What are the limits of thinking structurally, should we have any?

Are ideas that we encounter within us and around us bordered in some way by a natural character and are there attitudes that are pernicious toward that? Particularly, are there paranormal sorts of thinking that should be eradicated or at least strongly reduced because they are harmful to parts of our thinking and behavior that are naturally, innately part of our ‘being’ or the way that we are projected onto the world as a “worldhood”?

If we tend to always historize/make a story, related activity out of everything that we do are there other sorts of thinking that may not at all be helpful toward that? Are these actually promoted by psychological science, social preferences and economic usages while they are actually strongly a detriment to the very nature of our thinking and our involvement in the world?

Literary, legal, philosophical and basic attitudes through the mores do not exhibit the sort of thinking that is found in what’s described here; primarily that should be considered paranormal and not a part of accepted usage of our mentally or physically constituted selves.  The world is not somewhere paranormal, it should not be guided by anything of that sort. Religious views do not make up any part of that attitude toward the world or its vicissitudes; logic, and the attitudes of acceptable inferential thought are not made up by that. Language is not a matter of a paranormal occurring societal feature, though that’s something that is strongly a part of some social usages and folklore.

Is it necessary today to choose between these two modes of thinking, and does it require that for one at least to be kept intact that the other should be completely or nearly entirely eradicated i.e. does the world of the paranormal have to be destructively put away in order that our other attributes of doing things might be preserved? Where is the paranormal found, where is it promoted?

It’s clear that there can be little or no rapprochement, or juncture between these two ways of encountering the world and the latter must definitely be put back into the abyss from which it came; if not, thinking and the related usages of our most rudimentary ways of making up, situating the world will be fundamentally contravened.

Advertisements

Heidegger on scientific method

What common sense wishes to eliminate in avoiding the ‘circle’, on the supposition that it is measuring up to the loftiest rigour of scientific investigation, is nothing less than the basic structure of care. Because it is primordially constituted by care, any Dasein is already ahead of itself. As being, it has in every case already projected itself upon definite possibilities of its existence; and in such existentiell projections it has, in a pre-ontological manner, also projected something like existence and Being. (Being and Time, pg363)