2019 (#63-13b) : Heidegger , Montessori , John 5:34 , Emerson , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Derrida

In order to be capable of tbinking, we need to learn it first. What is learning? Man learns when he disposes every thing he does so that it answers to whatever essentials are addressed to him atany given moment. We learn to think by giving our mind to what there is to^tfimKabout. What is essential in a friend, for example, is%iwljat we call “friendly.” In the same sense we now call “thought-pro voking” what in itself is to be thought about. Everything thought-provoking gives us to think. But it always gives that gift just so far as the thought-provoking matter al ready is intrinsically what must be thought about. From now on, we will call “most thought-provoking” what re mains to be thought about always, because it is at the beginning, before all else. What is most thought-provoking? How does it show itself in our thought-provoking time.
(Heidegger)

One thing ought to be clear : the conscious will is a
power which is developed by means of exercise, of work.
Our aim is definitely to cultivate the will, not to break it.
The will can be broken almost instantaneously, the deve-
lopment of the will is a slow process unfolding itself by
means of continuous activity carried out in relation to
the environment. It is easy enough to destroy ; the
devastation of a building can be accomplished in a few
seconds by a bomb or an earthquake. How difficult.
instead is the construction of a building ! It requires
accurate knowledge of the laws of equilibrium, of tension,,
even art is necessary in order to achieve a harmonious
construction. (Montessori)

Not that I accept human testimony …
(John 5:34)

from within or from behind a light shines through us upon things , and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all.
(Emerson)

People will not understand the bare and simple
truth – the truth of their everyday, ever-present and eternal
experience. That is the truth of the Self/Atman. Is there any one not aware
of the Self/Atman? Yet, they do not even like to hear of it, whereas they are
eager to know what lies beyond – heaven and hell and reincarnation.
Because they love mystery and not the plain truth, religions pamper
them – only to bring them round to the Self/Atman in the end. Moreover,
much as you may wander you must return ultimately to the Self/Atman;
so why not abide in the Self/Atman here and now? (Sri Ramana Maharshi)

I have constantly insisted on the fact that the movement of deconstruction was first of all affirmative – not positive, but affirmative. Deconstruction, let’s say it one more time, is not demolition or destruction. Deconstruction – I don’t know if it is something, but if it is something, it is also a thinking of Being, of metaphysics, thus a discussion that has it out with [“s’explique avec”] the authority of Being or of essence, of the thinking of what is, and such a discussion or explanation cannot be simply a negative destruction. All the more so in that, among all the things in the history of metaphysics that deconstruction argues against [“s’explique avec”], there is the dialectic, there is the “opposition” of the negative to the positive. To say that deconstruction is negative is simply to reinscribe it in an intrametaphysical process. The point is not to remove oneself from this process but to give it the possibility of being thought. (Derrida)

2019 (#62-13a) : “Heidegger” , Montessori , Genesis 5:28-32 , John 4:34-37 , Montessori , Nietzsche , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Freud , Derrida

RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES is nourished by the spiritual and intellectual energy of world thought, by those religious and ethical leaders who are not merely spectators but scholars deeply involved in the critical problems common to all religions. These thinkers recognize that human morality and human ideals thrive only when set in a context of a transcendent attitude toward religion and that by pointing to the ground of identity and the common nature of being in the religious experience of man, the essential nature of religion may be defined. Thus, they are committed to reevaluate the meaning of everlastingness, an experience which has been lost and which is the content of that visio Dei constituting the structure of all religions. It is the many absorbed everlastingly into the ultimate unity, a unity subsuming what Whitehead calls the fluency of God and the everlastingness of passing experience. (“Heidegger”)

The real fact is that the will of man (child) does not
lead to disorder or violence ; these are a mark of devia-
tion and suffering. The will in its natural field is a force
which compels us to carry out actions considered to
benefit our life. The task given by nature to the child is
growth, so the child’s will is a force urging to growth and
development. (Montessori)

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah[c] and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
(Genesis 5:28-32)

34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35 Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36 Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37 Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. 38 I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.”
(John 4:34-37)

A will that wills what the individual does enters
upon a road of conscious development. Our children
choose their own work spontaneously and, repeating this
exercise of choice, develop a consciousness of their
actions. What at first was a hormic impulse urging the
child to act now becomes an effort of the will. At first
he acted instinctively, now he acts consciously and
voluntarily : this is an awakening of the spirit.
(Montessori)

The new world-conception.– The world exists; it is not something that
becomes, not something that passes away. Or rather: it becomes, it
passes away, but it has never begun to become and never ceased from
passing away–it maintains itself in both.– It lives on itself: its
excrements are its food. (Nietzsche)

Yes. God is seen in the mind. A concrete form may be
seen but still it is only in the devotees’ mind. The form and
appearance in which God manifests are determined by the mind
of the devotee. But that is not the ultimate experience. There is
a sense of duality in it. It is like a dream or vision. After God is
perceived, Self-enquiry begins and that leads to Realisation of
the Self/Atman. Self-enquiry is the ultimate route.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi)

All this may give you the impression that our theories amount to species of mythology
and a gloomy one at that! But does not every natural science lead ultimately to this–a sort
of mythology? Is it otherwise today with your physical sciences?
The upshot of these observations, as bearing on the subject in hand, is that there is no
likelihood of our being able to suppress humanity’s aggressive tendencies. In some happy
corners of the earth, they say, where nature brings forth abundantly whatever man
desires, there flourish races whose lives go gently by; unknowing of aggression or
constraint. This I can hardly credit; I would like further details about these happy folk.
The Bolshevists, too, aspire to do away with human aggressiveness by insuring the
satisfaction of material needs and enforcing equality between man and man. To me this
hope seems vain. Meanwhile they busily perfect their armaments, and their hatred of
outsiders is not the least of the factors of cohesion among themselves. In any case, as you
too have observed, complete suppression of man’s aggressive tendencies is not in issue;
what we may try is to divert it into a channel other than that of warfare.
(Freud, letter to Einstein)

Here, I am asking questions in the dark. Or in a penumbra, rather, the penumbra in which we keep ourselves when Freud’s un-analyzed reaches out its phosphorescent antennae. Reaches them out the unexpected structure of this text, of the movements within it which, it seems to me, do not correspond to any genre, to any philosophical or scientific model. Nor to any literary, poetic, or mythological model. These genres, models, codes are certainly present within the text, together or in turn, exploited, maneuvered, interpreted like pieces. But thereby overflowed. Such is the hypothesis or the athesis of the athesis. (Derrida)

2019 (#61-12a) : “Heidegger” , Montessori , John 5:30 , Nietzsche , Derrida , Freud , Derrida , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

man will point the way to the rediscovery of God. To this end a rediscovery of first principles should constitute part of the quest. These principles, not to be superseded by new discoveries, are not those of historical worlds that come to be and perish. They are to be sought in the bean and spirit of man, and no interpretation of a merely historical or scientific universe can guide the
search. (“Heidegger”)

I would like to clarify these ideas, basing myself not
on any opinion of my own, but on my experience. First
of all we must admit that there is a great confusion in
these topics. Some biological studies tell us that the will
of man is part of a universal power (horme), and that
this universal force is not physical, but a force of life
along the path of evolution. All life is urged irresistibly
towards evolution, and this urge is called horme*
Evolution is governed by laws and is not haphazard or
casual. These laws of life show us that the will of man
is an expression of that force and shapes his behaviour.
In childhood this force becomes partly conscious as soon
as the child carries out a certain self-determined action and
then this force is developed in children, but only through
experience. So let us begin by saying that the will is
something which must develop and, being natural, it
obeys natural laws. (Montessori)

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
(John 5:30)

The crucified Christ is the most sublime of all symbols–even at present.
(Nietzsche)

a whole chemistry of information largely under the sway of unconscious drives, as well as affects and phantasms that were already in place before calculation,
(Derrida)

You are interested, I know, in the prevention of war, not in our theories, and I keep this
fact in mind. Yet I would like to dwell a little longer on this destructive instinct which is
seldom given the attention that its importance warrants. With the least of speculative
efforts we are led to conclude that this instinct functions in every living being, striving to
work its ruin and reduce life to its primal state of inert matter. Indeed, it might well be
called the “death instinct”; whereas the erotic instincts vouch for the struggle to live on.
The death instinct becomes an impulse to destruction when, with the aid of certain
organs, it directs its action outward, against external objects. The living being, that is to
say, defends its own existence by destroying foreign bodies. But, in one of its activities,
the death instinct is operative within the living being and we have sought to trace back a
number of normal and pathological phenomena to this introversion of the destructive
instinct. We have even committed the heresy of explaining the origin of human
conscience by some such “turning inward” of the aggressive impulse. Obviously when
this internal tendency operates on too large a scale, it is no trivial matter; rather, a
positively morbid state of things; whereas the diversion of the destructive impulse toward
the external world must have beneficial effects. Here is then the biological justification
for all those vile, pernicious propensities which we are now combating. We can but own
that they are really more akin to nature than this our stand against them, which, in fact,
remains to be accounted for. (Freud , letter to Einstein)

“Death, the ‘proper result’ and therefore the end of life, the end without end, the strategy without finality of the living — all of this is not solely a statement of Schopenheur’s. It also coincides almost literally with several Nietzschean propositions that we had attempted to interpret: on life as a very rare genre of that which is dead (Joyful Wisdom), a ‘particular case’ and ‘means in view of something else’ (Will to Power), this something necessarily participating in death; and finally on the absence, in the last analysis, of anything like an instinct of conservation. The unconscious port of registry, at the distance of this generality, also will have been Nietzschean.”
(Derrida , “To Speculate — On ‘Freud’” , The Post Card 269 )

When you are giddy, you see the world running circles round you. Obsessed with the idea of means and end, of work and purpose, you see me apparently functioning. In reality I only look. Whatever is done, is done on the stage. Joy and sorrow life and death, they all are real to the man in bondage; to me they are all in the show, as unreal as the show itself.
I may perceive the world just like you, but you believe to be in it, while I see it as an iridescent drop in the vast expanse of consciousness.
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

Let us consider error itself. It is necessary to admit
that we all make errors ; it is a reality of life so that
admission in itself is a great step in our progress. If we
are to walk on the path of truth and reality we must
admit that we all make mistakes or else we should be
perfect. So the best thing is to become friendly with the
error and then it will not frighten us any more, but will
be a friendly person living among us and will perform its
task, because it has one. Many errors are corrected
spontaneously through life. A child of one year walking
on the line, walks unsteadily, rolls, falls, but finally it
walks correctly. He corrects his errors through growth
and experiences. We have an illusion that we are walking
along the path of life towards perfection, we are all the
time making errors and do not correct them. We do
not recognize them, so we are out of reality altogether
and in illusion. The teacher who poses as perfect and
does not recognize that she makes errors, is not a good
teacher. No matter where we look, we always find
Gentleman Error ! If we set out on the path towards
perfection, we must look carefully at error, because
perfection will come by correcting it. (Montessori)

2019 (#60-11a) : “Heidegger” , Montessori , Derrida , Sri Ramana Maharshi , 2 Samuel 23:15 , John 4:13-14 , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , Derrida

Modern man is threatened by a world created by himself. He is faced with the conversion of mind to naturalism, a dogmatic secularism and an opposition to a belief in the transcendent. He begins to see, however, that the universe is given not as one existing and one perceived but as the unity of subject and object; that the barrier between them cannot be said to have been dissolved as the result of recent experience in the physical sciences, since this barrier has never existed. (“Heidegger”)

Violent tantrums, anger, acts of rebellion and aggres-
sion. One of the most common features is disobedience
and another is destructiveness. Then there is the desire
for possessions ; so we have selfishness and envy (the
latter not manifesting itself passively, but by trying to
have what other children have). Inconstancy (very
common in children) ; incapability of attention ; inability
to co-ordinate the movements of the hands so that they
drop and break things ; a disorderly mind and strong
imagination. Also they frequently shout, shriek and make
loud noises ; they interrupt and they tease and torment
and often are cruel to the weak and to animals. Fre-
quently too they are gluttons. These are a few of their
troubles. (Montessori)

not toward death but toward a living-on [sur-vie], namely, a trace of which life and death would themselves be but traces and traces of traces, a survival whose possibility in advance comes to disjoin or dis-adjust the identity to itself of the living present as well as of any effectivity. There is then some spirit. Spirits. And one must reckon with them. One cannot not have to, one must not
not be able to reckon with them, which are more than one: the more than one/no more one [Ie plus d’un].
(Derrida)

The doctrine of the Trinity was explained: God the Father is
equivalent to Ishwara, God the Son to the Guru, and God the
Holy Ghost to the Atman. Isvaro gururatmeti murti bheda vibhagine
vyomavad vyapta dehaya dakshinamurtaye namah, means that God
appears to His devotee in the form of a Guru (Son of God) and
points out to him the immanence of the Holy Spirit.
That is to say, that God is Spirit, that this Spirit is immanent
everywhere and that the Self must be realised, which is the same
as realising God. (Sri Ramana Maharshi)

David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethelehem!”
(2 Samuel 23:15)

“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
(John 4:13-14)

I see a painter painting a picture. The picture I call the world, the painter I call God. I am neither. I do not create, nor am I created. I contain all, nothing contains me.
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

… a presence both perceived and not perceived, at once image and model, and hence image without model, neither image nor model, a medium (medium in the sense of middle, neither/nor, what is between extremes, and medium in the sense of element, either, matrix, means). When we have rounded a certain corner in our reading we will place ourselves on that side of the lustre where the “medium” is shining.
(Derrida)

2019 (#59-10d) : “Heidegger” , Heraclitus , Montessori , Meister Eckhart , Mark 1:26 , Derrida , Nietzsche , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Derrida

Religious PERSPECTIVES represents a quest for the rediscovery of man. It constitutes an effort to define man’s search for the essence of being in order that he may have a knowledge of goals. It is an endeavor to show that there is no possibility of achieving an understanding of man’s total nature on the basis of phenomena known by the analytical method alone. It hopes to point to the false antinomy between revelation and reason, faith and knowledge, grace and nature, courage and anxiety. Mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, and religion, in spite of their almost complete independence, have begun to sense their interrelatedness and to become aware of that mode of cognition which teaches that “the light is not without but within me, and I myself am the light.” (“Heidegger”)

War is the father of all things. (Heraclitus)

All these defects have a reflection on the mental
life and on intelligence. Children are less able to learn
if they have not met with good conditions of develop-
ment in the previous period. A child of six years of
age, therefore, is an accumulation of characteristics that
may not be really his, but are acquired under the influence
of circumstances. If a child has been neglected from
3 to 6 years, he may not have the moral conscience that
develops from 7 to 1 2 years or he may not have the
normal intelligence. We then have a child with no
moral character and no ability to learn, more troubles
are added, and he is a man with scars due to the
difficulties he has gone through. (Montessori)

Start first with yourself and abandon yourself. Truly, if you won’t first leave yourself, wherever you may go you will encounter obstacles and war, anywhere. (Meister Eckhart)

The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. (Mark 1:26)

… the dissymmetry of a life in caricature … the mouth speaks the truth sideways … (Derrida)

Indicating the power and confidence obtained by showing that ‘I’ve unlearned fear’; in place of mistrust and doubt, trust our instincts; each person loving and honoring himself or herself in wisdom and even absurdity; partly as a fool, partly as a god; not being a figure of woe or an owl; or a serpent . . .
(Nietzsche)

Not from any desire, resolve, or effort on the part of the
rising sun, but merely due to the presence of his rays, the lens
emits heat, the lotus blossoms, water evaporates, and people
attend to their various duties in life. In the proximity of the
magnet the needle moves. Similarly, the soul or jiva subjected
to the threefold activity of creation, preservation and destruction,
which takes place merely due to the unique Presence of the
Supreme Lord, performs acts in accordance with its karma, and
subsides to rest after such activity. But the Lord Himself has no
resolve; no act or event touches even the fringe of His Being.
This state of immaculate aloofness can be likened to that of the
sun, which is untouched by the activities of life, or to that of the
all-pervasive ether, which is not affected by the interaction of
the complex qualities of the other four elements.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi)

I have constantly insisted on the fact that the movement of deconstruction was first of all affirmative – not positive, but affirmative. Deconstruction, let’s say it one more time, is not demolition or destruction. Deconstruction – I don’t know if it is something, but if it is something, it is also a thinking of Being, of metaphysics, thus a discussion that has it out with [“s’explique avec”] the authority of Being or of essence, of the thinking of what is, and such a discussion or explanation cannot be simply a negative destruction. All the more so in that, among all the things in the history of metaphysics that deconstruction argues against [“s’explique avec”], there is the dialectic, there is the “opposition” of the negative to the positive. To say that deconstruction is negative is simply to reinscribe it in an intrametaphysical process. The point is not to remove oneself from this process but to give it the possibility of being thought. (Derrida)

essence of being in order that he may have a knowledge of goals. It is an endeavor to show that there is no possibility of achieving an understanding of man’s total nature on the basis of phenom ena known by the analytical method alone. It hopes to point to the false antinomy between revelation and reason, faith and knowledge, grace and nature, courage and anxiety. Mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, and religion, in spite of their almost complete independence, have begun to sense their interrelatedness and to become aware of that mode of cognition which teaches that “the light is not without but within me, and I myself am the light.” Modern man is threatened by a world created by himself. He is faced with the conversion of mind to naturalism, a dogmatic secularism and an opposition to a belief in the transcendent. He begins to see, however, that the universe is given not as one exist ing and one perceived but as the unity of subject and object; that the barrier between them cannot be said to have been dissolved as the result of recent experience in the physical stiences> since this barrier has never existed. Confronted with the question of meaning, he is summoned to rediscover and scrutinize the im mutable and the permanent which constitute the dynamic, unify ing aspect of life as well as the principle of differentiation; to reconcile identity and diversity, immutability and unrest. He begins to recognize that just as every person descends by his particular path, so he is able to ascend, and this ascent aims at

REUGious PERSPECTIVES represents a quest for the rediscovery of man. It constitutes an effort to define man’s search for the essence of being in order that he may have a knowledge of goals. It is an endeavor to show that there is no possibility of achieving an understanding of man’s total nature on the basis of phenomena known by the analytical method alone. It hopes to point to the false antinomy between revelation and reason, faith and knowledge, grace and nature, courage and anxiety. Mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, and religion, in spite of their almost complete independence, have begun to sense their interrelatedness and to become aware of that mode of cognition which teaches that “the light is not without but within me, and I myself am the light.

2019 (#58-10c) : “Heidegger” , Montessori , Nietzsche , Derrida , Genesis 4:24 , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Heidegger

As far as I can see, an individual [thinker] is not in a position by reason of his thought to see through the world as a whole in such fashion as to be able to offer practical advice, and this, indeed, in view of the fact that his first task is to find a basis for thinking itself. For as long as thought takes itself seriously in terms of the great tradition, it is asking too much of thought for it to be committed to offering advice in this way. By what authority could this come about? In the domain of thinking there are no authoritative statements. (“Heidegger”)

if the child has had
some shock or met too great obstacles during this time,
phobias may develop or we may have a timid or melan-
cholic child. The character, therefore, develops in relation
to obstacles or freedom from obstacles during this period.
If during conception, gestation, birth and this period
the child has been treated scientifically, then at the age
of three years the child should be a model individual.
This ideal of perfection is never fully attained as, amongst
other reasons, during these developments the child has met
with many accidents. At three years we meet with one
or fifty or a million children with different characteristics.
We have so many different results of different experiences
and these different characteristics are of different import-
ance according to the seriousness of the experience.
(Montessori)

Indicating the power and confidence obtained by showing that ‘I’ve unlearned fear’; in place of mistrust and doubt, trust our instincts; each person loving and honoring himself or herself in wisdom and even absurdity; partly as a fool, partly as a god; not being a figure of woe or an owl; or a serpent . . .
(Nietzsche)

We are questioning in this instant, we
are asking ourselves about this instant that is not docile to time,
at least to what we call time. Furtive and untimely, the apparition
of the specter does not belong to that time, it does not give time,
not that one: “Enter the ghost, exit the ghost, re-enter the ghost”
(Derrida)

25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth,[h] saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
(Genesis 4:24-26)

They pray to God and finish with: ‘Thy will be done’. If
His will be done, why do they pray at all? It is true that the
Divine will prevails at all times and under all circumstances.
Individuals cannot act of their own accord. Recognise the force
of the Divine will and keep quiet. Everyone is looked after by
God. He created all. You are only one among two thousand
millions. When He looks after so many, will He omit you?
Even common sense dictates that one should accept His will.
There is no need to tell Him your requirements. He knows
them Himself and will look after them.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi)

The only measure for thought comes from the thing itself to be thought. But this is, above all, the [eminently] Questionable. In order to give some insight into the “content” of such thought, it would be necessary to analyze the relationship between philosophy and the sciences, whose technical-practical accomplishments make thought in the philosophical sense seem more and more superfluous. Thus it happens that corresponding to the predicament that thought faces by reason of its own proper task there is an estrangement with regard to thought nourished by the powerful place of the sciences [in our culture]. [That is why] thought is forced to renounce an answer to questions of the day concerning practical matters of Weltanschauung. . . . (Heidegger)

As far as I can see, an individual [thinker] is not in a position by reason of his thought to see through the world as a whole in such fashion as to be able to offer practical advice, and this, indeed, in view of the fact that his first task is to find a basis for thinking itself. For as long as thought takes itself seriously in terms of the great tradition, it is asking too much of thought for it to be committed to offering advice in this way. By what authority could this come about? In the domain of thinking there are no authoritative statements.

2019 (#57-10b) : “Heidegger” , Montessori , Derrida , Genesis 3:21 , Nietzsche , Rumi , Montessori , Derrida , John 3:34 , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , Heidegger

The first help might be the readying of this readiness. It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is — but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call “Being” (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. (“Heidegger”)

The teacher requires a special preparation, because
it is not our logic that solves problems. In no point on
which we have touched, does our logic help, we have to
know the child’s development and to shed our pre-
conceived ideas. Great tact and delicacy is necessary
for the care of the mind of a child from three to six years,
and an adult can have very little of it. Fortunately the
child takes more from the environment than from the
teacher. We must know the psychology of the child
and serve him where we can. (Montessori)

If it-learning to live-remains to be done, it can happen only between life and death. Neither in life nor in death alone. What happens between two, and between all the “two’s” one likes, such as between life and death, can only maintain itself with some ghost, can only talk with or about some ghost. So it would be necessary to learn spirits. Even and especially if this,
the spectral, is not. Even and especially if this, which is neither substance, nor essence, nor existence, is never present as such.
(Derrida)

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
(Genesis 3:21)

In what height is my abode? Ascending, I’ve never counted the steps leading to
myself–and where the steps cease, that is where I have my roof and my abode.” *
(Nietzsche)

I died from minerality and became vegetable;
And From vegetativeness I died and became animal.
I died from animality and became man.
Then why fear disappearance through death?
Next time I shall die
Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;
After that, soaring higher than angels –
What you cannot imagine,
I shall be that.
(Rumi)

If the environment is favourable, the result is a
strong healthy being. A fact worth considering is that
this conception and gestation have an influence on the
nervous system of the child (that is the reason why, if
a shock or accident happens, he may become an idiot),
so what happens after birth is due largely to the period
of gestation. The first important thing in life is therefore
conception, then gestation, then birth. We have
mentioned the shock at birth and that this might give
rise to regressions ; these characteristics of regression are
serious, but not so serious as alcoholism or hereditary
illness (as epilepsy, etc.). This shows us that, as we go
on, the danger of the obstacles grows less and less, but
the characteristics are always of a psychic kind. They
influence the individual either in the direction of regres-
sion or in that of independence. (Montessori)

they do not ask the question; they stage it or overflow this stage in the direction of that element of the scene which exceeds representation.
(Derrida)

For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. (John 3:34)

Let things happen as they happen — they will sort themselves out nicely in the end. You need not strain towards the future — the future will come to you on its own. For some time longer you will remain sleep-walking, as you do now, bereft of meaning and assurance; but this period will end and you will find your work both fruitful and easy. There are always moments when one feels empty and estranged. Such moments are most desirable for it means the soul had cast its moorings and is sailing for distant places. This is detachment — when the old is over and the new has not yet come. If you are afraid, the state may be distressing; but there is really nothing to be afraid of. Remember the instruction: whatever you come across — go beyond.
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

It is not simply a matter of just waiting until something occurs to man within 300 years, but rather to think forward without prophetic claims into the coming time in terms of the fundamental thrust of our present age that has hardly been thought through [at all]. Thinking is not inactivity, but is itself by its very nature an engagement that stands in dialogue with the epochal moment of the world. It seems to me that the distinction between theory and practice comes from metaphysics, and the conception of a transmission between these two blocks the way to insight into what I understand by thinking.
(Heidegger)

2019 (#56-10a) : Derrida , Montessori , Rumi , John 3:27,28,30 , Heidegger , John 3:31-36 , Montessori , Exodus 19:13 , I Ching , Luke 1:35 , Derrida , “Heidegger”

… the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of center for center, as a linked chain of determinations of the center. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the center receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix . . . is the determination of Being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated an invariable presence—eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth. (Derrida)

When those children of six years had the globe and
were talking about it, a child of three and a half came in
and said : ” Let me see ! Is this the world ? ” ” Yes ‘\
said the older ones, a little surprised, and the child of
three and a half said : ” Now I understand, because I
have an uncle who has gone three times round the world.
How was it round ? How did he go > Now I under-
stand/* At the same time he realized this was only a
model for he knew the world was immense ; he had
taken it from the conversation round him. (Montessori)

Workers rush toward some hint
of emptiness, which they then
start to fill. Their hope, though,
is for emptiness, so don’t think
you must avoid it. It contains
what you need!
Dear soul, if you were not friends
with the vast nothing inside,
why would you always be casting your net
into it, and waiting so patiently?
(Rumi)

To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. 28 You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ … 30 He must become greater; I must become less.”
(John 3:27,28,30)

Everything is functioning. That is precisely what is awesome, that everything functions, that the functioning propels everything more and more toward further functioning, and that technicity increasingly dislodges man and uproots him from the earth. I don’t know if you were shocked, but [certainly] I was shocked when a short time ago I saw the pictures of the earth taken from the moon. We do not need atomic bombs at all [to uproot us] — the uprooting of man is already here. All our relationships have become merely technical ones.
(Heidegger)

31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.
(John 3:31-36)

Playing with toys and imagination through fairy
tales represent two needs of that special period of life :
the first, to place oneself in direct relation with the
environment, to master the environment, and by this a
great mental development is acquired by the child. The
other reveals the strength of the imagination, so much so
that he turns it on his toys. If we then give him real
things to imagine about, this is a help to him and places
him in more accurate relation with his environment too.
(Montessori)

They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain. (Exodus 19:13)

in accordance with the Tao rather than willful intention” (I Ching)

The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.’ (Luke 1:35)

an experience in which one cannot maintain oneself and out of which one cannot but fall after having approached it. (Derrida)

The first help might be the readying of this readiness. It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is — but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call “Being” (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. The essence of technicity I see in what I call “pos-ure” (Ge-Sull), an often ridiculed and perhaps awkward expression.28 To say that pos-ure holds sway means that man is posed, enjoined and challenged by a power that becomes manifest in the essence of technicity — a power that man himself does not control. Thought asks no more than this: that it help us achieve this insight. Philosophy is at an end. (“Heidegger”)

Derrida

If this is so, the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of center for center, as a linked chain of determinations of the center. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the center receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix . . . is the determination of Being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated an invariable presence—eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth. (Derrida)

To take one example from many: the metaphysics of presence is shaken with the help of the concept of sign. But, as I suggested a moment ago, as soon as one seeks to demonstrate in this way that there is no transcendental or privileged signified and that the domain or play of signification henceforth has no limit, one must reject even the concept and word “sign” itself—which is precisely what cannot be done. For the signification “sign” has always been understood and determined, in its meaning, as sign-of, a signifier referring to a signified, signifier different from its signified. (Derrida)

There is no sense in doing without the concepts of metaphysics in order to attack metaphysics. We have no language—no syntax and no lexicon—which is foreign to this history. (Derrida)

The semiological or, more specifically, linguistic “science” cannot therefore hold on to the difference between signifier and signified-the very idea of the sign-without the difference between sensible and intelligible, certainly, but also not without retaining, more profoundly and more implicitly, and by the same token the reference to a signified able to “take place” in its intelligibility, before its “fall,” before any expulsion into the exteriority of the sensible here below. As the face of pure intelligibility, it refers to an absolute logos to which it is immediately united. (Derrida)

Thus, within this epoch, reading and writing, the production or interpretation of signs, the text in general as fabric of signs, allow themselves to be confined within secondariness. They are preceded by a truth, or a meaning already constituted by and within the element of the logos. Even when the thing, the “referent,” is not immediately related to the logos of a creator God where it began by being the spoken/thought sense, the signified has at any rate an immediate relationship with the logos in general (finite or infinite), and a mediated one with the signifier, that is to say with the exteriority of writing.
(Derrida)

The trace is in fact the absolute origin of sense in general. Which amounts to saying once again that there is no absolute origin of sense in general. The trace is the differance which opens appearance [l’apparaître] and signification.
(Derrida)

Heidegger

Everything is functioning. That is precisely what is awesome, that everything functions, that the functioning propels everything more and more toward further functioning, and that technicity increasingly dislodges man and uproots him from the earth. I don’t know if you were shocked, but [certainly] I was shocked when a short time ago I saw the pictures of the earth taken from the moon. We do not need atomic bombs at all [to uproot us] — the uprooting of man is already here. All our relationships have become merely technical ones.
(Heidegger)

The first help might be the readying of this readiness. It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is — but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call “Being” (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. The essence of technicity I see in what I call “pos-ure” (Ge-Sull), an often ridiculed and perhaps awkward expression.28 To say that pos-ure holds sway means that man is posed, enjoined and challenged by a power that becomes manifest in the essence of technicity — a power that man himself does not control. Thought asks no more than this: that it help us achieve this insight. Philosophy is at an end. (Heidegger)

. . . .but make ready for this readiness of holding oneself open for the arrival, or for the absence, of a god. Even the experience of this absence is not nothing, but a liberation of man from what in Being and Time I call “fallenness” upon beings.29 Making [ourselves] ready for the aforementioned readiness involves reflecting on what in our own day. . .is.
(Heidegger)

: It is not simply a matter of just waiting until something occurs to man within 300 years, but rather to think forward without prophetic claims into the coming time in terms of the fundamental thrust of our present age that has hardly been thought through [at all]. Thinking is not inactivity, but is itself by its very nature an engagement that stands in dialogue with the epochal moment of the world. It seems to me that the distinction between theory and practice comes from metaphysics, and the conception of a transmission between these two blocks the way to insight into what I understand by thinking.
(Heidegger)

I see the situation of man in the world of planetary technicity not as an inextricable and inescapable destiny, but I see the task of thought precisely in this, that within its own limits it helps man as such achieve a satisfactory relationship to the essence of technicity. (Heidegger)

As far as I can see, an individual [thinker] is not in a position by reason of his thought to see through the world as a whole in such fashion as to be able to offer practical advice, and this, indeed, in view of the fact that his first task is to find a basis for thinking itself. For as long as thought takes itself seriously in terms of the great tradition, it is asking too much of thought for it to be committed to offering advice in this way. By what authority could this come about? In the domain of thinking there are no authoritative statements. The only measure for thought comes from the thing itself to be thought. But this is, above all, the [eminently] Questionable. In order to give some insight into the “content” of such thought, it would be necessary to analyze the relationship between philosophy and the sciences, whose technical-practical accomplishments make thought in the philosophical sense seem more and more superfluous. Thus it happens that corresponding to the predicament that thought faces by reason of its own proper task there is an estrangement with regard to thought nourished by the powerful place of the sciences [in our culture]. [That is why] thought is forced to renounce an answer to questions of the day concerning practical matters of Weltanschauung. . . . (Heidegger)