frfr

if NonBuddhists wish to know more about it - Vesak

“What labels me, negates me.”
S. Kierkegaard

don't talk to me until I've had my Palestini

IT IS TIME TO BEEEE :D

Dasein has lagged behind others and wants to catch up in relation to them, whether Dasein in its priority over others is intent on suppressing them. Being-with-one-another is, unknown to itself, disquieted by the care about this distance. Existentially expressed, being-with-one-another has the character of distantiality. The more inconspicuous this kind of being is to everyday Dasein itself, all the more stubbornly and primordially does it work itself out.
But this distantiality which belongs to being-with is such that, as everyday being-with-one-another, Dasein stands in subservience to others. It itself is not; the others have taken its being away from it.
[...]
Everyone is the other, and no one is himself. The they, which supplies the answer to the who of everyday Dasein, is the nobody to whom every Dasein has always surrendered itself, in its being-among one-another.
In these characteristics of being which we have laid out-every-day being-among-one-another, distantiality, averageness, leveling down, publicness, disburdening of one's being, and accommodation-lies the initial "constancy" of Dasein.
This constancy pertains not to the enduring objective presence of something, but to the kind of being of Dasein as being-with. Existing in the modes we have mentioned, the self of one's own Dasein and the self of the other have neither found nor lost themselves. One is in the manner of dependency and inauthenticity. This way of being does not signify a lessening of the facticity of Dasein, just as the they as the nobody is not nothing.
M. Heidegger; Everyday Being a Self and the They

"What is spoken is never, in any language, what is said."
M. Heidegger; the Way to Language

what the FUCK is a chomsky

No prophecy is necessary to recognize that the sciences now establishing themselves will soon be determined and regulated by the new fundamental science that is called cybernetics.
This science corresponds to the determination of man as an acting social being. For it is the theory of the regulation of the possible planning and arrangement of human labor. Cybernetics transforms language into an exchange of news. The arts become regulated-regulating instruments of information.

[...]the fundamental characteristic of this scientific attitude is its cybernetic, that is, technological character. The need to ask about modern technology is presumably dying out to the same extent that technology more decisively characterizes and directs the appearance of the totality of the world and the position of man in it.
The sciences will interpret everything in their structure that is still reminiscent of their provenance from philosophy in accordance with the rules of science, that is, technologically. Every science understands the categories upon which it remains dependent for the articulation and delineation of its area of investigation as working hypotheses. Not only is their truth measured in terms of the effect that their application brings about within the progress of research, scientific truth is also equated with the efficiency of these effects.

[...]“Theory” means now supposition of the categories, which are allowed only a cybernetic function, but denied any ontological meaning. The operational and model-based character of representational-calculative thinking becomes dominant.
M. Heidegger; the end of Philosophy and the task of Thinking

omg it's Duster Cat, hiii!!

i believe that in this world of insanity, some people are better off politically unhoused.

r҉h҉i҉z҉o҉m҉e҉

What history grasps in an event is the way it’s actualized in particular circumstances; the event’s becoming is beyond the scope of history.
G. Deleuze