what shadow is this?

Pseudonoma writes:

Philosophically, Ranasinghe seems not to have considered the possibility that while god is "dead to technological man" -- the fruit of an insight Nietzsche had already seized upon -- the absence of a dead god need not be a mere negation--and this precisely for technological man. As Heidegger had already realized, the god's absence lies, and this exclusively for technological man, as the possible experience of his pending arrival. In short (and in the Platonic terms Ranasinghe opts to use), the lack of movement of our psychic regimes is no mere stasis (understood as a privation of motion) but a peculiar and non-negative new announcement of the essence of logos in historical human existence--one that invites a hitherto unexperienced dynamism, consisting in a radical possibility that can never be made actual by man alone. It is only in terms of this possibility that we may legitimately say that it is "always possible to use philosophical dialectic to persuade a soul mired in artificial reality."

How would Ranasinghe respond? What is an "educator of eros" (his description of Socrates) where "the lack of movement of our psychic regimes" is nothing less than a "non-negative new announcement of the essence of logos in historical human existence"? Is philosophical dialectic that anticipates this "hitherto unexperienced dynamism" capable of defending what Ranasinghe calls the "Western Intellectual Tradition," of offering a persuasive account of the good life, or of navigating the "historical confinements" of the city? What is its cultural and historical appearance?