-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: woensdag 16 juni 2004 5:16
Aan: heidegger list
Onderwerp: Re: grave thots on a great hack
> 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!
Bob,
They're the same stuff. Maybe one better begin with the relation of
Eigentlichkeit and Uneigentlichkeit.
but for the rest you're wonderfully
convincing. is the Da a kinda placeholder for subjectivity?
It's the place, where the decision is to be taken, EITHER
to remain subject, OR to ground Dasein. Say the Contributions.
Just like the relation above between Eigentlichkeit and
Uneigentlichkeit, the relation of subjectivity and Daseins-grounding
is not yet determined, still to be seen.
What is not seen, almost by nobody, is that all philosophical items,
like the ones we're discussing now, and while discussing them, are
ALREADY in subjectivity and everydayness. So that we only can see
ourselves in everything. Like we give away the tree in the field, and
stick to the image of it in our head. But this has immediate and grave
consequences for the most factical of our observations and valuations.
For instance that torture happens, but that that's not really getting
through to us. Not being able to let the tree be, is not being able
to let human beings be. The Da, and its openness, are not *opened* and
kept open, so that the necessarily lying subject makes itself broader and
sterner. This can now almost physically be felt.
WHEN this is true, THEN all denials of it are fatal. Fatal in the sense,
that then there's no possible way back or out. That is going to be terrible.
Anthony's Goddog should be very alarming, but ... it is not getting through.
We're in the course of total acceptation.
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?
Heidegger's de-subjectivation is sthing completely else from post-Hegelian
pessimism. But in order to see that, first Nietzsche's distinction of
passive and active nihilism must be thought. Overcome the widerwille to
active nihilism. What is finished, must be execreted. We're witnessing
the effects of physical and mental obesity. If these phenomena are left out
as 'ontical' and 'factical', one cannot but reach partial truth: lies, in
order to save the shit. One will get uglier, and less able to hide it.
More and more dangerous therefore.
As to the mirroring, i can only advise to hear the words and forget about
them, like with everything truly Heideggerian. (so that once it will come
form outside subjectivity) But to do that, one must be ready to accept the
verdict of subjectivity, by saying: that's *me*.
The only alternative is: looking for victims (Wolfowitz cabal). And turn THEM
into dogs.
rene
cave canem
some time ago i had a pitbull barking at me. Dogdammit!
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---