Kenneth wrote recently:
>>> 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.
>>
k'enth:
>>> 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
mP:
>>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?
k'enth:
>
> Well lets say that the font of any logos is not man, not deer, not flower,
> not stone but Life, Life-as-force, a unique force among many unique forces
> yes, but with the difference that this Life force is the only force that
> has become aware of itself "as" force, the first 'aware' force. it is a
> small force that has the power to control large forces to achieve something
> much much higher than all those mere logos-for-blind-power kill the
> bastards for fun and profit forces which rule the planet today
mP:
so, each of the beings, man, deer, flower, etc, are not the fonts (? please
explain this term; as a graphic designer I understand this to be the
more-or-less-equivalent of a type-face, but...) of logos , rather they are
each exemplars/holders of THE unique logos, which is the "Life Force"; this
logos has the possibility that it can be-come self-aware; how does this
awareness creep into the world that is otherwise un-self-aware? (or rather
neither aware nor unaware since to be unaware is to have awareness as a
possibility). And what do you mean by "force"? I mean, is it force in the
same sense that one can speak of Newton's gravity? When you say that this
Life force is not only unique among the other unique forces but also even
more unique (different) in that it can be (self-)aware, are you indicating a
different difference, a fold or cusp in being itself ? (assuming we can
speak of being in terms of 'forces'). Or this aware-force the only being
that can bring forth the being of all the other unique forces in the world?
Or, is the Life force of the flower in my garden aware of its self as Life?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>> 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.
>>
k'enth:
>>> 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
mP:
>>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?
k'enth:
>
> Well lets say that the font of any logos is not man, not deer, not flower,
> not stone but Life, Life-as-force, a unique force among many unique forces
> yes, but with the difference that this Life force is the only force that
> has become aware of itself "as" force, the first 'aware' force. it is a
> small force that has the power to control large forces to achieve something
> much much higher than all those mere logos-for-blind-power kill the
> bastards for fun and profit forces which rule the planet today
mP:
so, each of the beings, man, deer, flower, etc, are not the fonts (? please
explain this term; as a graphic designer I understand this to be the
more-or-less-equivalent of a type-face, but...) of logos , rather they are
each exemplars/holders of THE unique logos, which is the "Life Force"; this
logos has the possibility that it can be-come self-aware; how does this
awareness creep into the world that is otherwise un-self-aware? (or rather
neither aware nor unaware since to be unaware is to have awareness as a
possibility). And what do you mean by "force"? I mean, is it force in the
same sense that one can speak of Newton's gravity? When you say that this
Life force is not only unique among the other unique forces but also even
more unique (different) in that it can be (self-)aware, are you indicating a
different difference, a fold or cusp in being itself ? (assuming we can
speak of being in terms of 'forces'). Or this aware-force the only being
that can bring forth the being of all the other unique forces in the world?
Or, is the Life force of the flower in my garden aware of its self as Life?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---