On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 02:45 AM, GEVANS613@xxxxxxx wrote:
Surely Malcolm this old played-out 'will to will' wheeze is just another
name for the fixed and persistent intent or purpose part of old mother 'human
nature' — the way that human beings have been since the year dot one?
That's more the Nietzschean version of it but yes, that's essentially where 'life' comes into it. Again you're a natural born Nietzschean Jud.
Is not
Heidegger and the knuckle-trailing arboreal troop that swing behind him
deliberately and continually complicating simple concepts by dressing them up as
something different and more complicated, which is a feature of all
disciplines who wish to impart seriousness to their pseudoscientific investigations?
I'd say you're the expert here on imparting seriousness to pseudoscientific investigations such as AIT. As far as I've read Heidegger he's definitely a genuine philosopher and his texts are very logically written, but you'd actually have to read them to understand anything beyond your own pseudoscientific interpretation.
The
Doctor Mengele of Philosophy and the mad Nietzsche before him have played their
own parts in the reinforcement and buttressing of this will to power and 'will
to will' business and given this claptrap a certain academic imprimatur — so
you could argue that they are as much responsible for the way the nutters in
the Shitehouse are acting as anybody else.
In that Heidegger lays bare a philosophical version of the inner workings of Nazi ideology in his critique of power then yes, I think he's a dangerous writer, as was Nietzsche. It still stands that what Heidegger described as will to will was an extremely pessimistic interpretation of the catastrophe that was Nazism. Heidegger's Nietzsche is a monumental deconstruction of everything that he saw as wrong headed in Hitlerism and its internal order. The will to will becomes the completion of metaphysics as the history of error and the obliteration of the truth of being, how do you see this critique as a reinforcement and buttressing of the will to power? Your glib refrains are making less and less sense to me.
How would you respond if the craven creature [who walks with his arms like a
gibbon — have you noticed?] that is Bush suddenly surprised you and turning
around after spitting his baccy chaw-juice on the floor and responded:
"Eyerack? Eyerack? Eyerack? What's so different with Eyerack? It's a
question of the strong and the weak that counts old boy. Haven't you read your
Nietzsche? Never heard of Heidegger? Listen Mister Chips Rafferty, might is
right and do you kangaroo rustlers HONESTLY think the game has altered just
because we've got heat-seeking missiles instead of battle-axes or boomerangs?"
Being a good aussie boy I already see the world in pragmatic terms and trust pushy yanks about as far as I can throw them. Same goes for you pommie bastards mate. And guess what, we anglo celts are all in this big mess together, from Abu Ghraib to dismembered Afghan infants and whatever comes next in our terror war for oil.
If Nietzsche and Heidegger were right, we should agree wholeheartedly with
Goebbels when he said: 'Nun, Volk steh auf, und Sturm brich los!'
(Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose,' and be grateful to the
percipient 'will to power-rangers' — the valiant Neocons [Gawd Bless em] for
taking note of what Der alte syphilitische Sünder Herr bloody Nietszche said,
and acting upon it accordingly on our behalf and that of our anglo
democracies?
I think Heidegger was right in his critique of Nazism in relation to the will to will of global power, he pointed this out as a gigantic problem facing humanity as a whole and called for internationalist leadership in the problem concerning technology. I don't see how this means we should agree wholeheartedly etc.... You disappoint me Jud, there's no logic to your tirade tonight, you're all upside down.
Do you think that if the shoe was on the other foot, and we were the weak
ones with the oil, that the kindly and trustworthy old Arabs would treat us
differently?
No, what's your point?
Come now — do you think that Arab human nature [will to will/will
to power] is any different to ours?
No, apart from the simple fact that the historical power relations have overwhelmingly favoured us westerners. I think our Arab cousins are every bit as fair minded and mean spirited, shifty and honest, brutal and peace loving as we anglo democrats are.
All this Heideggerian flim-flam about 'historical order of being' and
'intersubjective' historical order is a load of academic hogwash. We want petrol
for our cars — so we don't have to walk in the rain and we want oil to drive
our industries, so we can make things to sell that make life easy for us and
make loadsamoney while we do it.
I think you're getting a bit overexcited and resorting to a load of unacademic hogwash but yes, we need cheap oil to underwrite constant economic growth, transport by land, sea and air, industrial agriculture and its fertilizers, as well as the wide access to commodities, education and health that is predicated on a strong global and domestic economy. Oil depletion means all this is going to get a lot more expensive and a lot more people are going to miss out on the benefits of modernization, and not just the Indians and Chinese either but 'us' as well. What's your point?
The political and economic
analysis of your piece is truly impressive and is highly readable — what mars
it are the parts when you depart from your brilliant feet-on-the-ground
politico-economic dissection, and introduce the gratuitous irrelevancies of the
kooky old fart Heidegger and the Loopy Loner from Leipzig
Thanks for your qualified praise but my interpretation of the current world order is specifically derived from the Heidegger critique which you fail to engage with beyond your own gratuitous irrelevancies you kooky old fart. If Mr Crifasi has truly departed then you're the only goad I have left on this list barring one of the many lurkers speaking up, so I'm afraid you're just going to have to lift your game a bit Jud. Come on, I dare you.
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---