On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Paul Murphy wrote to me privately, and invited me to
post to the list:
Mr. Blancato:
You write: "(In the news in the last couple of days, gunmen fired in the
Haitian presidential palace.)"
I hope you don't mind my going off-list with this message -- you're
welcome to respond to the whole list if you wish. I just think this goes a
bit far-afield for a Heidegger group. What is your point? You've brought
up Haiti recently, and you bring it up again here, and I don't understand
what claim you are trying to make. I think more specificity is required
to make this 'example' illuminating for the issues involved; for instance,
it wasn't just anonymous gunmen firing on the palace, but men dressed in
the uniforms of the disbanded Duvalier army (this is according to the
Toronto Globe and Mail, which I trust is not an organ of the CIA).
Soldiers, I remind you, sworn to uphold a murderous regime, propping up
extreme class injustice (concentration of wealth in the hands of the few)
by means of arbitrary violence (torture, beatings, rape, murder).
--- Well, I was playing the role of *agent provocateur* again, as with the
Iraq post, which also prompted your questioning, and I fully agree with
you that this example needs explanation. First, yes, I am aware of who the
gunmen were. I use the example of Haiti because I have some knowledge of
Haiti owing to activism concerning that country in recent years. But this
example in particular for me represents some issues which I think are
relevant to these discussions. I will try very hard to keep this short and
sweet.
--- The metaphysical assumptions operating in the "spiritual" side of
Haitian thought, as exemplified in former president Aristide's book
_Dignity_ as well as his _Autobiography_, have a tendency toward the
affirmation of nonviolence in a specifically Gandhian sense (I know, this
supposedly has no ontological import...). The attack marks, to my mind, a
prime case of just how that nascent and constantly falling nonviolence
fails because of its "metaphysics", and, in truth, its moods, tendencies,
etc. In this preceding sentence, metaphysics is suspended in quotations
and immediately thought of as being related to things like "mood". If one
can think the Heideggerian passage of SZ here, and understands how utterly
related "mood" and "metaphysics" are, even if metaphysics has tended to be
blind to this, perhaps this can begin to make some sense. The attack shows
up how, in particular, no serious nonviolence initiatives are developing
in Haiti. I agree with Aristide that they are possible, and that a
population of 7,000,000 can't really be dominated by 7,000 (or 20,000)
armed thugs if they are genuinly oriented and actively standing in
nonviolence. But that realization of nonviolence is *not possible* as
things stand with Being, in a decidedly onto-logical sense. Further, such
a realization, which on this list would perhaps be seen as an activism
project is *always also* never merely "action", it is *always*
thoughtaction, where *t h o u g h t i s t h o u g h t* in the "elevated"
sense of thought that Michael thinks I do not possess (apprently). But
that means standing firmly and freely in the space of the question of
Being. I don't know if I am really doing this, or if I pass Michael's
criteria, or if there are problems with his criteria, so I can only say I
am trying my best and will I think that nonviolence has to pass through
something *like* Heidegger, that is, through essential questiong and an
engagement of being by being, in order to be able to find its standing.
Furthermore, you claimed earlier that the US is training the nascent
police force of Haiti; you downplay the contribution of UN forces, and,
significantly, the heavy involvement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
in this endeavour; perhaps all lackeys of the USA?
--- Well, what I said was that Haiti was getting advice on its *criminal
justice system* (in a recent visit to the United States by Preval and a
large entourage), which I thought was striking, since the United States
has one of the largest, if not the largest prison populations in the
world. I don't think my mention of such global situations is simply a
*literalization*. I think the question of "how it is with Being" remains
crucial in thinking Being. I am certain that Heidegger's identification of
various metaphysical issues is utterly related to a sense, in and by
Heidegger, that the *state of the world*, even of politics, is utterly
related to the status of the question Being. It seems to me that any
*ontology* is also already an *engagement of Being by being* in a manner
that utterly thrusts the questioner into the world and into the situation
of political issues, not in the manner of "who to vote for", which as you
know I'm not pushing, but in the manner of "how it is" with the thinking
of *what a person i s, what is possible, how things are thought, etc.*.
This *active* engagement, which is not in any way simply a "taking action"
(something *before which* Heidegger tends to stand), but rather a
*standing thoughtfully in the condition of action*, that is to say,
standing in *thoughtaction*, and this standing simply must *take up the
issue of nonviolence*.
--- Hope this helps a bit. I'm keeping it short.
Best regards,
Paul
--- Mine as well,
--- Tom B.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---