No. Avital Ronnell and Corbin, &c. al., use this to stand for “Seynsgeshichtliche”, the history or fate of being, in the ergon with the title Heidegger. However, it is not unhelpful to treat the word afresh as a new coinage because we are, here, modifying it as we speak and thinking under the labour of its subject matter. As an interpretation it has many expressions of more or less minute nuance according to the thinker.
We do in a decisive respect. The box (or, better, the book) of our age out of which, looking back, all the dominating idiosyncrasies of primary substances “individuals” in the Aristotelian sense of “this one” the one we point to, rather than experience as a characteristic person or particular human, belongs to an age. The Meiji, the Hellenistic Judaism of the first Rabbis, the time of the Borgias or of the modern feminism where juridical homosexuality comes into being. Each have a belonging which is not available from outside, this is, also, in keeping with the principles of Anthropology since Boas; ergo, “participatory observation” as the belonging which transforms one into the collective character of being so far as is possible.
In a certain sense, what you name, is the meaning of the old outlook which held only God can see the intense loneliness of the inner self, for it has no representation from without and even to our nearest friends and most dear and close to hand.
I don’t accept this formula. There is nothing that is not thought, and therefore all is “meaning”, i.e., it is understood. A theory of values is always misleading, because it has nothing to distinguish itself from. Nouns are already (collective, characteristic) agendas (e.g., the rat for the Chinese, for the Westerner). That is what we are speaking of here, in the history of being. The fullness of being. not some “meaning” as distinguished from a theory about something else. The whole. The final end is what such-like as Nietzsche speak against, e.g., that the world is an apple that can be nurtured to perfection or ripeness (ergo, nihilism in the sense of no teleology doesn’t deny collective meaning, which would make no sense).
This is a misunderstanding of the issue. The idea of the social, as opposed to the natural or the artificial is distinctly Greek. It’s empirically so. This goes deeper in that, for instance, even the notion of being is not coeval with human beings (cf. Leo Strauss), a word for this had to be invented by the medieval Rabbis, for instance.
The simpler issue is this. When something seems possible, it seems unjust that it is not done. And the rapidity of change in our time makes any judgment concerning what is and is not possible monstrously difficult. Think of Aubrey de Grey. Beside from myself, no one has noticed how violently this shakes the tradition, based on the certainty of death, into a blurred image in contemporaneity.
Obviously Christianity is a “collective” movement that led to more harm than the short lived failed regimes named (the good of which was not allowed to mature at length). His views, and what you write, are not credible. He should drop the notion of the collective if what he wants to speak about is dangerous experiment. It’s childish though, since European science is most manifestly the greatest danger to all life on the earth and the most comprehensive collective identity movement on the planet controlling the education of the young. (Cf. my “abiotic Mirror” thread., which speaks very importantly to this).