Heidegger in Cognitive Theoretic Modelling of the Universe

In my passion for philosophy I seek out the greats and it tickles my grandiosity when the titans of philosophy have developed not just a pants style writing or whimsical series of observations; no, what I want from great philosophers is ‘Systemization.’ So for me (and I have not yet read all on this list to completion) its Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Leibniz, Descartes,  (maybe Hume), Locke, Kant, Hegel, and lastly of the horsemen of Twentieth and Twenty-First Century, Heidegger, Jung, Zizek, Langan, Peterson, Dugin, and Wright. Not necessarily in this order but a through lines and multiple lines of diversification in thought abound here at the crossroads of my person and mind. Again this is not a list that I have claim to in terms of having read them all, but I would like to read most of this list by the time I’m 35. At which point my verbal fluency and crystallized intelligence will hit a major foremost peak.

But here we discuss Heidegger through the lease of the CTMU of Langan. I just thought that it would be nice for all my readers to get a sense of the angling in thought that I am trying to pull off. Heidegger according to Herbert Dreyfus did develop a system. And Dugin attests that while Plato is the King and lord of philosophy, having built an impregnable fortress of thinking - it is Heidegger who has the keys to the fortress and reigns in the kingdom as the Prince of Postmodern philosophy (remembering that philosophy follows an earlier trajectory in era names with Hegel being the first postmodern philosopher some 200 years ago). And for this reason I do not like Nietzsche’s philosophizing with a hammer - I think he was not up to creating a coherent system with his thought and that he tried to assault the fortress of Plato by a frontal climax which left him in tatters; a heroic gesture yet futile.

Heidegger on the other hand works within the kingdom of Plato but as the case with any prince there seems there will be a changing of the guard when he becomes the ultimate reference, lord of the Keep so to speak. Already with Langan ushering in the New Metaphysic for centuries to come (up to an including our Space Age of new Frontiers which I think is non descript at the moment but which will come into focus in 50 years) there is a lot in which Langan was prefigured by Heidegger. WIth sayings like “Language is the House of Being” Heidegger could announce what Chris would determine a mere 30-40 years later (1950s to 1980s).

And Heidegger could add on top of Langan the more linguistic aspects of a good philosophy—‘Dasein:’ An embodied spirit of man which includes there-being and is central to Being; ‘Readiness-to-hand;’ the wholistic relational world and relations of equipment or medias to Being; ‘Being-in-the-world’ the characteristic of Dasein as located in the relational whole and in a spatiality of locations and equipment that are in closeness to man; ‘Historicality’ the horizon Dasein with regards the past inhering in it in the present and future; and finally ‘care’ which is the essence of Dasein and a more human way of expressing Telos. WIth all of these beautiful heavily concept laid linguistical compounds Langan would do well to build at least some off hand work dedicated to Heidegger if not comporting his system to incorporate Heidegger at the core. But here I do not yet see contradiction between the German and the American to supply any inconsistencies between their works.

So here’s to reading one through the other, knowing that chains of thought in Western philosophy should not be broken too glibly and that our history is one to reflect on. So lets read Langan through Heidegger together.

Cheers and Best of luck with the Logos inhering in you. - Greg