It is here that we might call into
>question (but not "call in for questioning"!) Paul Murphy's exasperation,
>to whatever extent Paul perfers a nonviolent path. How does his
>exasperation, or is it exaspiration? :) , er, *world*? As the activation
>of the muscle which seeks to *remove* Robert Sheetz from his attention,
>perhaps from this discussion? I do not mean to say that this is the case
>for Paul. Probably it is not. But I point out this possibility because it
>turns the light on a certain range of the stakes and conditions for
>discourse, discourse concerning (non)violence, etc.
>
>And I agree with Paul that to some extent Robert appears to be running
>roughshod over too much, though we are never to know for sure to what
>extent he is merely speaking elliptically, and we need not demand of him
>that he produce long analyses to back up his points. At least I don't need
>to. But let's look at Paul's formulation: these things "are dismissed",
>etc., in some way or other. Or are they? The discussions on this list
>continue, Robert is not burning books, nor is he silencing anyone (that we
>know of). Yet, at the same time, in some ways what Paul says may be true.
>I'm not trying to appoint myself as a *mediator* in a flamewar which I
>hope is a non-starter. I'm just looking.
Flamewar is the father of all? I certainly want to avoid a flamewar (I've
been through one on another list already), simply fishing for some
elaboration. It's perhaps a kind of impatience on my part (certainly not an
intolerance, hopefully not a violence) to feel occasionally exhausted by
the simplification of Heidegger's thought as 'fascist' (or Nazi). This
comes up in conversations all the time with non-Heidegger students and
scholars ('but wasn't he a fascist'?). My personal impatience, of course,
doesn't make the question otiose, provided one is willing to ask the
further question "what is fascism"? ("What is National Socialism"?) In what
way is it a call to violence? In what way does its call to violence differ
from, say, revolutionary leftist calls to violence (see Benjamin's
"Critique of Violence")? Then the hard part: the scrupulous and vigilant
reading of Heidegger's texts, bearing in mind the problematic of violence
and fascism. I have suggested in previous posts a number of nerve-points
for vigilent (virile? virulent?) questioning, with regards to the privilege
of the German language, the status of Hoelderlin, etc. Beyond these
troubling motifs, the question of action in Heidegger (which may or may not
be related to Mr. Blancato's questioning of violence) should be posed and
thought through, along with the status of will, the thematic of strife /
setting-apart / struggle, over which Michael Eldred and Tom have been
struggling.
Sorry if I'm babbling ... off to a party to talk some more about Heidegger ...
Cheers,
Paul N. Murphy
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>question (but not "call in for questioning"!) Paul Murphy's exasperation,
>to whatever extent Paul perfers a nonviolent path. How does his
>exasperation, or is it exaspiration? :) , er, *world*? As the activation
>of the muscle which seeks to *remove* Robert Sheetz from his attention,
>perhaps from this discussion? I do not mean to say that this is the case
>for Paul. Probably it is not. But I point out this possibility because it
>turns the light on a certain range of the stakes and conditions for
>discourse, discourse concerning (non)violence, etc.
>
>And I agree with Paul that to some extent Robert appears to be running
>roughshod over too much, though we are never to know for sure to what
>extent he is merely speaking elliptically, and we need not demand of him
>that he produce long analyses to back up his points. At least I don't need
>to. But let's look at Paul's formulation: these things "are dismissed",
>etc., in some way or other. Or are they? The discussions on this list
>continue, Robert is not burning books, nor is he silencing anyone (that we
>know of). Yet, at the same time, in some ways what Paul says may be true.
>I'm not trying to appoint myself as a *mediator* in a flamewar which I
>hope is a non-starter. I'm just looking.
Flamewar is the father of all? I certainly want to avoid a flamewar (I've
been through one on another list already), simply fishing for some
elaboration. It's perhaps a kind of impatience on my part (certainly not an
intolerance, hopefully not a violence) to feel occasionally exhausted by
the simplification of Heidegger's thought as 'fascist' (or Nazi). This
comes up in conversations all the time with non-Heidegger students and
scholars ('but wasn't he a fascist'?). My personal impatience, of course,
doesn't make the question otiose, provided one is willing to ask the
further question "what is fascism"? ("What is National Socialism"?) In what
way is it a call to violence? In what way does its call to violence differ
from, say, revolutionary leftist calls to violence (see Benjamin's
"Critique of Violence")? Then the hard part: the scrupulous and vigilant
reading of Heidegger's texts, bearing in mind the problematic of violence
and fascism. I have suggested in previous posts a number of nerve-points
for vigilent (virile? virulent?) questioning, with regards to the privilege
of the German language, the status of Hoelderlin, etc. Beyond these
troubling motifs, the question of action in Heidegger (which may or may not
be related to Mr. Blancato's questioning of violence) should be posed and
thought through, along with the status of will, the thematic of strife /
setting-apart / struggle, over which Michael Eldred and Tom have been
struggling.
Sorry if I'm babbling ... off to a party to talk some more about Heidegger ...
Cheers,
Paul N. Murphy
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---