Rene clarifying recently,
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.
Would you characterize this holding -a- mirror -in -front- of "philosophizing," at least of
a sort? Heidegger points out again and again that factical life experience "manifests an indifference
with regard to its manner of experiencing." "Subjectivity" as we experience it is especially persistent in its self-sufficiency and reckless indifference to any questioning as to its "how." As you suggest,
it is so totally absorbed in its Da, its surrounding world, that the how of its being-there-in-that-way
must remain utterly indifferent to it.
So how does philosophy begin ?(if in fact it is philosophy you were talking about) The fact that you would never talk this way--say this--in a normal situation is a generous admission of the discrepancy that makes philosophy possible. But then you quite credibly say that somehow a mirror gets held up in front of, and you get yourself again. The holding up of the mirror, then, would seem to be a consequence,
I almost want to say effect of, what Heidegger calls the "the turning around which leads to philosophy."
But philosophy itself continues on in its own "useless" direction to a place where there are no mirrors.
But perhaps I am twisting your metpahors here.
So here I'll stop for the moment.
Best regards,
Allen
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---