Can I judge my body occurring and re-occurring by the laws of Nature?

The body is for itself not adequately or appropriately a being. What does this mean? There seems to be some form of deduction needed for the activity of communicative abuse at it: as well, the communicative affirmation by it possesses a need of induction for repeating in the mind some form of expectation or re-call for one's indeed physical will. This will sensically becomes dynamic by the laws from some "force" of condition and in of external source. The physical re-call is fighting as it were from the externality which is the mental deduction of the physical system; that system is repeating harmoniously the certainty that this physics REALLY EXISTS as something psychic.

It's a madness to sing into the pattern of deduction which determines the abuse for imbreaded being-becoming, the recall of experience that the other listened to. It is natural because we observed inertia, but is also natural because we overcome inertia.


Thus a true expression must know what it is doing. Being-becoming is truly in this way an autonomously ethical act.

Existentialism teaches there is no way of getting from the laws of Nature to fulfilled laws of God. Nevertheless, the word of ought must be more than something negative to follow for the goodness of mankind. But at least aren't we constantly deceived by the word of ought at being applied to the necessary judgments on our souls?

 

Heidegger's dassein has been described as a cloud of humanness, but it is the being of being human.

Heidegger enjoyed exploring the manifold being of an existant---earth, sun, fire, history... All of these things tied into the being of an existent in a way clearly reminiscent of the Platonic Form and the ancient concept of 'elements.' Once agan--a cloud of being.

But Heidegger made his mark in philosophy at a time when it was coming to terms with Nietzsche's statement of 'God is dead.' In the face of this, he still turned back to the pagan roots of his ancestors, saying that being needed to be fully explored from its very roots----just in case god or the gods really did exist. But the concept of being, at its historical roots, demanded an understanding of the divine, because all being was grounded in the divine.

Heidegger stated that it is when we stare into nothingness that we find the pure being of dassein. This is very suggestive of Hegel's concept of pure being, which is nothingness (for what else can we conceive of when we try to think of pure being, but nothingness). Hegel's pure being was the absolute good. (and the synthesis of being and nothingness was becoming). Was the pure being of dassein the same as Hegel's nothingness? Heiddegger, never said it wasn't, nor did he say it was (though correct me if I am wrong).

Heidegger's existentialism provides a step from the empirical laws of nature, towards a world where the god(s) could exist. But it is a step from a world where God may very well be dead, and the nihilism of that world has demonstrated that the judgments, including those that create the oughts, are in reality meaningless constructs of humanity.

Heidegger's philosophy, as in all of existentialism stressed the subjective---the individual. If we were to rediscover god(s) in a world where the judgment of our souls no longer has meaning, and where there no longer is a universal good/evil, then what we ought to do should be something that is a goodness to the individual--the subjective---not something that is universally applied as an objective judgment upon all mankind in a cold and dead objective manner.

 

One more thing---Can I judge my body occurring and reoccurring by the laws of nature? Yes.

If being is the manifestation of the physical, then it is the now.

If nothingness is that which does not exist and being is the now then nothingness is that which does not exist now---the past and the future---in other words, the 4th dimension.

If the synthesis of being and nothingness is becoming, then it is the now as it passes through time that is the becoming.

 

The trouble is the a priori judgment. The judgment of the soul does have meaning in the new millennium. The soul is something more shallow than shallowly it once would be regarded for ... this judgment of abstract consciousness directed to thought. The transcendental Ego grounds the subjectivity in an already objective way: that is already done. And thereby the path is allowed for accessing the Subjective for subjective being revealed onto cleansing the Sin from it.

We judge the soul shallowly for it is relatively deep.:sunny: