The inert nothingness that exercises heidegger under the name of Death is not at all human, still less individual. (I die, you die, we do not die). The inert physics of inorganic nature needs organic life to reverse its entropy. But it doesn't need life as such but what life implies, communication, because communication adds complexity where entropy simplifies.
(As a footnote here, efficiency is entropic while democracy is both inefficient and negentropic)
At the universal scale, entropy wins. Tis is the truth underlying the unknowable Ding-an-sich in Kant. Things in themselves are not knowable (and incommunicable, ie sublime) to the extent that they are entropic, and therefore not congruent with negentropic knowledge, where knowledge is defined as what is actually or potentially communicable.
(A second footnote: those who quell communication are on the side of inert nature, of the universal, the sublime; and against the human and life in general, which are communication in its material form as media)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Really enjoyed your lecture today for Net Communications!
Given that the Earth's atmosphere is all you have ever lived in, how can you refer to "inert nothingness" whilst selling yourself as a philosophical expert? Neither you nor anyone you quote has ever experienced it or even come close enough to assuredly refer to its existence as any combination of real or imagined or virtual.
Relax, unimelb is a Murdoch sponsored oceanic rockpool of stupor.
Hey Lao lao
the 'inert nothingness' is a quote. The post is an argument against it. By definition you can't xperience nothing - which is one reason, not the only or best, why heidegger is wrong.
Rockpool, yes. Conservative, in the sense it moves slowly, despite the ruptures of the meblbourne Model. But nonetheless there is life: one shd not abandon fight inside institutuions, even while fighting for new ways of doing things.
And I think you're mistaking Dame Elizabeth for Rupert
Post a Comment