> 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
rene,
i'd maybe demur on the stern clavinist mirror stuff, ...in favor of bread
and wine, for christ's sake! but for the rest you're wonderfully
convincing. is the Da a kinda placeholder for subjectivity? in heine's ode
the speaker/subject is at once obliterated by the night and the hearer and
interpreter of her comunings, but the question "what's to be done?" obtrudes
to no effect, ...thence the annihilation of subjectivity entails loss of
will-to-do and facticity? how can one abscent from care and guilt of being
in the factical world?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---