Let us concern ourselves with being.
If we follow the route set by academicians to easily explain Heidegger to students, Being experiencing anxiety, which it has beforehand occluded, or, which it has been enabled beforehand to occlude, the source of, finds itself annoyed experiencing its experiences as nothing. Anxiety, which Being has made itself blinded by, or, which it has been made blinded by, enables Being to experience its (feigned?) nothingness. Feigned or not feigned, the nothing is anathema to Being. Being, after all, cannot help being. This, following our lovely academicians, would be the crucified state Being finds itself in.
Let us be Cartesian in our ways. Being, in being nothing, sees. Being hears because it sees. Being smells because it sees. Being tastes because it sees. Being feels because it sees. And Being speaks as it sees. Dualism is possible and perfectly legitimate because it is always the I who sees.
That God should have poured all His creative genius in the creation of the eye!
Being, seeing, understands the anxiety it is concerned with, that albeit the seeing remains seen, (feignedly?), as without origin, as concern or care for – one is anxious about/at/for/to… Being cannot, or is not allowed to, surrender itself to the nothing of Being (irrespective of whether the nothing of Being is real or illusory), cannot therefore surrender itself to itself, as that Being does not belong to its Being.
“The comprehensive class we are considering, which is to embrace everything, must embrace itself as one of its members. In other words, if there is such a thing as “everything,” then “everything” is something, and is a member of the class “everything.” But normally a class is not a member of itself. Mankind, for example, is not a man. Form now the assemblage of all classes which are not members of themselves. This is a class: is it a member of itself or not? If it is, it is one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is not a member of itself. If it is not, it is not one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is a member of itself. Thus of the two hypotheses—that it is, and that it is not, a member of itself—each implies its contradictory. This is a contradiction” (RUSSELL 1919: 136).
And, Russell, dear, what the fuck is everything?
Featured Image:
Long live the rose that grew from concrete. October 2021 at Fundão, Portugal. Photograph by the author.
References:
RUSSELL, Bertrand. 1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., and New York: The Macmillan Co.
