is how he developed his idea of the two of the Beginning of philosophy is the first one that started it, if it worked as it developed, flourished, and eventually, if it has been cut, and now it's got nothing on (remember, at least, to the nihilism of modern, that it was discovered by Friedrich Nietzsche, and opulently tested for This), and on the other, the Beginning of which could be found in the roots of this philosophy, but this is not the case, and you can watch the results: your logo is your loss), but in any case, it should be set, and start right now, while everything is clear. But this is the start will begin only when you really become clear to you. It was all clear for This. The rest of you are experiencing "lag", that everything is "not yet clear", noch nicht, in the eternal, "not yet." On the other, the Early — der andere Anfang.
If you look at the detail of what This meant by the “other Beginning” (the Beginning of an alternate potential, which has not yet graduated or not, and if we are right in the line of the great relation of the Logos, which he had undertaken, we will be able to view the entirety of the philosophy, culture, and the history of the Western world, including the religious history, after all, religion is nothing more than the development of the construction of the Logos (that is why Heidegger speaks of the “theological” is the faith of a christian, as well as the kalam muslim and jewish theology, is based on the use of Logos, and in fact, we don't know of any other monotheistic religions in addition to these great religions of the Logos). The logocentrism of religion is a very important thing to understand, it shows that it is useless to recur to the subject of religion to seek an alternative to, or protection from crash to the Logos. The crisis of the religions of the modern, that is the crisis of the Logos; when the Logos collapses, the whole of the vertical structure and all of its variations (including growth) will fall with it. It is inter-related: the right lost its popularity to the extent that the attraction of the Logos is weakened, and vice-versa. Religions, with no Logos no longer be who you really are. But even in the case in which the Logos is present in them, will be like a phantom pain, a “mess”, as the vanity of the structures dessemantizadas (which is what we are seeing today in the form of the phenomenon, it is doubtful that a “religious revival”, it certainly smells like a drill, and a parody).
For this reason, Heidegger proposed to seek a way out in a way that is completely different from the sources of the christian faith at the very Beginning (even in the hall at the Beginning) on the one hand, and in addition to that of the boundaries of this world and on the other, linking the issue to the time of the birth of philosophy and its place in an embryonic state, intra-uterine, the problem of the moment of the agony in the end, and death. Prior to Heraclius was brought in, the philosophy was found in the uterus, the Logos is “swimming” in the amniotic fluid, in an array is present, the Logos, he is buried in his grave." The tomb and the womb, on the one hand, and the meaning of antithesis: the first one means the death of the second birth; however, at the same time, we know that in the collective unconscious, are synonymous, and systems to one another. It may be said, figuratively speaking, that is, in both cases, this is the night, the dark, being without distinction, erasing the borders, all night, all the more so because many of the ritual system is linked to a decrease in the tomb, as well as at the beginning of the resurrection, or the other, according to their birth. It is also the rite of the baptism of the orthodox: on the water, it symbolizes the earth, the grave and death. In total immersion, so the baptized in the baptistery are a symbol of the three days that Christ spent in the tomb. It's a down to earth, and the tomb of the “burial of Christ”) is a pre-requisite for one to be born again.
If, therefore, the Logos, was born on the first of the christian faith by the rejection of the Chaos, as a rule of thumb, unique in the central division, the hierarchy of exception and order; that is, it is the male principle was essentially raised to the level of the absolute; and, if it started that way, and it all ended up with what we've got in the modern world, and so, according to Heidegger, we must find what was lost, what was the fault of the one's first impulse is that it has initiated the development of civilization logocêntrica. Heidegger develops his vision of the book, recapitualtivo and extraordinarily complex, “Beitrage zur Philosophie”, which I highly recommend to all readers who are familiar (the work has not been translated, and I would say that this is great; it must not be translated, and there are other things that are not only difficult to translate, but the criminal was to translate the things that require the use of their native ******** to be learned in order to be included). The book comes directly out of the “other Beginning”, on the contrary, we find, in a short and relatively light weight of these ideas in the “Geschichte des Seyns”.
This brings us to think of a way radically different from the usual in philosophy or the philosophical and religious. But how is it possible to do philosophy in a different way, how can there be an “other Beginning” of philosophy? If you look up close and in detail, to the time of the birth of Greek philosophy, we find a single element as essential to the philosophy, was born on the side of exclusion, and in the Chaos that is the first victim of a foreclosure. In the Chaos, it is not a philosophical concept, and never has been, but it comes in a philosophy solely by your intermediary, for their replacement in the person of khora, the “space” platonic in the “Timeu,” or, later, in the person of the subject (ulh) from the Stage. However, in the view of khora in the “Timeu”, and the view of the matter, for Aristotle, it is the vision of the Logos, and all of the Logos, he says, is that you've already deleted-the Chaos during the process of ascension, and in a way that is similar to a “political advertisement” or a “press release”. What is the Logos in relation to the subject it's a Wille zur Macht uniquely simple, the “will to power”, and the development of a strategy for passionate and aggressive, male-dominated, and the establishment of a dominance hierarchy, with the projection of the desires, pretending, and the prophecies autorrealizáveis. Since the beginning of philosophy, “the dog has been shaken”. A philosophy that tries to force us to what it is to be positive. This is the secret of cunning men, the thrust of the male to the absolutização of the self, and, consequently, to the exclusion of the feminine principle, the “other,” the first. And, if you're looking at this, we see a total lack of understanding of his wife. This is the source of the woman is to be attributed to the qualities that, in fact, that she doesn't have. Thus, the human form among other things, that it is deleted by a man in the process of intellective. The Logos and rejects the khora, for the sake of his (mis)understanding. On the other hand, it you don't get it purely because they don't want to understand it, and prefer to deal with a representation in the place of the woman herself. The man thinks that the only way to get to know a woman is to hide them in a room built to separate it from the "public" aspect social. Later, he thinks that he is a suitable solution is to steer clear of the woman's entirely, erasing any traces of them, through the suffering of your god for the male alone. Therefore, in the opinion of the Logos on the chaos that is a glaring falsehood, violence, dominance, to the exclusion of the chaos of the other. As it is the Logos of all of the chaos makes it, if anything.
If we are to understand the very possibility of an “other Beginning” of philosophy, on the one hand, we have to get to the moment of the birth of the Logos, and to secure the transition to the limit, to pick out the details, and the meaning of this rite-of-passage. How could it have happened that the Logos has managed to liberate itself, and those who allowed it to grant them its own decrees, and unique on the chaos? Now, we come to the more interesting stuff: we are fed up with the logical structures, and the post-logical dissipativas, we need to recognize that we need to go back to the Logos again, seeing that it was the Logos who created all the prerequisites for its dissipation through his means. Can't we just go back to platonism: there's no way to go back. The Logos if you move in only one direction: it splits and splits (divides, and divides... and so on, from a distance). Gilbert, This is called the logic of the regime's “day”: as long as everything is reduced to a piece, and then stop. This esquizomorfose take you directly to the concept of “esquizomassa” by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. This has been illustrated with the magnificent form in the films of Takeshi Miike, for example, in “the Killer Ichi”, or “Has”. In the latter film, a samurai of the insane, and have started their battle with the world, and to cut off all of it is in bits and pieces. Izo is the Logos.
The Logos is not going to help. If you don't like it in the world as it is modern, and post-of course, you're organized, we're forced to (whether we like it or not) are not to go back to the chaos. We have no choice: we have to essentially take a step back in the direction of the first and the Beginning of Greek culture, in order to take even the smallest step forward to actually lie ahead, and not follow, the bow, the infinity of the world, forever to an end, it is still not capable to stop the“not yet”). If we do not do so, we will reach an impasse, the eternal return, infinity, structures, dissipativas, and confusion. This is the choice that we are to, or have chosen the chaos of the modern, post-post-of course, out of trouble, or we've stepped out of his boundaries, but that's the way to break your boundaries, it can only be found in the chaos that precedes it, the Logos, and it is located in a radically beyond its borders, in the back of the line, in the midst of his agony in the peripheral.
In the chaos, it can, and should, be seen as a form of order that is inclusive, such as an order that is based on a principle that is the opposite of the Logos; that is, the principle of inclusiveness. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of inclusiveness. Once we understand this term, we'll know if it's possible to build out a philosophy of chaos, that is, the philosophy of the “other Beginning.”
If you see the chaos that is the way it is seen by logocêntricos, we won't get anywhere. There isn't anything logical, unique, male, no Wille zur Macht), in the chaos, and it means that it ouk online, (Greek: “pure "non-being”), French rien”, Spanish for “nothing”, so the logo Onto-Logos – ouk-on, and don't mhon, such as the greeks, they called him the don't-be able to produce something of himself, “not to be" pregnant”). As for the Logos, you will not see anything but himself, and in compliance with the principle of the logic of aristotle, we might not align anything to him, or it is equal to The (in this case, we find ourselves within the limits of logic), or not equal to A; now we're outside of those boundaries, on the nowhere. According to Aristotle, the last of the situation, it means that The book is not existed, the one that does not equal To does not exist. This is in contrast to, for example, from the perspective of a philosopher of japanese Kitaro Nishida, who, in contrast to Aristotle, it has developed a separate logical spaces, “basho” was founded on the models of thought in Buddhism.
On the outside of the logo in your suggestion, hypnosis, it is entirely possible to find on the chaos, such as the principle of inclusion, the absolute, or a philosophy that is inclusive. Why is this so? Because, if we can extract from the political propaganda of the Logos (under the conditions which we have lived for two millennia and a half, we'll be able to watch the chaos as they are, and not as do the Logos of the features. The chaos turns out to be all-inclusive, it carries in itself all the possibilities, including the possibility of exclusion, and to opt-out. Of course a lot of it contains the logo (s) as it is thought, like a seed in the womb of a woman he is and is about to be born, and he definitely will be born, if you will separate them, will ripen and cut it to do something it's missing: the one that allows him to be alive, what it produces, nourishes, and feeds them.
The Logos can be seen, like a fish swimming in the waters of chaos. Without this water, which is played on the surface, the fish is running out of steam, and is, in fact, as soon as the structure of the Logos coaxam”. We are only dealing with the remains dissipative. These are the bones of the fish that lay at the beach. It is not by chance that many of you speak of the symbolism of the Tank, as the new water, which the old man a fish could not live in.
The philosophy of the chaos that is possible because of the chaos, and this is not all-inclusive, all-embracing, and the history of exclusion, of this very exclusion, in and of itself, but it also has a different relationship with her, and I can get it, and how it differs from the way in to the exclusion of (or the Logos) as it relates to the chaos and get to it. We know it's just a vision of chaos, in: the philosophical view of the position of the Logo, and if you want to look into the Logos, from the point of view of the chaos, we were told that this is impossible, because we are accustomed to look at the mayhem's just from the point of view of the Logos. It is believed that only the Logos you are able to see it, and that the chaos is why. No, that's not true a lot of one-eye, he is “translated”. In the chaos, we see that it contains the Logo, which means that the Logos are located on the inside of the chaos, and you can be inside of it. However, as long as it contains the Logos within them a lot of it is contained in a totally different way from how the Logos himself, and that he is rejecting the fact that it contained any thing, (which is the container, except for himself, and, consequently, the loading of the chaos out of your sight, which is the same to nothing, and rejected it. Thus, the fish, and recognize it as something that is different from the water that surrounds it, you can come to the conclusion that you don't need any more of the water, and jump up onto the beach. However, someone else may attempt to throw the fish the stupid back, he will try to jump again and again. Caught this fish is insane, “the Stage”.
But it the water is just the beginning of it all. It contains the root of any other of the elements and other creatures. It contains everything what it is and what it is not. It includes everything that you acknowledge the fact that the above-mentioned, but also the things that you don't recognize.
Podemos tirar a seguinte conclusão: primeiro, uma filosofia do Caos é possível, e segundo, a salvação através do Logos é impossível: a salvação do Logos é possível apenas através de um correto retorno ao caos.
In the Chaos, it is not the only "old" is always "new," because it's everlasting it's always new to eternity (l éternité) that Rimbaud has found them again (a retrouvé) - c'est la mer allée avec le soleil. Please note: la mer. In the chaos, it's the newest, the coolest, the most modern, the most recent collection of the season-current (Il faut être absolument moderne. Point de cantiques: tenir le pas gagné). It is precisely because it is absolutely eternal, the time gets old very, very quickly, to the yesterday, it seems old (there is nothing more ancient than the "news" is a newspaper from a month ago, the eternity is always absolutely brand new. Therefore, the discovery of chaos, does not amount to an excavation of the history, or of the structures that are listed as occupied by a long history; it does not, it is an encounter with the forever young. In the Chaos, it was not before, or they used to be. In the Chaos that is in the here and now. In the Chaos, it's not about what it was like Logos, propagandeia. In the Chaos, it is what it is, and what it will be like.
In conclusion, we return once more to This. To reach the truth of the world (Wahrheit des Seyns) is it possible to only two times in history: in the beginning, when the truth is about to be born, and in the end occurs when there is a disappearance of the settlement in the workplace. Of course, individual personality could be in the order of the truth, each at a different stage as well; however, they could do that, but you might also be able to make do with something else: you used to live in the magic of the Logos, basking in the rays of the seed of the sun.
Now, this is the only thing that's left, all the rest of it has been sold out, and for the dissolution of a world is ending again, but is unable to actually finish up in the "not yet", we see the fate of nullity. In addition to this, to do that these days it is easier than ever before. You and I, dear reader, that we are living in extraordinary times in which we are presented with an opportunity for a totally unexpected finding, directly in the chaos. This is not an experience for the faint-of-mind. After all, it is our job to build the philosophy of all this chaos.
PHILOSOPHY
22.09.2024
Aleksandr Dugin
In the chaos, it was not part of the context of the christian faith. The christian faith has been built only as a philosophy of the Logos, and, to us, to such a state of things is, as usual, that (most likely correctly, from the point of view of history, we identify with the philosophy of the Logos. We don't know of the other, philosophy, and, on the whole, going in the direction of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, along with the philosophy of the post-moderna, contemporary, we have to acknowledge that his own philosophy, founded by the greeks, and it was built around the Logos is exhausted out of your content today. It is incarnated in a techne, the topography of the subject and the object, which proved to be evidenciária for no more than two or three centuries, until a final note, watch in the philosophy of Western Europe. In fact, we are on-line or at the point of the end of the philosophy of the Logos.
Today, it gives an insight into the whole process of the evolution of the philosophy of logocêntrica, which began with Heraclitus, and in the pre-socratic, it reached its peak in neoplatonism, and Socrates, and has been developed in a manner that is very violent and in the early fathers of the christian Greek and Latin, and, subsequently, in the scholastic and renaissance neoplatônico, and then, in the new era, has become, together with Descartes by the topography of the subject and the object is in its final stage, autorreflexivo, which, in turn, ended up with the past as such. According to Heidegger, it is precisely Nietzsche (who also is called, the philosophy of Western Europe. Thus, we now have a finished story with a beginning, a climax and an end, it's all about the culture of logocêntrica. The Logos, from the cradle to the grave. But then we have to wonder: who was This?
On the one hand, This will definitely quit this process, of the philosophy of the west, and put it on the stamp, but, on the other hand, it potentially paves the way for something new. The purpose of philosophy, it is by no means clear, but the question of the “other Beginning” ("der andere Anfang) is still open.
It is clear that it is the philosophy of Western Europe, being logocêntrica, sold out its full potential. However, we have to ask ourselves: what is the role of the chaos he has played in the philosophy of logocêntrica? He was rejected from the very beginning, the left hand scratched, because it is the Logos of based on the exclusion of the chaos, in a statement there is an alternative to the rigid of it. What is the main difference between the logos and the chaos? The Logos is unique to you, the Logos, is the separation of the Logos, it is a clear idea of the one and the other; and it is no coincidence that the Logos have received your form submission to the logic of Aristotle, in his basic laws: the law of identity, the law of the negation and the law of the third has been deleted. It is necessary to emphasize that the study of modern and post-modern, they show up correctly, which is the understanding of logocêntrica in the world, is male, that is exclusively male, and exclusive. It is in this way, so real, that the man thinks about the world and the world of the order. The Logos is the principle of male hierarchy, which has been streamlined in the philosophy of Western Europe, reached its high point... and collapsed, he was knocked down, it's gone. Today, the “great man”, and the “man in a cosmic” has been broken up into fragments. He collapsed, and along with him, his philosophy, in miami, as the Logos, and the masculine principle is in fact the same thing. This is where it comes to the correction term in the critical post-modernist “I-logocentrism”. The whole of the philosophy of Western Europe, was built on the principle of the male, from the beginning to the end. This is the end is here. We are living in it. This means that the Logos, it is sold out. Therefore, we have, or slide docilmente for a night out, or to search for a new path.
If we review this process of the emergence, establishment, and decline of the philosophy of Western Europe and the emergence of the Logos in its pure form, and, consequently, to the extent that the desmasculinização still (according to Plato, is the only one that is a true man; in other words, the male is the one who filosofa; so, today, we are talking about a world-encompassing, and as part of a spiritual men, because they are no longer able to engage in the arts), and in the Logos of fall, we see before us a picture of the mixture: fragments-second of thought to a logical, masculine mixing turbulentemente between each other, thus forming an amalgam of post-masculinista. It is precisely this mix, this is the phenomenon of turbulence in the parts that are not part of the whole, which is shown by those who use the concept of “chaos” in the science of moderna.
Here, we may say at once that in the chaos of which the science of moderna, physics, moderna, and the theory of chaos, operate, it is, in fact, a set of structures in order to be more complex. It's not that complex systems are by no means any of the alternative in the order of how to do this, but it's only one version of the flamboyant, baroque and here, too, the ideas of the post-modernist Deleuze in his essay The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque”, are valuable) in order complexificada, twisted, and very kinky. What is now called “the chaos” by representatives of the scientific establishment, and, in part, to the cultural condition of the world is a post-of course, in a world that is still situated in the part of the Logos in its orbit, while in the periphery, away, and in the last frontier. A name is quite accurate to such a state of affairs that was given to you by René Guénon, who called for in this situation of “the confusion” (French: “mix”, “jumble”, “all enredando at all”).
The concept of the “chaos” of the dominant ciência moderna do not correspond in any way to the chaos of the Greek imperative, organic, and spontaneous, but rather as the product of the collapse of the philosophy of logocêntrica and culture logocêntrica, which was based on it. The fact that we are dealing with a so-called “chaos” refers to the fact of the collapse of the Logos, and the separation into the different pieces. It is precisely for this reason that the scholars of the “chaos” can be found inside the structures, residual, or the extravagant, the eccentric, of the Logos. These can be studied and quantified only in the more complex procedures, and with the help of a special device, which was adapted for the measurement and description of the processes bifurcacionais, the equations are not built-in (Ilya prigogines ones), and fractal (Benoit Mandelbrot). The theory of “chaos,” the study of processes that are uniquely dependent on the initial conditions. The definition of “chaos” in the science of moderna is now considered to be the following: - a dynamic system with the following traits: sensitivity to initial conditions, mixing, topology, and density of the holes from time to time. For the mathematical, specifying, that there shall be “a chaotic system must have a non-linear, and to be generally stable, but they also have, at least, to a point of unstable equilibrium of the type-vibrating; in addition, the size of the system must not be smaller than 1.5 (that is, on the order of a differential equation, which must be no less than 3)”.
In fact, there is a chaos in the Greek, which is proposed in the concept of “chaos”, but is a product of the scattering and the decay of the Logos. This is why we are not yet out of the confines of the Logos: in the chaos, which is the science of moderna handles are integrated into the Logo, some within its interior space-while in orbit, the most extreme ones), as far as possible from the axis of logocêntrico, on the border far away from the ground, the conceptual platonic, in the world of the Titans. Therefore, we have, strictly speaking, to call this situation a “copy of a remote,” which he almost lost his connection with the original; you should not, under any circumstances, calling it “chaos”. Here, the term “mixed” (“la confusion” than Guénon it is more appropriate to the concept of post-modernity of a “fire drill”, and Jean Baudrillard interprets it as a copy without an original.” This is an area intralógica (although the maximum distance from the city centre. it has nothing to do with the initial image of the chaos in the Greek, which, according to the myth, it is prepended to the Logo before the order is, or will be, in the world. The true chaos that is the pre-cosmic, pre-ontological. In the “mixing” or “chaos,” science, moderna this is a post-electrified, although there was almost no to be inside of her, she was still there, which means that it's kind of ontology. Here is the aporia of Zeno on the fast-Achilles and the tortoise is at all relevant. It does not matter as much as with the “mix” to try to get away from the go, it is later unable to make it, as shown in the René Guénon, a line-x, which moves in the direction of 0, it will never be equal to 0, but only if you approach will always be 0 as it will always remain at a distance from the infinitely large (although it is infinitely small) part of it.
When you search for "chaos" (the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze describes this as a form of co-existence, so monads are incompatible; Deleuze calls these "monads" of the nômadas"), ciência moderna you are searching for the intralogos, the post of logos, in the order dissipativa, rather than an alternate order, and, as expected, the post-modernists of the nihilistic mentality.
Here, it is important to pay close attention to the concept of "nothing". The Logos will attract all of this for you, and gives all of you the quality of self-identification with the same-or in other words, with the Logos. The Logos and everything attracts everything for you, with the exception of that which he is not, but that's what it's not, it's nothing. The Logos will delete everything that is not, and how to include it all, just nothing, stay off of it. On the other hand, it interacts with severely, with this all, according to Parmenides, there is no non-being. Something about your order, and it serves as a border crossing. When you look at something through the eyes of the Logos, it is clear that we can't reach this boundary. For more of us to do our best in order to bring to nothing any difficulty in interpreting that to us cultivate to stay within the limits of something, and it is not out of nowhere, in the order under the hegemony of the Logos. And although this dominance will weaken at its extreme, it never goes away completely. So, on the way to the release of the power and domination of the modernist and post-modernist once they are in the position of "despot" in God in the traditional society, in a society like this, then was the reason that, long after the man himself, the structures in the ********, in the context of post-structuralism, etc.) On the condition that there is no non-being makes it to be unbearable for those who claim it as their own weight in the way. All references to "chaos", or calls the "monads" nômadas and inconsistent, they are unable to provide the desired result, namely, the eradication of the final and final of the "will to power", which is the main objective of the program is the liberator of the age of Enlightenment, do not and will not be a success through and through.
Those who are interested in the situation of the crisis of Modernity (and in particular to Martin Heidegger's) return to the roots, in the West, to the parent of the Greek, which was the origin of the philosophy as well. This study thoroughly for the birth of the Logos, and follows his career to the field of the art, Machenschaft. To describe it, he introduces the concept of Gestell, in which the theory is reference to the fact that is brief, ranging from Plato, and even of Heraclius) as far as the civilization in the mechanical market-wrote moderna, of the decay of the global maximum, but is continuously focusing on the West. Having examined the history of philosophy, (which is also the history of how to do so), from the beginning to the end, Which finds that she has ended up in the wrong way, precisely because it was so bad. As an alternative, he proposes that the design of the "other Beginning."
Having described the first philosophy, which has led to the logos, and, finally, in this regime, the ontological and post-logos-and post-technical dissipativo in which we find ourselves, Which identifies him / her as a result of a fundamental error committed in the former, even in the preparatory stages of the development of the philosophy of the european-western one. According to his view, the history of philosophy, culture and religion in the european west, is a failure to paramount in our contemplation of the ****physical. In line with This, two and a half thousand years of history, man has been in vain, since, from the very beginning, somewhere in the area of the first formulations of a status of the Logo for a certain error is allowed to accidentally inject an error, that is, as Heidegger puts it, we must first recognize and then overcome. This is how he developed his idea of the two of the Beginning of philosophy is the first one that started it, if it worked as it developed, flourished, and eventually, if it has been cut, and now it's got nothing on (remember, at least, to the nihilism of modern, that it was discovered by Friedrich Nietzsche, and opulently tested for This), and on the other, the Beginning of which could be found in the roots of this philosophy, but this is not the case, and you can watch the results: your logo is your loss), but in any case, it should be set, and start right now, while everything is clear. But this is the start will begin only when you really become clear to you. It was all clear for This. The rest of you are experiencing "lag", that everything is "not yet clear", noch nicht, in the eternal, "not yet." On the other, the Early — der andere Anfang.
If you look at the detail of what This meant by the “other Beginning” (the Beginning of an alternate potential, which has not yet graduated or not, and if we are right in the line of the great relation of the Logos, which he had undertaken, we will be able to view the entirety of the philosophy, culture, and the history of the Western world, including the religious history, after all, religion is nothing more than the development of the construction of the Logos (that is why Heidegger speaks of the “theological” is the faith of a christian, as well as the kalam muslim and jewish theology, is based on the use of Logos, and in fact, we don't know of any other monotheistic religions in addition to these great religions of the Logos). The logocentrism of religion is a very important thing to understand, it shows that it is useless to recur to the subject of religion to seek an alternative to, or protection from crash to the Logos. The crisis of the religions of the modern, that is the crisis of the Logos; when the Logos collapses, the whole of the vertical structure and all of its variations (including growth) will fall with it. It is inter-related: the right lost its popularity to the extent that the attraction of the Logos is weakened, and vice-versa. Religions, with no Logos no longer be who you really are. But even in the case in which the Logos is present in them, will be like a phantom pain, a “mess”, as the vanity of the structures dessemantizadas (which is what we are seeing today in the form of the phenomenon, it is doubtful that a “religious revival”, it certainly smells like a drill, and a parody).
For this reason, Heidegger proposed to seek a way out in a way that is completely different from the sources of the christian faith at the very Beginning (even in the hall at the Beginning) on the one hand, and in addition to that of the boundaries of this world and on the other, linking the issue to the time of the birth of philosophy and its place in an embryonic state, intra-uterine, the problem of the moment of the agony in the end, and death. Prior to Heraclius was brought in, the philosophy was found in the uterus, the Logos is “swimming” in the amniotic fluid, in an array is present, the Logos, he is buried in his grave." The tomb and the womb, on the one hand, and the meaning of antithesis: the first one means the death of the second birth; however, at the same time, we know that in the collective unconscious, are synonymous, and systems to one another. It may be said, figuratively speaking, that is, in both cases, this is the night, the dark, being without distinction, erasing the borders, all night, all the more so because many of the ritual system is linked to a decrease in the tomb, as well as at the beginning of the resurrection, or the other, according to their birth. It is also the rite of the baptism of the orthodox: on the water, it symbolizes the earth, the grave and death. In total immersion, so the baptized in the baptistery are a symbol of the three days that Christ spent in the tomb. It's a down to earth, and the tomb of the “burial of Christ”) is a pre-requisite for one to be born again.
If, therefore, the Logos, was born on the first of the christian faith by the rejection of the Chaos, as a rule of thumb, unique in the central division, the hierarchy of exception and order; that is, it is the male principle was essentially raised to the level of the absolute; and, if it started that way, and it all ended up with what we've got in the modern world, and so, according to Heidegger, we must find what was lost, what was the fault of the one's first impulse is that it has initiated the development of civilization logocêntrica. Heidegger develops his vision of the book, recapitualtivo and extraordinarily complex, “Beitrage zur Philosophie”, which I highly recommend to all readers who are familiar (the work has not been translated, and I would say that this is great; it must not be translated, and there are other things that are not only difficult to translate, but the criminal was to translate the things that require the use of their native ******** to be learned in order to be included). The book comes directly out of the “other Beginning”, on the contrary, we find, in a short and relatively light weight of these ideas in the “Geschichte des Seyns”.
This brings us to think of a way radically different from the usual in philosophy or the philosophical and religious. But how is it possible to do philosophy in a different way, how can there be an “other Beginning” of philosophy? If you look up close and in detail, to the time of the birth of Greek philosophy, we find a single element as essential to the philosophy, was born on the side of exclusion, and in the Chaos that is the first victim of a foreclosure. In the Chaos, it is not a philosophical concept, and never has been, but it comes in a philosophy solely by your intermediary, for their replacement in the person of khora, the “space” platonic in the “Timeu,” or, later, in the person of the subject (ulh) from the Stage. However, in the view of khora in the “Timeu”, and the view of the matter, for Aristotle, it is the vision of the Logos, and all of the Logos, he says, is that you've already deleted-the Chaos during the process of ascension, and in a way that is similar to a “political advertisement” or a “press release”. What is the Logos in relation to the subject it's a Wille zur Macht uniquely simple, the “will to power”, and the development of a strategy for passionate and aggressive, male-dominated, and the establishment of a dominance hierarchy, with the projection of the desires, pretending, and the prophecies autorrealizáveis. Since the beginning of philosophy, “the dog has been shaken”. A philosophy that tries to force us to what it is to be positive. This is the secret of cunning men, the thrust of the male to the absolutização of the self, and, consequently, to the exclusion of the feminine principle, the “other,” the first. And, if you're looking at this, we see a total lack of understanding of his wife. This is the source of the woman is to be attributed to the qualities that, in fact, that she doesn't have. Thus, the human form among other things, that it is deleted by a man in the process of intellective. The Logos and rejects the khora, for the sake of his (mis)understanding. On the other hand, it you don't get it purely because they don't want to understand it, and prefer to deal with a representation in the place of the woman herself. The man thinks that the only way to get to know a woman is to hide them in a room built to separate it from the "public" aspect social. Later, he thinks that he is a suitable solution is to steer clear of the woman's entirely, erasing any traces of them, through the suffering of your god for the male alone. Therefore, in the opinion of the Logos on the chaos that is a glaring falsehood, violence, dominance, to the exclusion of the chaos of the other. As it is the Logos of all of the chaos makes it, if anything.
If we are to understand the very possibility of an “other Beginning” of philosophy, on the one hand, we have to get to the moment of the birth of the Logos, and to secure the transition to the limit, to pick out the details, and the meaning of this rite-of-passage. How could it have happened that the Logos has managed to liberate itself, and those who allowed it to grant them its own decrees, and unique on the chaos? Now, we come to the more interesting stuff: we are fed up with the logical structures, and the post-logical dissipativas, we need to recognize that we need to go back to the Logos again, seeing that it was the Logos who created all the prerequisites for its dissipation through his means. Can't we just go back to platonism: there's no way to go back. The Logos if you move in only one direction: it splits and splits (divides, and divides... and so on, from a distance). Gilbert, This is called the logic of the regime's “day”: as long as everything is reduced to a piece, and then stop. This esquizomorfose take you directly to the concept of “esquizomassa” by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. This has been illustrated with the magnificent form in the films of Takeshi Miike, for example, in “the Killer Ichi”, or “Has”. In the latter film, a samurai of the insane, and have started their battle with the world, and to cut off all of it is in bits and pieces. Izo is the Logos.
The Logos is not going to help. If you don't like it in the world as it is modern, and post-of course, you're organized, we're forced to (whether we like it or not) are not to go back to the chaos. We have no choice: we have to essentially take a step back in the direction of the first and the Beginning of Greek culture, in order to take even the smallest step forward to actually lie ahead, and not follow, the bow, the infinity of the world, forever to an end, it is still not capable to stop the“not yet”). If we do not do so, we will reach an impasse, the eternal return, infinity, structures, dissipativas, and confusion. This is the choice that we are to, or have chosen the chaos of the modern, post-post-of course, out of trouble, or we've stepped out of his boundaries, but that's the way to break your boundaries, it can only be found in the chaos that precedes it, the Logos, and it is located in a radically beyond its borders, in the back of the line, in the midst of his agony in the peripheral.
In the chaos, it can, and should, be seen as a form of order that is inclusive, such as an order that is based on a principle that is the opposite of the Logos; that is, the principle of inclusiveness. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of inclusiveness. Once we understand this term, we'll know if it's possible to build out a philosophy of chaos, that is, the philosophy of the “other Beginning.”
If you see the chaos that is the way it is seen by logocêntricos, we won't get anywhere. There isn't anything logical, unique, male, no Wille zur Macht), in the chaos, and it means that it ouk online, (Greek: “pure "non-being”), French rien”, Spanish for “nothing”, so the logo Onto-Logos – ouk-on, and don't mhon, such as the greeks, they called him the don't-be able to produce something of himself, “not to be" pregnant”). As for the Logos, you will not see anything but himself, and in compliance with the principle of the logic of aristotle, we might not align anything to him, or it is equal to The (in this case, we find ourselves within the limits of logic), or not equal to A; now we're outside of those boundaries, on the nowhere. According to Aristotle, the last of the situation, it means that The book is not existed, the one that does not equal To does not exist. This is in contrast to, for example, from the perspective of a philosopher of japanese Kitaro Nishida, who, in contrast to Aristotle, it has developed a separate logical spaces, “basho” was founded on the models of thought in Buddhism.
On the outside of the logo in your suggestion, hypnosis, it is entirely possible to find on the chaos, such as the principle of inclusion, the absolute, or a philosophy that is inclusive. Why is this so? Because, if we can extract from the political propaganda of the Logos (under the conditions which we have lived for two millennia and a half, we'll be able to watch the chaos as they are, and not as do the Logos of the features. The chaos turns out to be all-inclusive, it carries in itself all the possibilities, including the possibility of exclusion, and to opt-out. Of course a lot of it contains the logo (s) as it is thought, like a seed in the womb of a woman he is and is about to be born, and he definitely will be born, if you will separate them, will ripen and cut it to do something it's missing: the one that allows him to be alive, what it produces, nourishes, and feeds them.
The Logos can be seen, like a fish swimming in the waters of chaos. Without this water, which is played on the surface, the fish is running out of steam, and is, in fact, as soon as the structure of the Logos coaxam”. We are only dealing with the remains dissipative. These are the bones of the fish that lay at the beach. It is not by chance that many of you speak of the symbolism of the Tank, as the new water, which the old man a fish could not live in.
The philosophy of the chaos that is possible because of the chaos, and this is not all-inclusive, all-embracing, and the history of exclusion, of this very exclusion, in and of itself, but it also has a different relationship with her, and I can get it, and how it differs from the way in to the exclusion of (or the Logos) as it relates to the chaos and get to it. We know it's just a vision of chaos, in: the philosophical view of the position of the Logo, and if you want to look into the Logos, from the point of view of the chaos, we were told that this is impossible, because we are accustomed to look at the mayhem's just from the point of view of the Logos. It is believed that only the Logos you are able to see it, and that the chaos is why. No, that's not true a lot of one-eye, he is “translated”. In the chaos, we see that it contains the Logo, which means that the Logos are located on the inside of the chaos, and you can be inside of it. However, as long as it contains the Logos within them a lot of it is contained in a totally different way from how the Logos himself, and that he is rejecting the fact that it contained any thing, (which is the container, except for himself, and, consequently, the loading of the chaos out of your sight, which is the same to nothing, and rejected it. Thus, the fish, and recognize it as something that is different from the water that surrounds it, you can come to the conclusion that you don't need any more of the water, and jump up onto the beach. However, someone else may attempt to throw the fish the stupid back, he will try to jump again and again. Caught this fish is insane, “the Stage”.
But it the water is just the beginning of it all. It contains the root of any other of the elements and other creatures. It contains everything what it is and what it is not. It includes everything that you acknowledge the fact that the above-mentioned, but also the things that you don't recognize.
Podemos tirar a seguinte conclusão: primeiro, uma filosofia do Caos é possível, e segundo, a salvação através do Logos é impossível: a salvação do Logos é possível apenas através de um correto retorno ao caos.
In the Chaos, it is not the only "old" is always "new," because it's everlasting it's always new to eternity (l éternité) that Rimbaud has found them again (a retrouvé) - c'est la mer allée avec le soleil. Please note: la mer. In the chaos, it's the newest, the coolest, the most modern, the most recent collection of the season-current (Il faut être absolument moderne. Point de cantiques: tenir le pas gagné). It is precisely because it is absolutely eternal, the time gets old very, very quickly, to the yesterday, it seems old (there is nothing more ancient than the "news" is a newspaper from a month ago, the eternity is always absolutely brand new. Therefore, the discovery of chaos, does not amount to an excavation of the history, or of the structures that are listed as occupied by a long history; it does not, it is an encounter with the forever young. In the Chaos, it was not before, or they used to be. In the Chaos that is in the here and now. In the Chaos, it's not about what it was like Logos, propagandeia. In the Chaos, it is what it is, and what it will be like.
In conclusion, we return once more to This. To reach the truth of the world (Wahrheit des Seyns) is it possible to only two times in history: in the beginning, when the truth is about to be born, and in the end occurs when there is a disappearance of the settlement in the workplace. Of course, individual personality could be in the order of the truth, each at a different stage as well; however, they could do that, but you might also be able to make do with something else: you used to live in the magic of the Logos, basking in the rays of the seed of the sun.
Now, this is the only thing that's left, all the rest of it has been sold out, and for the dissolution of a world is ending again, but is unable to actually finish up in the "not yet", we see the fate of nullity. In addition to this, to do that these days it is easier than ever before. You and I, dear reader, that we are living in extraordinary times in which we are presented with an opportunity for a totally unexpected finding, directly in the chaos. This is not an experience for the faint-of-mind. After all, it is our job to build the philosophy of all this chaos.