>From: Kenneth Johnson <beeso@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: the embryo as principle
>Date: Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 7:57 pm
>
> Rene wrote:
>
>>I'm not going to destroy what i consider as dangerous as excusing
>>Abu Ghreib by pointing at 'torturing' doves, but merely point to a
>>more hidden, but FATAL, misinterpretation of Heidegger's comparison
>>of Dasein's and animal's world, in GA29/30, the thick book on METAPHYSICS.
>>What can be easily seen elsewhere in H's works is clear: animal and man
>>are not to be confounded. But that is precisely what Capurro is doing,
>>and that is what he reports as Heidegger's contribution, to the European
>>Ethics Summit Conference.
>>
>>I don't give a damn really, they're all liars. But you, serious Heidegger
>>readers, could be led astray.
> we are the man animal, no? and deeper down inside this, every living thing
> is one thing, Life as force, a very unique force, the only force with a
> very slight potential to break through all the blackening out logos shrouds
> which the self-blinkered self-decepted formed hoards of blinded by the
> light religion 'truth' fantasizering it is written forces hide themselves
> from themselves with.
>
> kenneth
Kenneth, does not this saying of the (potentially) clarifying break-through
force itself constitute a logos?, and when adhered to, a kind of religion of
Life (the light that breaks through the blackened shrouds of untruth (the
untruth of man not being confounded with animal, but just animal))? Genuine
question. In what way is this doctrine not an other logos, an other
religiosity? And does it not take precisely the shrouded logological being,
man, to bring forth the truth of this untruth, this hiddenness-from-itself?
Does this not raise a fundamental question?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: the embryo as principle
>Date: Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 7:57 pm
>
> Rene wrote:
>
>>I'm not going to destroy what i consider as dangerous as excusing
>>Abu Ghreib by pointing at 'torturing' doves, but merely point to a
>>more hidden, but FATAL, misinterpretation of Heidegger's comparison
>>of Dasein's and animal's world, in GA29/30, the thick book on METAPHYSICS.
>>What can be easily seen elsewhere in H's works is clear: animal and man
>>are not to be confounded. But that is precisely what Capurro is doing,
>>and that is what he reports as Heidegger's contribution, to the European
>>Ethics Summit Conference.
>>
>>I don't give a damn really, they're all liars. But you, serious Heidegger
>>readers, could be led astray.
> we are the man animal, no? and deeper down inside this, every living thing
> is one thing, Life as force, a very unique force, the only force with a
> very slight potential to break through all the blackening out logos shrouds
> which the self-blinkered self-decepted formed hoards of blinded by the
> light religion 'truth' fantasizering it is written forces hide themselves
> from themselves with.
>
> kenneth
Kenneth, does not this saying of the (potentially) clarifying break-through
force itself constitute a logos?, and when adhered to, a kind of religion of
Life (the light that breaks through the blackened shrouds of untruth (the
untruth of man not being confounded with animal, but just animal))? Genuine
question. In what way is this doctrine not an other logos, an other
religiosity? And does it not take precisely the shrouded logological being,
man, to bring forth the truth of this untruth, this hiddenness-from-itself?
Does this not raise a fundamental question?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---