In a message dated 14/06/2004 13:45:11 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
Dear Rene:
I rather admire your last posting which was excellent. Could I publish it
in the Athenaeum Library?
If so, how is de Bakker treated alphabetically?
If just Bakker, it would be placed in between Baker and Bakunin.
If De Bakker, it would be placed in between De Beauvoire and Debord?
I would publish it as it is - with no comments from me.
BTW: For anyone who may be interested, I have just aquired and am just
about to upload the whole book of Burckhardt's
classic: The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy - in eight parts.
Cheers,
Jud
This is bit I mean...
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 ---
Nullius in Verba
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
JUD EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---