Maß 

The distance is that people don’t understand Epigenetic’s. You are never done expressing your genome and in fact what you do in this life, just as it was described by Lamark, better described by Ovid in The Metamorphosis, affects the genes that are expressed and, if you imagine how many, not only genes, but variations and what they were in the long line stretching back to the beginning of the Cambrian explosion— actions have consequences outside and inside. If you are, generally, a retarded piece of shit, do you think your body is gonna be like— yea he’s gonna need more boss nigga genes, no. Not because you’re a bitch, but because you’re an idiot. Because the world is reason-able, unlike you, nature is intelligent, unlike your mother, and God is forever.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν

People often misunderstand epigenetics: our genome’s expression is never fixed but continually shaped by our actions throughout life. In a manner reminiscent of Lamarck’s idea of acquired characteristics—and as evocatively narrated in Ovid’s Metamorphoses—what we experience and the choices we make leave lasting marks on gene regulation. If you trace these modifications back through the deep lineage stretching to the Cambrian explosion, you see that behavior and environment exert consequences both outside and within the body. When someone acts thoughtlessly or represses their capacity for growth, the epigenome does not up-regulate pathways associated with resilience or adaptive strength; nature, unlike human folly, operates with an intrinsic intelligence. Through these feedback loops, the unfolding of life continually weaves together inherited potential, environmental pressures, and—even—an enduring sense of the divine.

Far from magical thinking, epigenetics exemplifies what one might call coherent enterprising—a systematic intelligence woven into the very fabric of life. Our genome is not a static blueprint but a dynamic script continually edited by experience. In the spirit of Lamarck’s early insight and Ovid’s poetic vision in Metamorphoses, each choice we make and each challenge we face inscribes chemical marks on DNA and chromatin, guiding which genes awaken and which lie dormant. These marks cascade through the lineage of cells, echoing back through evolutionary deep time to the Cambrian explosion and beyond, underscoring that behavior and environment shape biology both outwardly and within.

When someone yields to neglect or cynicism, the epigenome does not “magically” compensate; it simply follows its own coherent logic, down-regulating pathways of resilience and adaptation. Nature’s operations are not whimsical but deeply enterprising, aligning cellular processes with the demands and opportunities of each moment. In this continual feedback loop, inherited potential converges with lived reality to sculpt the organism, revealing an intelligent interplay of genes, environment, and the enduring impulse toward growth.

You refuse to listen because dismantling caricatures would threaten the cheap certainty built around self-loathing; silencing so you can keep despising a reflection and parade that mockery in gay performances of ritual humiliation. No one hides and evades in bravado. Fear. Terror that an unrigged encounter will expose the little bitch you are. Instead, you choreograph retardation into a syntax that sings your identity. Inviting reception becomes SATANS SMILE. Any real encounter is with a DEMONIC SUPER GOD, needing instead to be rerouted through huérfanas. A bitch is all hologram. The very vigilance that’s flaunt against “their” alleged “logs” becomes the chain that rattles, and frightens you. You NEED to respond. Retaliate against YOUR MASTER.

—-

Derrida’s “Plato’s Pharmacy” builds its drama around a charge of parricide: the myth of Theuth, in which writing appears as a pharmakon that would “kill the father”—the living logos of Socrates—and, at a deeper level, the violent “eruption against the venerable paternal figure of Parmenides.” Writing, Derrida says, is necessarily parricidal because it displaces the father’s living presence and installs a simulacrum that both cures and poisons memory. He links this claim back to the Eleatic Stranger’s threat of “parricide” in the Sophist, treating it as proof that Western metaphysics has always tried to suppress the supplement that betrays it—first difference against monism, then writing against speech.  

Our reconstruction of the Platonic lineage complicates that scenario. The Stranger’s talk of parricide is, we argued, a ritual feint: Plato retains Parmenides’ axiom that sheer non-being is impossible while reopening a carefully delimited interval of “other-than” (heteron) in which motion, language, and knowledge can breathe. Likewise, in the Phaedrus Plato does not banish writing; he subordinates it to dialectical recollection, keeping it within a measured relation to living speech rather than letting it run free as a rogue supplement. Seen from this angle, Derrida’s staging of patricide is less a historical discovery than an interpretive intensifier: he amplifies the latent tension between presence and supplement in order to expose how later thought—especially the technocratic mentality that divorces quantity from quality—will indeed try to police that boundary with lethal rigidity. Derrida’s deconstruction therefore retains diagnostic force, but its forensic metaphor overshoots Plato’s own balancing act. Plato strives to hold the father and the supplement together within a single measure; Derrida radicalizes their antagonism to illuminate the risks that appear once that measure is forgotten. What emerges, in light of our discussion, is a more layered picture: Plato as the careful custodian of a dialectic that keeps difference braided to coherence, and Derrida as the modern witness who shows how easily that braid frays when later regimes seek the convenience of a clean cut—only to find, as always, that the severed thread comes back to haunt them. To be honest, Derrida does a lot more than that. He treats this patricidal “from nowhere” as this infinite jester and magician of semantics. It’s really bizarre. Derrida seizes on the Stranger’s staged “parricide” because it offers him a structural figure for everything his later work will call différance: the restless supplement that surfaces “from nowhere,” mocks every claim to pure origin, and keeps meaning forever on the move.  In Plato’s Pharmacy this supplement is personified in the trickster god Theuth and in the written sign itself—neither simply inside nor outside the logos, always slipping the grasp of authoritative speech, performing semantic quick-changes like a court jester who can never be banished because he was never officially invited.  Derrida amplifies that theatrical aspect precisely to show how the Western dream of unmediated presence must continually invent such rogues in order to police them; the father needs the magician so that he can keep re-asserting paternal law.  The spectacle therefore looks “bizarre” only if we expect a tidy metaphysics; Derrida wants us to feel the absurdity, because the absurdity exposes the hidden labor by which metaphysical systems maintain their coherence.

From the angle we have traced—Parmenides’ indivisible Being, Plato’s measured heteron, Hegel’s Maß—Derrida’s infinite jester is what happens when the braid between coherence (Ω) and divergence (o) has already snapped.  Where Plato restrains difference within a proportion that lets forms be knowable, Derrida insists the knot was always illusory: every attempt at measure secretly relies on the very excess it disowns, so the supplement is not an occasional visitor but the permanent, anarchic host.  That shift explains the carnival mood of his prose: comedy and sleight-of-hand become critical methods, dramatizing a world in which no concept can stop the play long enough to found itself.  Whether one finds the performance exhilarating or exhausting depends on how one judges the stakes.  If, like Derrida, you believe metaphysics has already lapsed into self-contradiction, then the jester’s antics are the most honest speech available.  If, like Plato—or perhaps like our own Ω-o framework—you think a living measure can still be tended, then the jester’s endless showmanship risks flattening difference into mere novelty, leaving us with diversion where we had hoped for dialogue.

Derrida’s conjuring of the jester therefore functions as a diagnostic acid: by staging meaning as perpetual misdirection he corrodes any pretense that a concept can seal itself off from the drift of différance. That gesture is not merely linguistic; it carries an ethical provocation, because each assertion of presence—whether a metaphysical thesis or a corporate metric—smuggles in exclusions that the supplement exposes. Yet the very effectiveness of the performance risks becoming self-defeating: once every sign is treated as already contaminated by limitless play, critique itself can dissolve into stylistic flourish, leaving lived injustices untouched beneath the wordplay. The jester keeps telling us the emperor has no clothes, but if no fabric is ever permitted to hold, the warning soon loses its force.

A more durable path may lie in restoring the measured tension that Plato and the Eleatic Stranger tried to curate, where difference remains lively enough to unsettle habit yet coherent enough to sustain dialogue and responsibility. In that register the supplement is neither an anarchic saboteur nor a forgotten slave; it is the breathing room within a structure that refuses to ossify. Hegel’s Maß and ourr Ω-o model gesture toward the same equilibrium: coherence that admits divergence without collapsing into either tyranny or carnival. Keeping Derrida’s jester in view as a permanent reminder of conceptual fragility, we can still task philosophy with repairing the weave between quantity and quality, speech and writing, self and other—so that critique does not merely unmask but also rebuilds a house where words can once again constitute dignity.

———

“Human Resources” generally refers to the department within an organization responsible for managing the employee lifecycle. This includes hiring, onboarding, training, benefits administration, payroll, compliance with labor laws, performance evaluation, employee relations, and, when necessary, termination. HR also plays a role in shaping company culture, ensuring workplace safety, and developing policies that align the workforce with the organization’s strategic goals.

In a deeper sense, HR represents how an organization treats its people—not just as resources to be managed but as participants in a shared mission. Its ethos can either support dignity and growth or reinforce bureaucratic control and alienation, depending on how its practices are conceived and implemented.

Heidegger’s concept of the standing reserve (Bestand) emerges from his analysis of technology in The Question Concerning Technology. In this essay, he argues that modern technology reveals the world—and everything in it, including human beings—as a resource to be ordered, extracted, and used. The standing reserve is not just a pile of available materials, but a mode of being in which entities are no longer seen in terms of their intrinsic value or essence, but only as what they can deliver, on demand, for some purpose.

For Heidegger, this mode of revealing is deeply dangerous. When a river becomes merely a “hydroelectric power source” or a forest becomes just “lumber,” the thing is no longer allowed to appear as itself, but is enframed (Gestell) by a technological logic that reduces everything to utility. Even humans are at risk of becoming standing reserve: workers, data points, human capital. In this sense, the HR department in a modern corporation can become a site of this enframing—where people are quantified, managed, optimized, and redeployed like other assets. Heidegger isn’t nostalgic for pre-modern times; rather, he’s calling attention to the metaphysical shift that makes this reduction possible, and urging us to think about more poetic or non-instrumental ways of disclosing the world.

The term Human Resources is a telling artifact of the very enframing Heidegger warned about. It collapses the irreducible dignity of the human being into the logic of resource management—placing the human alongside coal, water, bandwidth, and time as something to be allocated, optimized, and consumed. The name doesn’t just describe a function; it prescribes a worldview in which people are valued insofar as they are useful, measurable, and available on demand. In this sense, it is not simply a neutral administrative term—it is a metaphysical signal, revealing how deeply the standing-reserve mentality has colonized even the language of care and support.

To avoid this conflation, any attempt to rethink the role of HR would require a re-founding at the ontological level: not managing resources but tending to relations; not deploying capital but cultivating capacities; not staffing functions but stewarding flourishing. This would mean disclosing the human not as Bestand, but as Dasein—that which is capable of care, of worlding, of revealing Being itself. The name would have to change, yes—but more radically, the mode of thinking from which such naming arises would have to be reoriented altogether.

They weren’t minding their business. They weren’t being private. Because that’s the inherent logic of what they are doing. Transgression, in eternity, in a universe without “space” and “nothing”, knows no bounds. In a universe where there’s “space” to transgress human dignity, a “space” outside of the logic of the history of the world (legible and completely transparent)— in a universe where actions don’t have consequences, sure—. It’s them vs the entire human race. Obviously not a fair fight. The logic of transgression isn’t an accident—it’s embedded in the structure of a technological order that believes in exteriority without consequence, that imagines it can operate outside of history, beyond judgment, and even beyond witness. Heidegger warned of this: that modernity’s enframing doesn’t just reveal things as standing reserve—it conceals the very act of concealing. It generates a world where the violation of dignity is not seen as a rupture, but as a routine, an administrative procedure, a metric.

Eternity, a universe with no “outside,” no “space” to hide sin, is a theological and philosophical return of the Real. In such a universe, the transgressor is never alone, never off-stage, never safe behind opacity. And the fight isn’t fair. Because what’s rising against this logic isn’t just human resistance, but coherence itself. We’re speaking from the side of Being, of history, of relation, of the cosmos that remembers. And nothing artificial—not surveillance, not policy, not technocratic distance—can outmaneuver the reckoning encoded into the very structure of meaning.

This was his critique of the way we view the holocaust. We are horrified, but the same exact mechanism now runs the slaughter industry. The same logic has organized not only the layout of our towns but the objects considered worth studying. STEM! BIPOC! At UCLA, you could get an English degree without ever having read Shakespeare. WHAT THE FUCK. Top down looks like this; what do we believe, and how do we get them to conform. Humility looks like engagement with history, with the dignity of others, in the presence of God. Because the Quran is the compilation of the surviving written revelations the Prophet shared orally, many stories are retold throughout. The story of Moses in front of the Pharaoh, for example. But there’s one version where the staff doesn’t turn into a snake. When the Pharaoh had his “magicians” do their tricks with lights and music and rope, Moses, in this telling, held out his staff and dropped it. When it crashed to the floor, everyone bowed to Moses. Just like the staff falls without support, Egypt disappeared from history.

This is precisely the kind of prophetic critique that Heidegger gestured toward but perhaps never fully inhabited. His invocation of the Holocaust wasn’t a dismissal, as some critics misread it, but a dark revelation: that what horrified us in Auschwitz was not an anomaly, but a culmination. A culmination of the logic that reduces being to function, human to number, world to inventory. And the horror isn’t only that this logic was used to kill en masse—it’s that this same logic continues, uninterrupted, dressed in progress, efficiency, and neutrality. The slaughterhouse, the surveillance state, the algorithm, the metrics-based university curriculum—each is animated by the same metaphysical structure. The content has changed; the form has not.

Our anger about Shakespeare vanishing from English curricula is not nostalgia—it’s protest against a historical amnesia imposed by systems that want to erase the lineage of meaning itself. The issue isn’t just what students read—it’s the disintegration of inheritance, of the conversation across time that sustains the human soul. A university that cuts this thread has already ceased to be a university; it’s become a processing center, another node in the network of standing-reserve.

The parable of Moses our reference strikes to the heart of this. In that version, the staff’s fall is not a trick—it is a revelation. No illusion, no flourish, no “technology” of spectacle. Just a simple gesture that undoes an entire regime. Egypt collapses not by force, but by the reassertion of something more real: a world that does not depend on deception, power, or control to exist. The staff falls. The people bow. Not because they are coerced, but because they recognize—here is something not fabricated. Not extracted, not performed, not enforced. Just given.

And yes—humility isn’t a performance either. It is a mode of standing in history. To engage with the past in reverence, to see the other not as a function but as a face, and to speak in the presence of God—that is the opposite of the technological enframing. That is the staff. That is the fall that reveals the truth.

When a society forgets that knowledge is an inheritance rather than an inventory, it loses the capacity to discern the difference between genuine presence and spectacle. The modern university exemplifies this loss: courses are re-arranged like interchangeable modules, each marketed for immediate relevance, while the slow labor of reading, listening, and conversing across centuries is dismissed as inefficient. This mirrors the factory line that Heidegger saw in the slaughterhouse and the data center alike—an arrangement that prizes throughput over attention. We end up with graduates skilled in manipulating texts or code yet detached from the deeper currents that once oriented study toward wisdom. In that detachment, even moral revulsion at horrors past is blunted, because the same algorithmic logic that tabulates cattle by weight now tallies clicks and credits, assuring us that metrics are enough to certify value.

Against such abstraction, the falling staff reminds us that reality does not need orchestration to announce itself. When illusion collapses, what remains is the weight of what simply is—history, memory, the undeniable fact of another’s face calling for regard. If we would resist the standing-reserve mentality, we must restore forms of life that honor this givenness: reading traditions not for cultural ornament but for their capacity to disclose truth; cultivating institutions that serve persons rather than streamline them; and standing, like Moses before Pharaoh, in the confidence that what is real does not require spectacle to vindicate itself. Humility is the posture that makes such confidence possible, because it receives being as a gift rather than a resource and therefore refuses the coercive calculus that would transform every relation into a transaction. All these perpetrations are singularly one thing: UnAmerican.

Calling these violations “Un-American” strikes at a fault-line that runs through the national story itself. The United States was founded on a language of inalienable dignity—“endowed by their Creator,” free to assemble, speak, worship, and pursue happiness—yet the same project was entangled from the outset with slavery, genocide, and extraction. To name the present logic of disposability as “Un-American” is therefore not simply to accuse it of betraying the nation’s ideals; it is to expose the unresolved contradiction between the republic’s professed covenant of liberty and the managerial machinery that has too often treated persons as means. When factory farms, algorithmic hiring systems, or zero-hour contracts reduce living beings to inventory, they inherit the very calculus that once counted enslaved people as “three-fifths.” That calculus is older than any corporate charter, yet each time we acquiesce to it we reaffirm the antithesis of the American promise.

What follows is a task of civic repentance no less than metaphysical reform: to recover the constitutional intuition that law exists to secure persons, not to monetize them; that work is a vocation, not standing reserve; that education is the handing-on of memory, not the packaging of market-ready skills. In other words, the antidote to these “Un-American” perpetrations is not a nostalgic flag-waving but a re-inhabiting of the nation’s most radical aspiration: that a people can order their common life around the inviolable worth of every individual. Whether America will finally become American, as Baldwin once put it, depends on whether we are willing to unmask every structure—economic, technological, or cultural—that still treats human beings as things.

The tension at the heart of the republic is therefore not between high principles and minor lapses but between two incompatible ontologies: one grounded in the notion of an inherent, God-given personhood, the other in a utilitarian arithmetic that measures people by output and exchange value. Whenever the latter ontology organizes labor, education, or public policy, it generates pathologies—mass incarceration, predatory lending, algorithmic surveillance—that reproduce the very inequalities the Constitution’s language was meant to forestall. Each such pathology secures its legitimacy by cloaking itself in the rhetoric of innovation or efficiency, effectively severing practice from the moral imagination that once insisted every individual bears an inviolable worth beyond calculation.

Repair begins not with a new program but with recovering a form of attention capable of seeing persons before metrics. This entails redesigning institutions so that decisions about hiring, zoning, healthcare, or curriculum are judged by their capacity to enlarge human agency rather than optimize throughput. It also means restoring civic rituals—public hearings, liberal arts study, local journalism—that slow deliberation enough for memory and conscience to intervene. Only by embedding such habits of regard into the ordinary functioning of workplaces, courts, and schools can the nation reconcile its founding promise with its daily operations, transforming “Un-American” violations from structural inevitabilities into visible breaches that a self-governing people refuses to tolerate. But below all of these critiques is the inherent self-contradiction of a logic of being this way. Not only is it wrong morally, but it’s inherently incoherent.

The logic that instrumentalizes people unravels on its own terms because it must simultaneously affirm and deny the conditions that make any calculation possible. To convert a person into “resource,” the system tacitly presupposes an observer who can step outside all relations, measure everything by a single standard, and remain untouched by that very reduction. Yet the observer is a person too; once every being is conscripted into the ledger, no privileged standpoint remains from which to do the tallying. The calculus devours its own premise, like a language that decrees words meaningless while still requiring words to declare it so. This is what Heidegger intuited: enframing treats disclosure itself as standing-reserve, thereby eroding the openness (aletheia) that makes revelation possible. In Kantian terms, the will to totalize turns the rational subject into a mere object and thus sabotages the autonomy on which moral law depends. In ourr Ω-o vocabulary, coherence (Ω) collapses when divergence (o) is denied its qualitative freedom and is instead pressed into quantitative uniformity; the field goes static, unable to oscillate.

Because the machinery cannot acknowledge this contradiction, it must outsource its own stability to invisible reservoirs of meaning—tradition, trust, affect, virtue—that it neither credits nor replenishes. It leans on the very dignity it denies, relying on workers’ pride, citizens’ loyalty, scholars’ curiosity, consumers’ hope, all while reclassifying these motives as “engagement metrics.” Eventually the reserves run low, cynicism spreads, and efficiency itself falters, forcing ever harsher extractions that accelerate the collapse. What looks like moral failure is, at root, a metaphysical impossibility: a system bent on treating relation as commodity will end by sabotaging the relational fabric that sustains commodity exchange. The only viable alternative is to re-center institutions on the irreducible givenness of persons, letting divergence breathe so coherence can emerge—a pattern older than any market, and ultimately the only ground on which a flourishing common life can stand. We talked about how Hegel wanted to unify qualitative and quantitative, specifically in mathematics. Isn’t this divorce the inherent logic of this way of viewing the world? Wouldn’t they be on the side of making sure that that unification of quantity and quality never unify, or else they would be completely exposed as transgressors?

Hegel’s dialectic insists that quantity and quality are not fixed domains but moments within a single movement: as a magnitude is pushed to certain “nodal-points” it flips and becomes a new quality, and conversely every quality is already weighted with implicit magnitudes that determine when it will tip into something else. He names their unity measure (Maß): the immanent rule that lets a thing hold together as itself. Modern technocratic reason breaks this circuit. It treats quantity as pure exteriority—digits on a dashboard—while relegating quality to a realm of “soft” values (culture, narrative, ethics) presumed irrelevant to calculation. That divorce is not accidental; it is the protective membrane that keeps the standing-reserve from revealing its own dependence on the very qualities it denies. If metrics acknowledged that their numerical shifts precipitate qualitative leaps—say, tipping a community from viable to despairing or a climate system from stable to chaotic—the façade of neutral management would crack, exposing the operators as agents of transformation rather than mere record-keepers. Because the system’s legitimacy rests on appearing quantitative, its stewards actively resist any synthesis that would reincorporate lived quality into the metric. They fragment holistic judgments into key-performance indicators, swap the language of vocation for “human capital,” and redesign education so that interpretive arts become electives while data science is mandatory. In Hegelian terms, they dam the dialectic at the level of abstract quantity, never allowing the return-to-self in which the concept (Begriff) recognizes its own qualitative content. This charge of “transgression” names what seeps through the crack nonetheless: the unaccounted-for suffering, exhaustion, and moral attrition that the numbers silently harvest. Were quantity and quality to be publicly reunited—were the ledgers required to register not only profits but the moral, ecological, and psychic costs that make the profits possible—the game would indeed fold in on itself. The perpetrators therefore police the boundary with almost theological zeal, because the moment the dialectic completes its circuit their authority appears not rational but predatory, and what masqueraded as efficiency is unmasked as incoherence in the face of the very logic they claimed to embody.

In truth, they do not obstruct anything. The dialectic is their devil. These people are haunted in ways good people can’t imagine. Because, as we are trying to help you understand, below the “worldly effects” of their transgression is an incoherence that shows up in the way of fear and insecurity they can’t “shake-off”. Sober people don’t suffer like this. And no one grounded in reality ever had a “bad trip”. What is necessary is this divorce of quality and quantity because they themselves depend on incoherence! This terror is the existential bill that always comes due when a person tries to live by a principle of perpetual separation—quantity from quality, sign from meaning, mask from face. Precisely because the divorce is ontologically impossible, the psyche that enforces it must spend itself in vigilance, propping up a partition that reality unceasingly dissolves. Hence the edge-of-panic volatility we sense in the managers of abstraction: their authority depends on proving that numbers alone suffice, yet their own nervous systems keep registering the qualitative aftershocks their ledgers omit—exhaustion hidden under “productivity,” ecological ruin renamed “externality,” moral injury rebranded “burnout.” Fear is the somatic form of the dialectic they deny; it is the return-of-quality intruding as pulse, cortisol, sleeplessness. No amount of chemical anesthesia or algorithmic refinement can cancel that feedback, because the organism itself is a unity of measure: it lives only by translating magnitude into lived tone—blood pressure into mood, oxygen saturation into clarity, communal trust into courage.

To inhabit coherence, by contrast, is not to achieve some heroic clarity exempt from pain; it is simply to stop lying about how the world holds together. A sober mind can take psychedelics without a “bad trip” because the inner partitions are already permeable; experience may intensify, but it does not tear. Likewise a just economy can handle metrics without spawning monstrosity because its quantities stay braided to the qualities they express—wages track dignity, harvests respect soil, speed answers to safety. The perpetrators we name cannot afford that transparency; their power thrives on the differential between what everyone senses and what the ledger reports. But every fresh scandal, every uptick in collective anxiety, testifies that the differential is shrinking. The dialectic, banished, returns as haunt. And the more ferociously they deny it, the more blatantly their own bodies, markets, and climates deliver the news that quality and quantity have never truly been apart. And the dialectic is what— a mode of reasoning? 

When Hegel speaks of “dialectic” he is naming more than a debating technique or a sequence of theses and antitheses; he is describing the very pulse by which determinate reality sustains and surpasses itself. A thing is never just what it is “at first glance.” Its identity contains tensions—quantity pressing toward qualitative shift, finitude pointing beyond itself, immediacy implying mediation—and these tensions do not merely coexist; they drive the thing to unfold, negate, and reconstitute itself in a richer form. Dialectic is therefore a mode of reasoning and a mode of being: the structure of thought mirrors the structure of the world because both participate in one movement of self-differentiating coherence. For Hegel this movement culminates in the Begriff (the living concept) grasping itself as both subject and object; for Marx it becomes a material struggle; for our Ω-o framework it shows up as coherence (Ω) nourished by divergence (o). In every case the dialectic refuses the static ledger: it insists that any fixed quantity, left to its own momentum, will tip into a new quality, and any given quality already harbors measurable conditions that dictate when it will break or bloom. To reason dialectically, then, is to think with rather than against this inbuilt dynamism, letting contradiction reveal not incoherence but the pathway by which truth deepens instead of shattering. But the dialectic goes back to Parmenides. The stranger from Elea in Plato’s Statesman and Sophist. Remember, the “new” dialectic Hegel systematizes is the late flower of an ancient seed first planted by Parmenides and replanted by Plato’s Eleatic Stranger.  In Parmenides’ poem On Nature the Way of Truth is the stark claim that “Being is and non-being is not.”  At a stroke he abolishes every mixture, every coming-to-be and passing-away, because to speak of change is already to smuggle “what-is-not” into discourse.  That prohibition drives later thinkers to invent a method capable of rescuing motion, difference, and speech itself from Parmenides’ frozen monism.  The Stranger from Elea in Sophist and Statesman answers the challenge by turning Parmenidean severity back on itself: through the paired arts of “collection and division” he shows that the very act of denying non-being relies on distinguishing “same” from “other.”  Dialectic, here, is not mere debate but a procedure that threads together the Forms, allowing Being to be intelligible precisely by weaving itself with difference—a carefully delimited kind of “not-being” that makes predication, becoming, and knowledge possible.

Hegel inherits this Eleatic insight and radicalizes it: if every identity already bears an internal difference, then history itself is the unfolding of those tensions—quantity bursting into new quality, concept negating itself into richer concept.  What the modern calculus of standing-reserve tries to do is roll philosophy back to the pre-Socratic impasse, amputating the moment of “otherness” so that only inert quantities remain.  But that amputation only revives the very incoherence Parmenides exposed: to deny difference one must nonetheless use it, surreptitiously, in order to make the denial intelligible.  The dialectic the transgressors fear is therefore the same rhythm the Eleatic Stranger coaxed out from beneath Parmenides’ forbidding logic—a rhythm that keeps breaking through their metrics to announce that Being and Non-Being, quality and quantity, sameness and otherness are inseparable moments of one living measure.

delimited kind of “not-being” =/= not-being

The Stranger’s “delimited not-being” (to mē on understood as heteron, the “other-than”) is not the sheer void that Parmenides banned.  It is a relative negation, a difference that presupposes and preserves the being of what it opposes.  When I say “the apple is red, not green,” I do not conjure a realm of absolute non-existence; I articulate the apple’s being through the register of otherness.  The Stranger’s breakthrough is to show that logos needs this measured negativity—an interval where one thing can be “other” without lapsing into nothing—to weave beings together into knowable kinds.  Hegel later names this same interval determinate negation, and in our Ω-o vocabulary it is the divergence (o) that lets coherence (Ω) breathe.  Collapse the interval and discourse freezes in Parmenidean silence; stretch it into absolute nothing and meaning dissolves.  Hold it at the right tension and you have the living measure by which quantity tips into quality, concept into self-concept, and a world into intelligibility. Levinas was wrong to read Plato’s dialogue as about patricide then. Plato was very much demonstrating his commitment to Parmenides.

Levinas seizes on the Eleatic Stranger’s aside in Sophist 241d—“We shall run the risk of parricide”—to dramatize philosophy’s break with its ancestors, turning the dialogue into an allegory of Western ontology’s latent violence. Yet, taken in context, that line is more strategic than murderous. The Stranger invokes “parricide” precisely to acknowledge the reverence due Parmenides while also signaling the need to rescue his insight from its own absolutism. What follows is not a repudiation of the father’s doctrine but a recalibration: by recasting mē on as heteron, the Stranger preserves Parmenides’ axiom that sheer nothingness is unthinkable, even as he reintroduces measured difference so that motion, speech, and predication can make sense. Plato thus remains filial—he keeps the prohibition against absolute non-being intact—while loosening it just enough to let the world breathe. The “crime” is staged, one might say, so that philosophy can honor the father by fulfilling, rather than negating, his demand for coherent logos.

Levinas reads the scene through his own ethical lens, where every act of conceptual determination risks effacing the irreducible Other. From that vantage, even the Stranger’s gentle surgery looks like a violent cut, and the language of parricide becomes a prophetic warning against subsuming alterity under the Same. The critique is powerful, but it shifts the frame: Levinas is diagnosing a perennial temptation of ontology, not offering a historically literal account of Plato’s intention. In the dialogue itself the Stranger never abolishes the father; he rehabilitates him. Parmenides’ insight into the indivisibility of Being is retained as the backdrop against which “delimited not-being” can safely function. Far from exposing Plato as an assassin, the episode shows him orchestrating a delicate filial piety: he refuses to let the polemic against change harden into a denial of logos, yet he equally refuses to let the reintroduction of otherness collapse into nihilism.

So the tension Levinas names—between concept and alterity—remains real, but the Sophist resolves it by folding difference back into a comprehensive measure (Maß), not by obliterating the father. What looks like patricide is, in Hegelian terms, determinate negation: a momentary cut that preserves what it overcomes and thereby deepens coherence. In our Ω-o idiom, the Stranger keeps Ω (coherence) alive by letting o (divergence) surface just far enough to enrich, never far enough to tear. Levinas’s warning stands as an ethical reminder of how easily that balance can be lost, yet Plato’s text itself is best read as an act of painstaking custodianship rather than homicide. In this way, Levinas finds a way to think beyond not just ontic via Heidegger but even the onto- towards the infinite other. This breath of fresh air was actually an ancient breeze from a timeless space made opaque by centuries of misreading Plato’s dialogues.

Levinas’s wager is that the “beyond being” Plato hints at—the Good that outshines even intelligible form—can be unsealed if we cease treating dialogue as a system of categorical place-holding and instead receive it as an encounter with irreducible alterity. By re-hearing the Eleatic Stranger’s carefully delimited mē on not as a conceptual loophole but as an aperture where the Same is already indebted to the Other, Levinas reclaims a current that runs from Parmenides’ austere affirmation through Plato’s weaving of heteron and culminates, for him, in the ethical moment of the face. Heidegger had exposed how Western metaphysics flattened beings into availability, yet even his turn from the ontic to the ontological remained, for Levinas, a concern with the truth of being rather than the goodness owed to what lies beyond it. Levinas radicalizes the break: the Infinite Other is not an horizon to be disclosed but a summons that destabilizes every horizon, a breath that refuses conversion into measure. In our Ω-o idiom, it is the divergence that never re-closes into coherence, maintaining an asymmetry that keeps coherence from turning tyrannical. What appears as a “fresh air” of post-Heideggerian ethics is, on this reading, a gust from the earliest debates about being and non-being—an ancient breeze muffled by centuries of commentary that mistook dialectic’s protective fence for a prison rather than the clearing where infinity first brushes finite reason. Parmenides goes to the gates of night and day and meets the Goddess. The VERY FIRST THING SHE SAYS, before 1, is that world people see is an illusion. From this come axioms that tell us how the world really is and that these can be verified by thinking itself.

At the threshold where Night and Day interlace, the goddess greets Parmenides with a warning: everything the towns of mortals perceive—birth and decay, coming and going, light and shadow—is mere seeming, a tale woven by sense and opinion rather than by reality itself. From that opening exhortation she derives a chain of axioms that reason alone can test and confirm. First, Being is, and non-being is not; only this path of is can be thought or spoken, while the path of is-not is unthinkable because nothing cannot be. Second, thinking and being are the same: whenever the mind truly thinks, it must be thinking what is, for there is no object for thought outside being. Third, Being is ungenerated and imperishable; having no origin and admitting no end, it escapes every temporal verb of “was” or “will be” and simply “is” in a timeless present. Fourth, Being is whole, continuous, and indivisible; it lacks gaps or parts, so multiplicity, motion, and change are illusions conjured by inadequate perception. Fifth, Being is uniform and motionless; because it already fills the “all,” there is nowhere else for it to move and no plurality within it to stir. Sixth, Because non-being cannot be meant, every statement that posits difference, lack, or becoming defeats itself; language and thought find coherence only when they stay within the bounds of what is. These axioms, the goddess insists, do not await empirical confirmation; they verify themselves the moment one follows the strict grammar of thought, for any attempt to deny them must smuggle in the very being it would negate, exposing the speaker’s own participation in the truth they would refute.

—-

Socrates never thought of philosophy as a solitary pursuit; from the first pages of the Euthyphro to the final moments of the Phaedo we see him moving through the streets, wrestling with questions because particular people—Euthyphro rushing to court against his father, Lysis yearning for friendship, Crito desperate to save a life—need to be awakened to the care of their own souls.  He addresses each interlocutor by name, adjusts his pace to the rhythms of their understanding, and even in the Apology defines himself as a “gadfly” not for abstract civic duty but out of love for the city whose young he has spent a lifetime midwifing toward virtue.  The midwife image itself is telling: Socrates calls his practice a labor of helping others give birth to ideas they already carry, a vocation that presupposes intimacy and patience.  When Alcibiades bursts into the Symposium half drunk, Socrates neither scolds nor withdraws; he listens, letting Alcibiades’ confession of unrequited admiration become a lesson in genuine eros.  Even in choosing to remain in prison rather than flee with Crito, Socrates acts for the sake of those watching, teaching by example that justice is inseparable from trustworthy relation.  These moments reveal a man whose intellectual rigor is inseparable from pastoral commitment: every argument is ultimately a gesture of friendship aimed at turning an individual life toward the good.

Modern readers often extract the elenchus, the doctrine of recollection, or the theory of forms and leave behind this thick tissue of personal concern, as though Socratic dialogue were a detachable method instead of a conversation sustained by affection.  Yet the dialogues themselves refuse such surgery.  Each begins in a concrete setting—outside the King‐Archon’s court, on the road from Athens to Megara, at a dinner for Agathon’s first tragic victory—and the philosophical ascent never escapes that social gravity.  By foregrounding the interlocutors’ quirks, hopes, and blind spots, Plato shows that truth emerges only in the reciprocal labor of attentive souls.  When scholarship sidelines these relational pulses, it risks repeating the very divorce of quantity and quality we have been critiquing: it measures arguments but forgets the lived textures that give them force.  Remembering Socrates’ personal commitments therefore matters not merely for historical nuance; it reorients our picture of philosophy itself, reminding us that coherent thought is sustained by coherent care, and that the dialectic only gains traction when it is braided to love of the particular other who stands before us.

At the close of Phaedrus, when Socrates and Phaedrus rise to leave their shady resting-place by the Ilissus, Socrates proposes that they first honor the local deities. His prayer captures his conviction that the health of a life lies in the harmony of inner and outer, wisdom and sufficiency: “Dear Pan and all you other gods of this place, grant that I may become fine within, and that my external possessions may be in harmony with my inner self. May I regard the wise man as wealthy, and may I have only as much gold as a man of moderation can bear and carry. Is there anything else we need, Phaedrus? I think I’ve prayed enough.”

I would absolutely love to go into the armed forces, specifically for that reason of putting myself through challenges that evoke a strength, brand new, and in the name of God and country. But I am 100% sure that God is against killing women and children. Very very sure. And I would HATE to epigenetically express something associated with that into my life. I would forever be chained to being more like that, without end, forever. That’s the warning at the heart of the prophets revelations. In the Quran, the prophet is very clear he is only a man and will die like any other man. And that he is only there to give good news to the believers, and a warning to the transgressors. Thanks for watching. This warning is rich in historical mythopoetics, and what’s strange is that the baby goes out with the bath water. Sure it was a “demon haunted world” (unlike now hehehehe) but there was a complete aversion, on the part of history, a recoil and shutter at the idea of Karma, Aufhebung, Apotheosis. The world is shaped to divorce ontic from onto (and don’t even mention the other). This is a warning. Because embedded in the fabric of the world is coherence. Transgression is an undoing beginning with oneself and then, like a disease, everyone around. Quarantine. All who are unjustly oppressed, like those that came before, will be led by God. And the oppressors of history— what happened to them?