11.11.19

Radical Givenness

What are the questions prevalent today (that are distinctly bound up with technology) desperately calling for the special scrutiny of philosophical inquiries?

*

I find myself with a radical conception of the existential plane of human life: it is informed by the hypothesis that upon the field of pure ‘givenness’, itself an ontological stand (cf Marion, Being Given), the so-called individual human being actually does not control or even steer events and phenomena.

This is true universally, in spite of personal experiences of claiming limited power of choice and taking responsibility for phenomena believed to be the outcomes of one’s actions – all in the state of mind highly identified as ‘a human being’ (even bodily).

Again, the hypothesis and claim – radical – is that humanity does not possess the power to act individually, which is the same as stating that humanity does not qualify as a locus of real existential or phenomenal agency and that human consciousness cannot be considered an origin in a basic ontological sense, nor can it be a causal agent in a phenomenological sense.

The egoic, individual perceptions of personal power and choice are only valid during a kind of hallucination and dream-like state – but that state also contains all of Philosophy and the sciences and technologies and even Earth – in which our supposed human genius and inventions are in reality being witnessed only, as given phenomena, gifts to microscopic realities like ours, if you will, from the otherwise transcendent, vast macro-scopic, absolute Real (the universal principle of existence).

What we commonly think of and call our personal lives (including our bodies) are not properly ‘ours’, since we essentially only witness, or receive, everything that is happening, including our desires, ideas, and efforts – and, importantly: this includes even our experiences of personal, individual achievements after ‘hard work’, all of which are only hallucinated as personal events. Human beings are actually just bound up in a much larger pattern of existence in which they are actors (not agents) and they always only witness themselves, including even their believed ‘doings’ and ‘acts’.

*

Now then, if we at least experimentally accept this hypothesis, then we can wonder how the understanding of human givenness within the ultra microscopic scene of our public policy would alter laws that protect and govern individual freedom and liberty and human rights. For example, if the universal principle of givenness is accepted, then accordingly the prime human right is to be able to witness and thereby to undergo one’s own given experiences.

With that, a corporation would not be able to force a person to do irrelevant work (which is an absurd possibility today) and society’s brutal economics would not be able to force people into debasing forms of employment. An argument for this hypothesis, making it a theory, would encompass the discourse about actual livelihood and therefore a livelihood economy.

I am presented with other pressing arguments to make concerning phenomena happening upon this microscopic ‘human’ plane of existence. The ontological reality (givenness) and the phenomenological-existential reality (witnessing) do not liquidate the happening of, for example, public policy and lawmaking. This is an enigma.

As of right now, I finally understand that explicating the highest (ontological) hypothesis is required first and foremost, and, that this will inform all the smaller analyses and arguments (automatically).

No comments:

Post a Comment