presence, ousia, dasein...

 

The trajective displacement of the Western metaphysical thinking is (cogno)ontologically linked to the trajective displacement of the being as presence (ousia, dasein).

 

The identity of presence constituted as eidos assumed in the Cartesian cogito a topology linked to the categories of evidence and certainty, becoming, in this way, vulnerable to the domain of repetition, incorporated in the form of metastasized representation of the Cartesian eidos present to itself and aware of itself as relation to itself.

 

In the interior of the presence (ousia, dasein), the domain of the presence assures the representation of itself as available truth, replicable by whatever rational movement of irreducible logocentric/phonocentric self-affection (Derrida).

Philosophy

by Maria Odete Madeira 

Philosophical arguments are not developed from answers but from questions. One thing is the authors of philosophy and the thinking and models of these authors, another thing is the philosophical thinking, itself. To have philosophical thinking implies a very hard work and a development of capabilities to be able to transcend the immediate local, and for that it is necessary training, because it is not about the thinking of each one, but about the capability that each one has to access an eidos/logos, and to learn from that eidos/logos, to learn how to question about the things.

Each answer brings already, in the mechanism of unfolding of that answer, a new question. Philosophy is about learning how to question the things, themselves. It is not a matter of what we know, it is a matter of what we know not. It is not about making algorithmic reductions, or logical deductions, or to affirm oneself as philosopher, it is not about dogmatic revelations. As an exercise of questioning the things, one cannot be afraid or annoyed with the questions, it is necessary some humility. Unfortunately, the fast-food teaching and the pragmatic application-oriented science, where it only matters the immediate answers that solve immediate problems, algorithmized for an easier consumption, does not allow nor favor an exercise of a fundamental thinking based on questioning; questions, beyond a certain point, become a nuisance.

One cannot give, in Philosophy, a ready to consume answer. To address, philosophically, an issue is to address it with questions. A philosophical discussion starts with questions and does not end, but go on, indefinitely with more questions. Question to question, to question, to question,… (verb and process). Within such an exercise of questioning, one cannot abruptly end the debate with a quick and superficial exit, and must follow the questions where they lead. The questions cannot be placed in the most general form and only skim very lightly the real subject. In a philosophical debate all the cards have to be laid out on the table, since the questions have to be about the things themselves and not about the (often manipulated) shadows of the things.

Is there a fixed number of cosmic dimensions?

Is there a fixed number of cosmic dimensions?

This is a question sometimes posed. The answer is: no! The production of cosmic order depends upon the dispositional metaphysical code for the production/construction of possible order.

The Cosmos is a cognitively integrated system in the entanglement that we call Universe (unum+versus, the connection of everything with everything, from the multiple to the unum) and geometrically (cogno)processed by the unity of presence that determines our multidimensional Cosmos.

The Cosmos, this Cosmos has as many dimensions as those necessary for its sustainable integrity. Sometimes it has more dimensions, at other times it has less dimensions. The cosmic dispositionality (dispositio) inserted in the metaphysical code predicts the use of degrees of freedom at the formative fundamental level.

This dimension, our dimension, is a problematic dimension of passage for passersby, necessary to the sustainability of the Cosmos. It will exist while the Cosmic entity needs it to exist, it may remain just as it is or it may change.

Can there be projective signals of an ontological change?! Yes, the problem is whether our Sapiens species is able to read them.

We are ever more alienated from our cosmic constitution, we are ever more dependent upon our biocapitalist tools to see, to listen, to think, to act. Our reflexive ability is being lost to market biopower dynamics.