-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2004 5:56
Aan: heidegger list
Onderwerp: Re: grave thots on a great hack
> 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.
rene,
my confusion results from my long conviction that if you bracket out
bourgeois egotism (its midas-like reifying), the remainder subjectivity
is not only not virulent, but necessary to being, and being authentically.
At the same time, open-ness to the other, is as necessary.
Bob,
I agree yes. But we're talking of different subjectivities, then.
I, of a subjectivity which blocks the openness by always already
objectifying everything and anything, almost inconspicious.
Thus making it very hard, almost impossible for your subjectivity
to get through. And that that is the case, won't elude you?
it's clear you have to step back from, or out of subjectivity into the
stream of being to experience/think/discover ontologically; but that's just
specialist methodology, no? To discover the Other existentially requires a
subject. You say
a child is nature's phenomenologist, ...but not an infant, the
perfectly indeterminate subject
True, the infant as the perfect object for Freud's and Piaget's
constructions. No, one should not (ab)use children, when subjectivity
and its possible overcoming, is at stake.
One's childhood though, like everything, changes, when subjectivity,
or at least the exclusive reign of it, falls. One, very simply, does
not *make* one's past, one's life. It cannot be simply material for
biological and logical (Piaget) processes.
The issue is not childhood, but the temporal structure of Dasein and
Being. And Being the Da is new, but not: trying to become childish.
> 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.
again there's clearly somewhat of method, pragmatism, here, that's
unexceptionable, ...at least for nietzschean heroes. but the-past is what
is finished, determined, ...how can one execrate the past? ...without
autoemasculation, sychosis?
But here, what is finished in the completion of metaphysics/subjectivity/
nihilism, is *not* simply over: it is the source of the selfevidence,
that is the hallmark of the current everyday world(ing) and what now is
becoming more virulent: it can't be stopped.
The change from subject to Dasein is the same as from past, history to
Gewesenheit.
Nietzsche's slogan against the revenge against time and it's 'it was',
the iron necessity of what is over: "Thus i willed it" gives, while
being the apex of subjectivism, a hint into the direction to go.
>
> 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.
you're gainsaying the agonic? isn't the desert in me, my pusilanimity,
inauthenticity, separate from the case where an Other forces his will to
caste me into determinations that convulse my sartrean self. i think one
only finds his self mirrored in abu ghraib when he acquiesces. and
absolutely, wolfowitz and the bush nazis are filthy curs (pitbulls at least
have courage), ...only look at their works, ...and one were free to use them
as he saw fit, only that it be according to one's own dignity
No, i'm not gainsaying the agonic, some will even say: ad nauseam.
But being right is very dangerous. Many have not supported the luxury of it, no?
And although i agree with the qualifications used, i don't even see the one named
as the real subjects of what is happening. The Leo-cons were just the best prepared
for a situation everyone was unconsciously waiting for. It's not 'only' a question
of for instance scandalous Middle East policy - the question of technology itself
should come into focus, and not merely in expert debate, but as regarding everyone.
It, together with its consequences (massification, dehumanization, denaturalization)
is what now lastly drives and radicalizes the tensions of the entire globe.
rene
bob
>
> rene
>
> cave canem
>
> some time ago i had a pitbull barking at me. Dogdammit!
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---