I don't know allen, projecting is a decidedly 'self-asserting' act of
intentionality, more or less an 'attitude' asserting itself. How about
'reaching out' to extend the metaphor of the hand?
This line of questioning would 'side' with Bob Scheetz's method, a reaching
out, but not a grasping, a more gentle offering of the hand to being. Like I
said earlier, modern Xtianity, and to some extent it's more developed
expressions [all western forms of democracy] has a 'rude' quality to it. IT
is fine to be able to vote every 4 to 5 years, but the gaps are what really
hurts. Politicians have too much power, and the people never are able to
improve. The right wing wants to bankrupt government so that they will be
forced to sell off public assets including national forests, parks,
universities, libraries, et cetera. They deliberately sabotage government
because they are anti-government, and want to waste every spare dollar on
military. Why does Sweden, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Canada, et cetera, have
the highest quality of life standards in the world, but the US is far behind
at about 17th or so? You can see it enfloresce and fruitively engage
'innocent' and 'culpable' minds in the Republican Party. Afterall the
Democrats there have tried to defeat a bill to allocate about $30 billion
for research into the the manufacture of small nuclear bombs with the
capacity to burrow down deep into the earth, and have about 1/2 the
pulverizing capacity of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes
democracy has failed miserably in the US. There is not even a shred of
democracy in a country which has been lied to and cheated so bad. No where
else in the 'democratic' world has there been such lying and cheating as in
the US over the last 4 years. You find one even close - well I guess the UK
meets that criteria - but they are not really lying because they did not
know the truth. They were deceived as were several other nations by the US
Bush Administration. Bush has to be brought to justice soon, or at least
removed from office as president. They have to do this immediately. The
people there have to bring him up before a court of competence, with
juridiction soon, or we are going to see the escalation of the 'preemptive
strike' using these small nukes, and also large Moab type bombs and the
usual Tomahawk or cruise missiles, cluster bombs, or anti-personnel devices,
spent uranium in the ordinance, et cetera.
The decidedly american projection is not a 'reaching out of an open hand' in
offering but a brutal, vicious grasping of might expression for the purpose
of gaining absolute control of natural resources. The colonial offset.
Interesting.
If Plato and Socrates were living today they would be questioning this in
very interesting and philosophic ways. This is no age of innocence but the
age of denial. This self-confessed hopeless drunkard the US has for a
president, and his criminal consorts, are at the heart the question, because
this is the first time in modern history that a nation has asserted itself
as the worlds leading power to conquer and destroy without any
qualification. It uses the pure fact that it possesses as much as 40% of the
whole worlds military weapons [including chemical and biological, as well as
all the WMD ever produced] to assert itself as the most powerful. It chooses
to confront only those nations which have deep civil unrest, relatively
small populations, as well as some strategic or economic value for their
economy to attack and disrupt.
This nation, the US does this for show. It does not expect to win friends,
and influence enemies, but it does this for some deeper reason. I don't know
but I suspect that Bush and the Republicans did this Iraq thing to win
support for their party come election, but they miscalculated the
consequences, as well they did not consider that the average person does not
like to be 'occupied' and forced to be in fear, to be killed, or tortured,
or humiliated.
So this all may spell the demise of the Republican Party in the US for at
least 10-20 years, perhaps longer. The American citizen has be lied to,
cheated out of the just and democratic rights, and importantly forced into
penury because of the Bush and Co. desire to spend on a totally useless
project. Afterall if the Marines and General infantry can love it so much
being there playing porno shooters, and bombing whole wedding parties,
without any compunction, then, hey you got to hand it to them,
*They are really good at projection, not only philosophically, but in the
true Jungian tradition of 'projection' and 'inflation'. I got a broken rib,
and I need to rest,
have a really good summer day soon,
chao
john foster
----- Original Message -----
From: "allen scult" <allen.scult@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:06 AM
Subject: Questioning the Question
>
> The following is submitted in a condition even more raw than usual:
>
> I'm reading Cavell on Wittgenstein and thinking about how community,
> especially philosophical community-or more especially THIS
> community-- is constituted to the extent that we can speak WITH one
> another at all. By speaking with one another, I mean that some of us
> presume that Heidegger speaks for us, at least insofar as we presume
> he is not merely projecting his own way of being conscious onto ours.
> He presumed a similar presumption which I presume enabled him to
> speak for himself as a Dasein in the way that he does.
>
> What gives Heidegger the "right" to speak of Dasein as he does-as if
> it's any more than a projection? More importantly, why do I trust
> him, give him the right, to "speak for me" at least most of the time.
> . . and Jud doesn't?
>
> This is almost a "primal" matter of philosophy, one which Cavell
> suggests, at another level, preoccupies Wittgenstein when he argues
> for the impossibility of a "private language." In Cavell's words:
> "What is the presumption which asks us to look to ourselves to find
> whether we share another's secret consciousness? What gives one the
> right?"
>
> He goes on to say this line of questioning is wrong for philosophy,
> because philosophy "ought to point away from the self not towards
> it." (20) But in this very pointing away, the question is preserved,
> for it is saying that the philosophy of which it is a part is not
> mere projection. I may explain other philosophizing as one kind of
> projection or another ( as Jud does Heidegger's) but not my own, nor
> those that speak for me. The presumption of those philosophies, by
> the very fact that it is Heidegger's presumption, mine, and perhaps
> yours, remains an open question--no, the open question-- which is at
> the core of said philosophies.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Allen
>
>
> --- 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
intentionality, more or less an 'attitude' asserting itself. How about
'reaching out' to extend the metaphor of the hand?
This line of questioning would 'side' with Bob Scheetz's method, a reaching
out, but not a grasping, a more gentle offering of the hand to being. Like I
said earlier, modern Xtianity, and to some extent it's more developed
expressions [all western forms of democracy] has a 'rude' quality to it. IT
is fine to be able to vote every 4 to 5 years, but the gaps are what really
hurts. Politicians have too much power, and the people never are able to
improve. The right wing wants to bankrupt government so that they will be
forced to sell off public assets including national forests, parks,
universities, libraries, et cetera. They deliberately sabotage government
because they are anti-government, and want to waste every spare dollar on
military. Why does Sweden, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Canada, et cetera, have
the highest quality of life standards in the world, but the US is far behind
at about 17th or so? You can see it enfloresce and fruitively engage
'innocent' and 'culpable' minds in the Republican Party. Afterall the
Democrats there have tried to defeat a bill to allocate about $30 billion
for research into the the manufacture of small nuclear bombs with the
capacity to burrow down deep into the earth, and have about 1/2 the
pulverizing capacity of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes
democracy has failed miserably in the US. There is not even a shred of
democracy in a country which has been lied to and cheated so bad. No where
else in the 'democratic' world has there been such lying and cheating as in
the US over the last 4 years. You find one even close - well I guess the UK
meets that criteria - but they are not really lying because they did not
know the truth. They were deceived as were several other nations by the US
Bush Administration. Bush has to be brought to justice soon, or at least
removed from office as president. They have to do this immediately. The
people there have to bring him up before a court of competence, with
juridiction soon, or we are going to see the escalation of the 'preemptive
strike' using these small nukes, and also large Moab type bombs and the
usual Tomahawk or cruise missiles, cluster bombs, or anti-personnel devices,
spent uranium in the ordinance, et cetera.
The decidedly american projection is not a 'reaching out of an open hand' in
offering but a brutal, vicious grasping of might expression for the purpose
of gaining absolute control of natural resources. The colonial offset.
Interesting.
If Plato and Socrates were living today they would be questioning this in
very interesting and philosophic ways. This is no age of innocence but the
age of denial. This self-confessed hopeless drunkard the US has for a
president, and his criminal consorts, are at the heart the question, because
this is the first time in modern history that a nation has asserted itself
as the worlds leading power to conquer and destroy without any
qualification. It uses the pure fact that it possesses as much as 40% of the
whole worlds military weapons [including chemical and biological, as well as
all the WMD ever produced] to assert itself as the most powerful. It chooses
to confront only those nations which have deep civil unrest, relatively
small populations, as well as some strategic or economic value for their
economy to attack and disrupt.
This nation, the US does this for show. It does not expect to win friends,
and influence enemies, but it does this for some deeper reason. I don't know
but I suspect that Bush and the Republicans did this Iraq thing to win
support for their party come election, but they miscalculated the
consequences, as well they did not consider that the average person does not
like to be 'occupied' and forced to be in fear, to be killed, or tortured,
or humiliated.
So this all may spell the demise of the Republican Party in the US for at
least 10-20 years, perhaps longer. The American citizen has be lied to,
cheated out of the just and democratic rights, and importantly forced into
penury because of the Bush and Co. desire to spend on a totally useless
project. Afterall if the Marines and General infantry can love it so much
being there playing porno shooters, and bombing whole wedding parties,
without any compunction, then, hey you got to hand it to them,
*They are really good at projection, not only philosophically, but in the
true Jungian tradition of 'projection' and 'inflation'. I got a broken rib,
and I need to rest,
have a really good summer day soon,
chao
john foster
----- Original Message -----
From: "allen scult" <allen.scult@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:06 AM
Subject: Questioning the Question
>
> The following is submitted in a condition even more raw than usual:
>
> I'm reading Cavell on Wittgenstein and thinking about how community,
> especially philosophical community-or more especially THIS
> community-- is constituted to the extent that we can speak WITH one
> another at all. By speaking with one another, I mean that some of us
> presume that Heidegger speaks for us, at least insofar as we presume
> he is not merely projecting his own way of being conscious onto ours.
> He presumed a similar presumption which I presume enabled him to
> speak for himself as a Dasein in the way that he does.
>
> What gives Heidegger the "right" to speak of Dasein as he does-as if
> it's any more than a projection? More importantly, why do I trust
> him, give him the right, to "speak for me" at least most of the time.
> . . and Jud doesn't?
>
> This is almost a "primal" matter of philosophy, one which Cavell
> suggests, at another level, preoccupies Wittgenstein when he argues
> for the impossibility of a "private language." In Cavell's words:
> "What is the presumption which asks us to look to ourselves to find
> whether we share another's secret consciousness? What gives one the
> right?"
>
> He goes on to say this line of questioning is wrong for philosophy,
> because philosophy "ought to point away from the self not towards
> it." (20) But in this very pointing away, the question is preserved,
> for it is saying that the philosophy of which it is a part is not
> mere projection. I may explain other philosophizing as one kind of
> projection or another ( as Jud does Heidegger's) but not my own, nor
> those that speak for me. The presumption of those philosophies, by
> the very fact that it is Heidegger's presumption, mine, and perhaps
> yours, remains an open question--no, the open question-- which is at
> the core of said philosophies.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Allen
>
>
> --- 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---