Articles and Manuscripts: Actual and Proposed

1)       THE PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY What are the grounds of philosophy? What is the essence of its being? To answer that question I synthesised the notion of Heidgger's Care and Marx's notion of labour. Care, the Worker, is the revolutionary thinker.

2)       IN THE BEGINNING WAS ......THE END. I considered the difference between  not and non in recovering the primacy f Being while preserving the symbolic existence of the negative. This preserves the cogency of Parmenides' claim forbidding the thinking and saying of  'What is Not' while providing the logical basis for its symbolic negation. This preserves the logical kernel of nihilism while denying the logical necessity for being a nihilist: the grounds of the resistance to nihilism (sophisty) called philosophy. 

3)        COURAGE MY LOVE: ECRASEZ LA MODERNITY? In this article I read Pauline Reage's Story of O. There I argued that its profound challenging of the bourgeois notion of freedom, specified as feminism, related O's struggle to pre-capitalist wisdom traditions such as Buddhism. O's apparent submission and humiliation echoes the ancient notion of Earth strength. The Earth is able to take in diverse forms of impurity and yet is able to transform them, putting them back into the service of life. That is its enduring power: the Earth is Oooom.

4)       ON PLATO'S NOTION OF LOVE: In the symposium Plato argued that love is not beauty because love desires to have what it does not possess, and that is beauty. In response I argued that this is true, but only to the degree that love is not itself. Alienated love is ugly while love transcendent is love that re-affirms the grounds of its being and so recovers its innate beauty.

 5) get article on piety

Introduction: (extract)

Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.[1]

Reality is not dialectical, colonialism is.[2]

 I am one thing, my writings are another.[3]

This work explicates the concepts of the good, the true, and the beautiful as integral summary concepts for renewed dialectical form, the essential methodological tool for a socialist world-government and ultimately global communist society. communist society. That is how this text inserts itself within a chain of differences called culture.

This text charts the author’s desire to transform culture as an aspect of personal growth. Is to grow personally to grow out of a culture? What strange plant is this?

Are we one or two in being this growing plant? Are the roots speaking to the blossoming flower? Do we, as a union of the two ‘I’s, reflect and aim to reflect upon: what it now means to be a human being, as regulated by the body-

 In that sense the ‘author of the text’ is both important and unimportant – the text, to reverse Nietzsche’s subtitle of Thus Spoke Zarathustra – it is written by everyone and no one. Authorship, rather than being a stated act, is a transparent membrane stretching across the distance – if not being that distance – between desire and its fulfillment – the hymen as Derrida might say. Authorship is important because it assigns an identity to the text -- this is someone’s work -- and so is a ‘site’ for interrogating the text. ‘What did the author mean?’ For the same reason, authorship is unimportant because the text will (or can) stand as an entity onto itself, apart from its author. Adding the name adds nothing; the irony of ‘artistic’ practices where the sole value of the work is the artist’s signature. 

This text speaks for and is a writing project. It is thrown beyond itself and forwards some message which it wants ‘what is outside of itself’ to read. The text is written as to be read, and would question whether anything can be written or read. Yet the text has an ostensible subject, namely, dialectical form whose content is ‘being-in- time-to-the-music,’ and we add, ‘from the ground up.’ The title is a modification of Heidegger’s work. As project, the text would speak for some idea, whose spiral progression downward, from the heights of philosophic idealism, even as it was born in the struggle against that, to the murderous depths of systemic insanity. We are speaking of communism, the state of world reality to which the young Marx, opposing Hegel’s dialectic, wants to move the world to. As his above cited thesis on Feuerbach shows, this was also against ‘only interpreting’ the world.

It is a most curious statement, as the young philosopher has himself interpreted philosophy in a certain way such that it is ‘only interpretation,’ and, moreover, other than changing the world. Indeed, why should the world become changed? Or why do we have to change it? Is not change ever present, as Heraclites suggested?