Tom, One should not accuse others of being naively totalitarian without
some reasoned justification. Although, since you seem to be watering-down
'totalitarianism' just as badly as 'violence,' it is hard to see what the
charge even amounts to coming from you. Still, if not violent, very rude.
(Given your obvious proprietary feelings about the whole Q of violence, I'd
have thought you'd at least be a little more sensitive to the way in which
this faceless interaction foments hostility).
> Interestingly, the totalization in which you form
>your question (I guess it's an implicit totalization) is one that rises
>often out of, especially, what I'm calling "naive nonviolence". It can be
>found in the term "pacifism" in the most ubiquitous case. The question you
>ask of "us" is: who doesn't accept some such violence? This asks of a
>character who might in fact *totally* rid him or herself of all "analyst
>style" violence. This remains "naive" (and the violence of the term
>"naive" is beginning to bear on me) in that it does not stop to question
>its own totalitarian schema
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
some reasoned justification. Although, since you seem to be watering-down
'totalitarianism' just as badly as 'violence,' it is hard to see what the
charge even amounts to coming from you. Still, if not violent, very rude.
(Given your obvious proprietary feelings about the whole Q of violence, I'd
have thought you'd at least be a little more sensitive to the way in which
this faceless interaction foments hostility).
> Interestingly, the totalization in which you form
>your question (I guess it's an implicit totalization) is one that rises
>often out of, especially, what I'm calling "naive nonviolence". It can be
>found in the term "pacifism" in the most ubiquitous case. The question you
>ask of "us" is: who doesn't accept some such violence? This asks of a
>character who might in fact *totally* rid him or herself of all "analyst
>style" violence. This remains "naive" (and the violence of the term
>"naive" is beginning to bear on me) in that it does not stop to question
>its own totalitarian schema
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---