-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: zondag 13 juni 2004 20:03
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: grave thots on a great hack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: grave thots on a great hack
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens henry
> Verzonden: vrijdag 11 juni 2004 12:43
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: RE: grave thots on a great hack
>
>
>
> do we not desire the secure days of monks and monasteries where the
> legends have it the good monk does not die until granted permission by
> his superior... and now we're all supposed to be benedictines in thrall
> to the medical technology delivery system industry and its speedy
> R&D/Mkt'g/pharmo-fashion dept. that gives the glamour to the similitude
> of my ownmost potentiality for being...
>
> oblivion creeps further along inside this side, like fumes from under
> the door.
>
> somewhere brooding here is the existentiale of stupidity...
> the one heidegger left secret or erased in the first draft, following
> plato or at least aristotle.
>
> that will to will does not bring stupidity up to philosophy, but rather...
>
> how can we not be enmeshed in the transcendental posture of stupidity
> aka gestell?
>
>
> Henry,
>
> Imo only by acknowledging that we are completely enmeshed. Only then
> the need to take distance can really rise. And only when the need is
> rising, a way can be sought.
>
> All other 'approaches' get stuck in the return of the same. That has
> already been decided. Metaphysics and subjectivity are in their
> completion phase, still using (and needing!!!!) the human subject.
> Seeing this, is acting. It feels stupid - the change from subject to
> Dasein - , always again so, but i think it's not.
>
> rene
>
>
>
> Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote on 6/11/04, 6:10 AM:
>
> > Bob, Henry,
> >
> > Isn't he the 'living' proof of the inability to die?
> >
> > Being instaendig cautious towards the constant terror
> > of biologistic fraud, sooner or later the possibility
> > might present itself to one, that death and sickness are
> > maybe not just biological happenings.
> >
> > And that the machenschaftliche fear of Altzheimer has more
> > to do with Angst and its forgetting, than with the DNA lottery
> > of god Man.
> >
> > But then, the aggravating dementia and dementi in the rational
> > zoo, something different as well from what is normally thought.
> > Another finger pointing at the living dead.
> >
> > rene
> >
> > cave canem
rene,
it does appear the time of danger, collision of the inertia of the
life-force with the-end-of-oil (return-of-the-same being less than eternal
after all, eh?), may be immanent, ...signifying maybe end-of-man,
armageddon, ...maybe, beginning of (let's hope, socialist) zarathustra, eh?
but only in the former, the end of subjectivity? ...descartes' ego was
contemporaneous with both incipit bourgeois and completion of the feudal
ethos and theology with le roi soliel, ...the need to supercede bourgeois
subjectivity is as clear now as, feudal, then, ...but less clear, the
assertion of the tout court nihility of subjectivity. what you are
contending for sounds to me like hen's benedictines doing without body,
...heid's dasein without mine-ness?
bourgeois subject-object metafisic needs superceded, but why not heightened
subjectivity? inter-subjectivity? ...omni-subjectivity? ...for newman?
Bob,
You're absolutely right in not throwing away subjectivity before acquiring
something else. So i hadn't forgotten your mail with Kant: there's no point
in returning to a new kind of dogmatic metaphysics - sure.
After BT, Heidegger keeps on coming back to Kant and subjectivity --
compare for instance Jud's 'world': the same objective monster as the Being
of so many Heideggerians, while to Kant world is differentiated: on the one
hand the theoretical realm of a causality, that rules everything and everyone,
on the other a practical world of people.
But Heidegger was taking subjectivity more serious than anyone, so he DIDN'T
let it go by 'overcoming' it. That's what the Heideggerians do, who are
simply bourgeois subjectivists in a very late phase. There is indeed
nothing gained by replacing 'subject' by 'Dasein'. Rather everything is lost,
when Da-sein is substantiated. The hyphen is not a trick, it points exactly
to the how of its being understood (if that is English): without *being* it
oneself, it's all less than nothing. And because also this is not enough he
writes: Da-seyn, to discern it from a metaphysically understood Da-sein.
One could name this heightened subjectivity, but with the warning that
subjectivity is here not to be understood from that one and same eternity.
(like with Hoelderlin's or Trakl's bread and wine, which in their cases is
not just another variation of the Christian theme. Or Beethoven's missa
solemnis, Berlioz' requiem)
But it's nothing dreamlike. In fact - in a normal situation i would never
say this - in my subjective life, it has proven quite effective. Without
holding a mirror in front of the dictatorship of inter-omni-subjectivity and
its representations, i would never have gotten my self again, nor would those
who are with me. Again, normally i would never say this, but i don't see any
alternative left than showing the living proofs. And the others show their
proofs, and they're unmistakably utgaardian: the decomposition of the only
reality left: the bodysubject. The discrepancy of the words/images used for
justification, and the rottenness that presents itself, get more and more
frightening. But that at the same time points to where a solution, or the
beginning of it, might lie: that the lies, not only Iraq, but the whole god-
and earthforlorn mess that is intensifying, rob away our last humanity, make it
ugly and endlessly usable. If one has nothing left to resist this ultimate form
of subjectivism, which is a sort of evil beyond good and evil, if one has lost
any possibility to be (the) Da, one is lost. But that is not what the
intellectual chatterers want to hear -but look when and how they run away,
there's a lesson in it- and now is the time to say it a bit more clearly than
Heidegger himself could afford. So i'm afraid we meet on the crossroads of
Verelendung. The *Verelendung* however is the eternity!, and humans only used
for IT! (also Bush's and Kerry's)
But what if there's no one left to expose them TO? As Heidegger often writes:
where are the ears to hear? The ears and the hearing (hoeren) might be missing,
but what never can be left out wholly, insofar the current type of man is still
human, is the suspicion that there's something missing, that they still belong
to... (ge-hoeren) And that those who are said to be less civilized, are in fact
superior, and the only way to fight that is to destroy them, waste them.
Turn them into dwarfs and ants, in order to crush them, like was done 60 years
ago to the Jews. I like Erdogan, the Turkish leader. Very calm and dignified,
he states clearly the impossible and suicidal tactics of Israel.
As to Malthus and eternity: first the oil seemed to outclass nuclear energy,
the switch of which, as you once wrote, was simply turned off. But now it will
come back again, so that Heidegger is right any way. That is not coincidental:
first there is (meaninglessness, then:) will to will, energy for the sake of
energy, and only then coal, oil, or nuclear energy. It is essential not to
interpret this as essentialism. It is the essential end of essentialism.
Another kind of essence therefore. Just like another kind of (inter)subjectivity,
no longer one that can be constituted, as Husserl still tried.
rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---