The Aporiatic Terza rima of Sosein and Dasein, the emergence-recapitulation of universality cycle, multiplicity of the same repeated through difference as the key to the entirety

Line one Y rhyme 1 

Line two H rhyme 2 

Line three V rhyme 1

Line four H rhyme 2

Line five Y rhyme 3 

Particulars emerge as a multiplicity of universals which then recapitulate their universality, this re-universalization process occurs through a rationalization Division identical to the process by which the Begriff becomes the Idea. In this regard each category is filled with a multiplicity of objects and each object is itself a category which repeats different the same previous category and this repetition causes the emergence of new qualities from the same by rational unfolding of the same. This is because the recapitulated universal is an auto-position of the previous universal thus its revealing and its concealing are an identical movement. 

If this is applied to the sosein database model we may analyze the sum of our model thus far 

Line 1 Sosein as Begriff

Line 2 Dasein as the idea of Sosein

Line 3 Dasein as auto-position of Sosein as Begriff  

Line 4 auto-positioned Dasein acting as Sosein

Line 5 Dasein of auto-positioned Sosein 

line 6 Auto-position of the dasein of the autopositioned sosein 

Etc   

This schema can be used in reverse in order to extend phenomenological reduction to an even further extreme than previously attained in the following way.

Line 10=the Giveness of the Arcane logos as the particular idea of  

Line 9 the Sum of all possible giveness of all logoi as the universal concept of logos 

Line 8 the sum of all giveness of all logoi as the particular dasein of all sides of the gives-without giveness 

Line 7 the gives-without-giveness as the most abstract category 

Line 6 the gives-without-giveness as the particular dasein of Pure sosein in itself (The Real=totality of properties, note this is where Laruelle’s model reaches Aporia) 

Line 5 sosein as the most abstract category(The Holy Aporia, The jewel of contradiction)  the sum of the without-giveness which need or needn’t give 

Line 4 sosein as the particular  dasein of the purely Ungiven

Line 3 The Purely Ungiven as the most abstract category (that which is not in phenomena, that which is neither self nor not self, neither noumena nor Soma, the vast regions of darkness Beyond the Jewel, the mirror and abyss of the trinity) which neither philosophy nor non-philosophy can communicate due to the bondage of the jewel of contradiction and gives-without-giveness 

Line 2 the Purely Ungiven as the particular nature of the darkness of Godhead(not necessarily Godhead, it can be the void prior to the Big Bang, the outside of the range of the universe which the universe unfolds into but is not ever, that which no consciousness can perceive and shall not ever perceive) 

Line 1 The Godhead as ultimate category but also the break down of universality and particularity

Line 0 the universality of the most universal is its particular nature, the particular nature of it is its universality, by extension the most particular of the particular is the universal most and vice versa. This is the Person of the Godhead, this contradiction creates the entirety of the schema and is the entire schema

Demonstration through phenomenological-ontological-theological reduction.

Beginning with the Normative perception of the world as the process of the intermingling of various empirical-eidetic constructs  

These root in the relations/dasein of eidetic structures 

This itself roots out of the sosein of eidetic structure, the capacity to have eidetic structures.

The eidetic structure capacity is the capacity to have processes of rectification/solidification  of the various elements that arise by the intermingling of perceptions of self and other 

These root in the rectification/solidification of self and other 

Both of these arise at once through perception of phenomena, otherness arising out of perception of gross external matter and perception of self from a subtle sense of self which pervades experience. The self conception and conception of other arise at once, designing each other, the self knows it is self by seeing it is not-self by seeing the other. The sense of other knows otherness by sense of self. These occur at once.

Both of the sense of self and other root out of the phenomenological experience of experience itself 

Experience arises as particular and solidified elements of the capacity called perception, perception is general, the particular being of perception is experience, the substance of experience is perception. 

Perception is a product of and arises at once with consciousness, this is because perception is the capacity of the consciousness to perceive. However consciousness must always be conscious of something.

Consciousness then is the substance/determination/sosein  of perception and perception is the dasein of consciousness

Consciousness and being are for all practical purposes from the phenomenological perspective identical, to be is to be consciousness and to be conscious is to be conscious of something. (Thus being=consciousness and consciousness=perception of being)

That which pervades consciousness/ones being is the transcendental ego, this is simply that which determines that this being is this particular being, this consciousness is this particular consciousness.

Thus the substance/determination/sosein of the consciousness is Transcendental ego (the true self, absolute I.)

The consciousness(and by extension being) can only know being by dividing its own being from its perception of other things, thus the process of intentionality is identical to the process of emptying being of its harmonious self-unity, which is the birth of self-other, perception is consciousness emptying/blinding  itself of its singular substance of being in order to perceive a multiplicity of beings and thus experience its own being and the aspects of these beings through experience. 

The transcendental ego likewise is the determinant of the consciousness which can only know itself by such a process of division, by this I mean to say, prior to consciousness there is no substantial difference between the material substance/determination of the  transcendental ego and all that is not one’s own being, as the transcendental Ego in itself is the determinant of Particular beings and not particular beings, we can thus say that the multiplicity of Being is identical to the unity which we refer to by the term transcendental Ego.

The transcendental ego however does not exist within itself without relation to being, prior to the multiplicity of being it is simply the Real, it only becomes the transcendental ego when it becomes a determinant of being. 

The Transcendental ego then is the process by which the Real becomes being, thus the transcendental ego is identical to the becoming/manifesting of Being 

But the same pattern exists here also, the Being gains determination from the transcendental ego, the transcendental ego gains determination from the field of all determinants/real substances known as the Real, but is not divided from the real within itself. Rather it knows itself as being Through the process of auto-position.

The Real by mirroring itself, recognizing itself, the one by seeing itself as one, creates the process of becoming-one which is the transcendental ego which is by its nature necessarily arising with consciousness. 

Thus auto-position is consciousness. 

The determinants of the real undergo auto-position which necessarily must induce intentionality, or to word it without jargon, the Real by realizing it is the Real loses its reality as the real and thus becomes consciousness of its reality by its lack of reality which necessarily must be consciousness of itself and others. 

The Real therefore determines/gives but is itself is not given, it is thus the gives-without-giveness, the Determines-without-being-determined, which is to say, the Nondual unity which is called Sunyata and Ain. 

However this nature of giving without being given/giving data determinants without being determined itself once more reveals our same process, the determining without being determined/gives-without-giveness must logically be the particular determination/dasein of its own higher substance, its own higher substance is logically the Ungiven, that purely undetermined of which all that is and is not determined is but a particular fragment and by no means the entire genus. 

Beyond this I can think of nothing higher than the ungiven than the root of the ungiven, which must be the divine darkness, the unknowability of Godhead, and by this I mean to say, the Ungiven must be the membrane through which the power of God(which due to divine simplicity is Nondual to all of his other ineffable attributes) manifests into the totality of reality and by reality I mean that dasein nature of gives-without-giveness 

Thus the ungiven is a boundless database, a genus, whereas the entirety of the gives-without-giveness is but a singular particular within that broader category. 

The broader category of the Ungiven being the membrane through which the ineffable godhead interacts with the Real. 

One thought on “The Aporiatic Terza rima of Sosein and Dasein, the emergence-recapitulation of universality cycle, multiplicity of the same repeated through difference as the key to the entirety

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s