-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens henry
Verzonden: zondag 30 mei 2004 18:00
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: fyi/Wm. R. Polk, "Thoughts on torture"
Jan, thanks for the revelation about your birds and your insight on the
Lorenz/Polk biz.
It is odd that when Rene critiqued the biological essence of that
particular strategem, it surprised me, and I agree wholeheartedly with
you and with Rene's critique.
Or to say, Henry, a new Ark of Noach is needed to save all creatures
from the Darwinian flood of DNA, and restore them into their limits,
an old believed-in destination of man.
An animal or plant never exceeds the limits that are put on it by its
nature/essence. But when man exceeds his, the whole world becomes chaos!
Doves become rats, animals shrewd terrorists. Already this alone proves
that man is more than one animal, one thing among others: Dasein changes
everything as to its 'how', and so also as to its what. On account of
the very real relations Dasein has to beings-as-a-whole, and to the
Nothing as well.
When Viktor von Humboldt entered the South-American jungle, he noticed
how 'polite' its habitants are, how they make room for each other, and
behave the precise opposite of what our nature movies try to make us believe.
One night he went after a black panther, the Indians warned him: come back,
but he stood there in front of the wild animal, shining his light on it,
and admiring it without any fear. He was not attacked. BECAUSE he was not
afraid.
(it can be easily seen from here, that, if scientific reality is just
accepted, the road to essential questioning is blocked. The same goes
for every self-evidence, esp. common sense: it saves from philosophy
as a radical, unbiased questioning)
Then, acknowledging is not a minor thing, because the jemeinige self is
the ONLY place where reality 'is' (has meaning). Apart from it, it makes
hardly sense to talk of a reality in itself. That the earth existed a long
time before man, rather proves this, when more closely examined.
regards
rene
I focussed on the symbolic nature of "lion" and "dove" and the paradox,
irony. I didn't seriously attribute this lesson to biology. Thank you
again. The relationship between humans and animals is much too complex
for such an argument to offer any significance.
My grandfather kept pidgeons, and would release several hundred of them
at civic functions. Evidently they would whirl around like high flying
dervishes and impress the public and then fly home to Granddad's
backyard. "Stool pidgeon" here has the idiomatic meaning of a squealer,
one who reveals secrets and by which, breaks an honor of silence. I am
wondering at the etymological significance of your stooling and that
meaning.
Kindest regards,
Henry
Jan Straathof wrote on 5/29/04, 9:16 PM:
> Henry, all,
>
> professor Polk wrote:
>
> >scientists, like the Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz, posed "our"
> >problem to animals. What he found was that those animals that have
> >"weapons systems" like the lion with its claws and fangs, have evolved
> >to practice restraints. Had they not done so, their species might not
> >have survived. So the winner in a fight among lions will make ferocious
> >noises but will usually stop short of killing the lion he has just
> >knocked down. In contrast, those creatures, like that symbol of peace,
> >the dove, that do not have lethal weapons have not evolved to practice
> >restraint. They did not need to. Lorenz observed a dove actually
> >torturing another to death.
>
> I'm afraid the part about the pigeons is a bit over-simplified and
> need some nuances. I have been a pigeon-lofter for more than 45
> years now, it is my real hobby and every free minute i can spare i'll
> spend at the pigeon house in my garden. I breed my own pigeons,
> they're a mixture between spanish and dutch cropper-species and
> are beautifully multicoloured. I use them most as stool pigeons;
> stooling each other's pigeons is a kind of local sport here in the
> vicinity of The Hague. This stooling goes as follows: one of my
> cock-pigeons is flying around looking for a female pigeon, when
> he has spotted one he'll try to bring her home in my pigeon house.
> He will display a wide variety of seduction techniques (dives, flight-
> lines, cooing etc.) and when he has succeeded and the female pigeon
> is caught in my pigeon house, then this female pigeon is mine. It, of
> course, also happens that one of my cock-pigeon is caught by the
> owner of the female pigeon, female pigeons have their own subtle
> seduction techniques, so it works both ways: you win some and you
> loose some. In fact this whole sport is sort of steeling each others
> pigeons and believe me this play is quite funny and exciting. Apart
> from the stooling, i have also breeded show-pigeons for exhibitions
> and for sale. I'm a member of several pigeon clubs, have met many
> pigeon fanciers and made alot of pigeon friends over the years.
>
> Anyway, with this lifelong experience, i think to know some about
> the character and behaviour of pigeons. To say, as Polk and Lorenz
> do, that pigeons 'torture another to death' is utter nonsense. First of
> all, pigeons, and animals in general, do not (use) torture. Torture is
> *intentional* human behavior, the aim of torturing is e.g. breaking
> (changing) someone's personality, extracting information, terrifying
> a community, revenge etc., i.e. torture can only be understood from
> a context of bio-political power excess (cf. Foucault). It's true that
> it happens sometimes that pigeons kill each other, but only in highly
> artifical (unnatural) circumstances. Let me give an example: if you
> place two mature cock-pigeons in a cage of 40 x 40 x 40 cm. they
> will start fighting and, if both cock-pigeons are very temperamental,
> they will fight each other to death. Yet if you put them in a larger
> cage, say of 1 x 1 x 1 m., they will start fighting but the fight will
> end in a draw. If i would to place two female pigeons in the small
> cage, there will be some animosity but no fighting to death. If you
> place a cock and a female in the small cage most times courtship
> behaviour will be shown and when you put young pigeons in the
> small cage they will show (friendly) curiosity behaviour to each
> other. Anyway, from my observations, all this fighting-behaviour
> emerges from defending the physical territorial space cock-pigeons
> claim, but it has nothing to do with some inbron trait to torture.
>
> As a matter of fact when Lorenz observes and theorizes about the
> parallels between animal and human aggression, it is the notion
> of the *un-natural*, the breach of natural habitat, that brings both
> human and animal to display 'senseless' aggressive behaviour. His
> thesis is simple: in their natural habitat (territorium, life-world,
> eco-system) humans and animals will show very little to none
> aggression to their own kind or species, but when this habitat is
> (artificially) altered or endangered to collapsing, inter-species
> aggression and destruction will inevitably occur. Of course, as
> evolution shows, the natural habitat is not something fixed, it is
> continually changing and both animals and humans possess the
> flexibilty to adapt to different environments. This brings Lorenz
> to argue that for humankind (i.e. the species that creates its own
> habitat) to survive, the prime objective must be full deployment
> of our rational and artistic powers (and in this sense i don't agree
> with Polk's assessment that education per se is ineffective, the
> point is simply that there is very little education to 'empatheia' or
> altruism, peace-theory, multi-culturality, tolerance etc.). Lorenz
> warns us to avoid and being caught or placed in any all too "small
> cages", the unnatural and 'inauthentic' milieus without freedom to
> move, to flourish or room to escape. His optimism springs from
> his deep conviction that we can and ought to learn something from
> pigeon behaviour, but more importantly from the horror stories of
> Auschwitz, Vietnamese boat people, as well of the torture victimes
> of Abu Ghraib.
>
> yours,
> Jan
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---