Being as horizon in relation to thought, nihilism and atemporality

We inherit the thought we choose to adopt. We are the vessels of the structure of this thought; thought that drives our regular engagement with the world is necessarily self-sufficient. Yet this thought entertains a multitude of possibilities.

This thought hides in the laying out of hypotheticals, oscillating through the basic three tenses. It is fundamentally our thinking that affects this tension of time. The subjunctive, pluperfect, conditional are call called “moods” of time. They open up the possibilities of different worlds. We attune to these worlds through our practical engagement with the world. This everydayness is in fact a thought. Our being, though not actively “thinking” is in fact a thought. It is through this unrestricted engagement that being manifests pure thought.

Being is immeasurable, for when one tries to, being is necessarily hidden/concealed. This is what I believe/think Heidegger means when he calls for the destruction of Western philosophical tradition, those slaves of reason. For this kind of philosophy corrupts being. It is through our own tendency to want to improve the already established thought that we hide the truth that lies in being. For being is a horizon that this philosophy looks at through a telescope, fixated only on the vanishing point instead of this unrestricted, infinite, endless horizon of being.

And we grow up to inherit this thought and express the being of this collective telescope, the lens of which clearly enhances the tunnel vision from which we suffer. It is paradoxical that philosophy (through Heidegger) realized its own necessary self-destruction but only through it, can we free thought to freely speak being.

“Language is the house of the truth of being” - Martin Heidegger

Freedom in the sense of freedom of discourse and not the radical freedom that existentialism cried for. Rather, it is the being, situated in the world that is all being thinks. For even attempts to go beyond the world necessarily discloses a world. 

And because we inherit thought we choose to adopt, we structure ourselves in one world. And it is through this misunderstanding that we eventually find in trying to unite ourselves into the “one”, “they”, “herd” or “crowd” that we forget that we’ve lost ourselves in our little telescope. Yet with infinite possibilities of other worlds we may disclose, being may lose itself to the nihilistic attitude. We don't realize we have imported skepticism from the myopic "one" world into being the beings that we are, in the horizon of being-there.

For beings experience the world necessarily (as being-in-the-world) but being doesn't. Being is the hidden door not through which experience passes through. The significance of being is simply its separation from beings.

We see being everyday, through our everydayness, because of our everydayness. For thought is being's spirit, language its furniture, rooted in being-in-the-world.

The nihilistic attitude's attempted coup stems from this misinterpretation from the "one". The nihilist doesn't realize that before coming to this conclusion, Dasein/being-in-the-world/human-being fundamentally cares. For if Dasein does not care, how would it come to contemplate its world? And because of nihilism's identity as the skeptic who gave up, it is evidence of the skeptic's circular thinking.

Nihilism is this anxiety turned apathy from going around in circles. This is the condition "myopia"/"myopic thinking" suffers from. Not only has it realized its great distance but zero displacement, it stubbornly marches on, expecting something to be the same and being upset about its restricted certainty. And this kind of judgment is simply the means of escape from this myopia from disclosing it.

This does not mean that Dasein should not be anxious. It is only in understanding this anxiety from this engagement with the world that we can examine as an existential analytic that we can recover our engagement with being. For the hidden history of the west, the history of being before plato established "being as entity" as dogma, is evidence of human engagement with its roots.

Being as "phronesis" (coming to be then coming not to be), as "power"; even the overrated western being as "entity" as well as "creation" in the christian interpretation is the original philosophy, the roots of the question of who we are. In this modern age, the millenial will come to realize that information isn't simply a value of knowledge about being, but by its too quick availability, brings about an awareness that the kind of being "the one" is heading towards is atemporality.

But "being is time", said Heidegger. However, the "one" will not heed Heidegger's warning regarding technology. As we attempt to become atemporality through becoming this thought, we will find that the project of being as entity- essentially all disciplines ending with "ology", worshiping only one sense of the "logos", we only continue to suffer from this mute logos, unable to utter thought as discourse (legein, greek, another sense of the word logos).

Artificial intelligence, the brainchild of "being as entity" party will only reach the limit of the resolution its telescope can resolve. The "limit" akin to the mathematical "limit" is the horizon's vanishing point discovered and developed to be an artificial being. And out of frustration, "being as entity" will walk towards the horizon, hoping to find its end, unaware that they are missing the point. And it will continue to walk on "in circles" or towards the vanishing point and see the same thing, and will feel secure with the collective myopia. They will stumble together, trip together, and push the boulder like sisyphus up a hill together or even turn to nihilism-- unfounded and unfortunate.

For in all these attempts, being is concealed, continuously buried through every wrong step we take.

On Mood

That which appears to us as mosaic inwards yet fades to the background outwards. Experience deals with phenomena–that which appears to us. Sorting out the patterns and motifs– the recurring, persistent motives, all related to being-in-the-world. We sift out the many uniting stimuli from the world that we are inherently a part of.

We are not distinct from it.

¡SENSATIONS!
Comes out at you, fleeting
linked to your body;
The body– lived.

| Emotions |

Directed towards –> something 

Based on culture<–>beliefs.

The body as source that expands in its world that is dasein's.

{ m o o d }

works in the background of experience

changes the way something appears to you

m o o d– elusive and difficult to describe. Expressions like "seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses" or responding to a "how are you?" from a close friend by describing "feeling blue". All appears to be vision based. We let our m o o d be dictated by changing wavelengths we call color and often judge them as illusions. And yet, this dasein does not look out of his window and sees things as different shades of blue when sad or bursting red when in a bad m o o d or romantically rose-tinted when nostalgic. 

Everything appears just as vividly from one m o o d  to another. Cinema betrays us in that regard, it does not reflect our being-in-the-world, but instead projects its own as an illusion separate from our being-in-the-world. If we see a sepia tint on the screen simultaneously with music that we've been conditioned by our prior experiences (culture-beliefs) to empathetically feel– then the relationship becomes reinforced and tied together to project a sensation that understands the phenomenon as a united artistic or informative thought. Top it all that with sound effects, choice of cuts and gluing scenes together, it all becomes a bottom up mosaic inwards, fleeting outwards. 

Sensations appear the most fleeting, followed by | emotions | which lasts as long as one would measure with the word "moment". M o o d  on the other hand appear as impure as cinema is an impure art. M o o d takes from the sensations and | emotions | that it influenced prior and shapes its own palette. Color appears the intuitive metaphor for m o o d but when all different kinds of shades get mixed in, eventually color becomes a brown, almost blackish display of mush– black, thought of as the absence of color. And even if we take it using physics, where the opposite presumes to happen, the uniting of all colors brings about white (presumably the culmination of all colors).

We cannot think of m o o d  like this. M o o d  acts not as a spectrum that gets added or negated to different extremes, m o o d  acts as a silent precursor that interacts bidirectionally within the patterns and motifs of this mosaic. Attempting to untangle it would be just as useful as trying to figure out what the make up of our brain contains all the way down to its respective atoms. 

Instead, what needs to be done requires a more holistic approach, much like the disciplines biology and psychology take foundationally. Each dasein must take its being as being-in-the-world and focus its ontological questions on m o o d phenomenologically. For dasein understands itself more as it relates itself as being-towards-death before sensations come to link the | emotions | evoked from apprehending the concept of being-towards-death.

All this worked behind in the background of m o o d, silently elusive and difficult to describe. Perhaps one shouldn't try to describe it and instead be aware of it as one encounters time and its unity with one's being-in-the-world. M o o d  manifests itself just as quickly as thrownness, projection, fallenness, and all the other important jargon Heidegger takes as the characteristics of dasein. All that remains that Heidegger leaves us to? The body's relationship with being as being-in-the-world. To dwell on our time-linked-phenomena– aware that sensations, | emotions | and m o o d all come together mosaically yet also act as distinct sub-entities that relate phenomena with universals through the body. All this culminates to a united oneness to the world that we are indistinctly a part of.