Seven Pages on Physics after Heidegger

Seven Pages on Physics after Heidegger (pdf)


The ‘science’ of phenomenology beckoned in the late 19th century as offering a whole new approach to reality, and we still have a few of the writings of Edmund Husserl to indicate to us, something of the character of the inner journeys and ‘European projects’ for which it was hoped.  What is often not appreciated is how much of this effort borrows from Leibniz, who gives us a model of charting experiences in many minds, without the assumption they share a common world in an ordinary sense.  Then too there is inspiration to be found in Heidegger’s emphasis on realism, and a story to be learnt concerning how his specific claims to have contact with the real excited censure from his teacher, Husserl.  With Heidegger we move away from the great dreams of phenomenology but as these are only poorly understood, perhaps we gain more through his demands, we do not deny what we surely do know, and do not – contra Aristotle – act as if everything has to be proven.  Heidegger we may interpret as claiming, what exists beyond experience are potentialities for experience which can be known even apart from experiential ‘confirmation’:  Quine will later talk about these as a ‘core’ beliefs in our web of experience, i.e. in that section of the web that contains judgments regarding the conceptually contingent.  There is then a way forward for Physics with Heidegger, despite Heidegger’s criticisms of use of the scientific model for philosophy, as now we have a way to both stay in experience and also remain confident, our models are more than mere historical constructs or prejudices.

However, the Heideggerian emphasis on experience and phenomenology does lead to a further claim of pluralism, that we must speak of ‘worlds’ rather than the world.  Physics so far has not seemed to find much use for this notion of subjects in the same world, somehow also at the same time, living in different worlds.  These are notions more confined to the humanities and ideas of ‘the subjective.’

I outline something of how Leibniz can intersect with Husserl’s approach, also noting that Heidegger tries to add a ‘realism’ to this Leibnizian-Husserlian pondering.  I then point out, it is difficult for Philosophy, that Physics has given us little in terms of definite grounds for using Heidegger-inspired models for Physics.  Also I offer some wondering about how Heidegger studies are going to proceed as other than non-historicist, antiquarian pursuits.  If neither ethics nor physics are to be area of contribution, how do we apply Heiddeger?

Myth and Reason: Post-Heideggerian Approaches to Theology


Myth and Reason: Post-Heideggerian Approaches to Theology (pdf)



This work offers a short analysis of where we are today in attempting to assess theological claims from a rationalistic perspective.  It is suggested that overly naturalistic philosophy, while more powerful than its detractors imagine, nonetheless has distinct limits when it comes to moving from a sketch of the possible, to determination of the actual.  A supernatural philosophy is developed with axioms concerning a Designer, the need to overcome traditional Abrahamic religion, and particularist limits on universal principles of natural human rights.  Also it is suggested, ‘divine insight’ may allow gains concerning questions of our metaphysical and epistemological situation, e.g. re the question of whether common interpretations of the reports of the five senses are correct.  However, the implication is more, the opposite of what Descartes proposes in this regard.

The work begins by tracing distinctions between natural philosophy and supernatural philosophy, i.e. ‘theology.’  The suggestion is that natural philosophy has gained its focus from the Greek interest in fully universal principles, but that the religious consciousness is grounded more in a notion of divine favour and serving particular entities.  Natural philosophy is assessed, in order to help show how the religious consciousness provides gains over it.

To further the wide goals of the work, clarification is provided concerning ways in which sacred texts might be interpreted, and how they relate to ideas of evidence.  It is suggested that theology proper is a mythic discourse, while we ultimately aim for a reductionist project in non-theological terms.  However, it is suggested, the currently degraded status of the culture does much to prohibit progress in this project of translation, and instead leads to silence on important spiritual topics.  In any case, the moral axioms of the system present are offered in connection with an ideal of partial translation of Christian theology.

Why I Am Not Alt Right

Excerpts from Investigating the Alt Right:  Richard Spencer in America (draft):

‘DAY ONE OF THE INVESTIGATION:  Though the precise character of the ‘alt right’ is not yet clear, still it is evident, at present it is not possible for me to be a part of this ‘movement.’  Rather than waxing in a manner that is ‘politically correct,’ let me just put it like this:  Spencer and his friends make claims, where I wonder, what the evidence is, that these claims are very probable.  In other words, looking at the evidence presented, I do not see how the claims can be thought, well-established.  Particularly regarding this sensitive issue of the role of American Jewry, one has to ask, what is the evidence, Jews have the causative role suggested?  I am of a Gentile origin, and have no personal involvement with anyone who is Jewish.  I do not practice a Jewish religion, unless one count the inclusion of the Old Testament, in the Christian canon.  I do not think it can be said, I have any particular reason to be hostile to negative reports regarding world-wide Jewry, but then I simply wonder, what are the precise evidential bases that the ‘alt right’ is imagining?  There is always a danger, of blaming a disliked ethnic group, for problems that are ‘natural’ or systemic, or which in fact come from some other ethnic group, e.g. the British.  One cannot be too hasty in these matters of potential ‘prejudice.’

Then too I wonder, why anyone would want to be ‘alt right.’  Can they not just say they are ‘nationalists’?  A French person will merely suggest, she is a nationalist if concerns about Muslim invasion are strong.  How so is there a need for a new term?  It seems a specifically American situation – although perhaps that is not true, we will have to learn more….

At present, though, it seems a question of why, whites in America, as a group, ought to be one’s focus?  I suppose we are seen as having something in common with whites elsewhere, and then as a group.  Yet there is also a case to be made, America does not play well with other nations.  Then also if ‘whiteness’ is an issue – one might wonder, particularly after ‘Brexit,’ how much white nations have in common.   […]

I do not see how the ‘alt right’ is going to overcome other evidential barriers, e.g. substantiating their allegation, white creativity and productivity is ‘genetic’ in character.  I have different speculations here.  No doubt DNA is important for intelligence, and that is a good point that it is, but then also there are other factors to consider, culture, history, environment, etc.  I am not convinced of the genetic-DNA claims Spencer offers.  There is a need for more research.

Provisionally, then, I will say I am not alt right, because the movement has offered specific anti-Semitic and reductionist-biological claims lacking sufficient evidence.  Then also I have noted, I see in its rhetoric, shadows of ill-concern for human dignity, and a certain crudity that does not engage me.  Yet this is not at a level, where we see such clearly antagonistic statements as we see, e.g., from some Muslim extremists or Hindu nationalists – and even these might go on to be rather engaging and insightful figures.   […]

Also I do not want to be too harsh here as I am from the North and grew up in the North, and I am not at all in a position to understand the white Southerners relation to the Klan.  It is true that we also had the Klan active in the North but this historical matter is also obscure….  I oppose lawlessness, even if I understand, some families feel themselves part of ‘vigilante’ movements to protect the South, after Northern invasion.  I feel Spencer ought to have done more to distance himself from the Klan, as not only was it an organization caught up with lawlessness and terror, but also it has a history of punishing Blacks for what are really the ‘crimes’ of white Northerners, which is both immoral and irrational.’



Legal Night

Somehow we cannot stay away from Black-White conflict in America.  The new legal Night bases itself in again in the 14th Amendment.  An absurdism is offered, equality before the law requires not discriminating among foreign countries whilst choosing immigrants.  This is suggested to follow from 14th Amendment protections aimed at helping Blacks in the American South.

What emerges next is billed as a ‘conservative’ overturning of this absurdism, but in reality is merely the ‘good cop’ shenanigan of the Chocolate Empire.  The ‘news’ here is not of conservative victory but of GOP appointees who offer, your right to practise your religion means free immigration for all who share in it.  Some ad hoc notion of the fellowmen as having to be relatives is offered, but this is baseless varnish.  Being in the same faith already esablishes a ‘bona fide’ relation.

What is interesting here is that we merely get poor judgment, albeit in connection with liberal ideals.  It is not a states rights issue.  It is more akin to ruling, minor children may be killed if this what Bal demands.  ‘Logical,’ but still not quite right….

The back and forth in the Courts continues, with ‘conservatives’ arguing for mud, and liberals arguing for dirt with water.  I wonder, though – will there be an exemption for soil with moisture?






Rod Dreher, Lenin, and Sergey Lavrov Sat Down in a Bar

Lenin:  Mr. Dreher I commend you for supporting good Russian values.  As you know, the Soviet Union will not tolerate the capitalist alienation of normalising perversion.  A species being is present and then there are definite properties in the substance.

Dreher:  Yes, well, I am a member of the Orthodox faith.

Lavrov:  A Third Rome, but One truth.  The Church and the Party had much in common.  It is mostly just a question of how to put the truth.  That’s where I come in.

Lenin:  Truly, many ideas transcend time.  Then of course, yes, there are always so many questions as to what to tell the worker.  We must not frighten them.

Lavrov:  The Russian national greatness is a heritage for all people and indeed must be ‘conserved.’  Dreher, you are indeed, a true conservative.  I merely wonder how the leading edge of proletariat consciousness is well served, by normalising America?

Dreher:  I suppose there are some questions as to whether my magazine does much with that goal any more.

Lenin:  I find it brilliant.  The capitalist alienation has been reduced to mere window dressing, while your efforts at scientific normality and sanitation are now the main show.  Workers need to take note. Liberals will not be tolerated in the Revolution.

Lavrov:  There are of course places for many ways and many approaches, a new Russia, but to be clear – we will not tolerate disrespect for the child.  The prisons stand open to contain these ‘liberals.’

Dreher:  Honestly, it is mostly not even the national scene that concerns me, much less the international one.  But only life back in Georgetown in the 60’s.  That was wrong, man, wrong.

Lavrov:  As they say, think locally, act globally.  The genders are separate everywhere.  Marriage is a sacred Russian tradition.

Lenin:  We must not frighten the workers.