-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: vrijdag 27 augustus 2004 17:55
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: the list of the end?
rene writes:
> And as to essentialism, it's not my aim to see essences being build-in
in this
> reality. I rather point to possibilities, which, being rooted out
universally,
> get urgent on account of their *absence*. Like when shame, honor and
respect are
> failing. They're nothing existent now, rather superfluous, but entirely
without
> them, the world becomes intolerable.
ok, rene, but no less when perversely ascribed.
Dasein, being possibility itself, is the
> (groundless) ground carrying these possibilities. Not real, but
necessary therefore.
> It would be this necessity, that, incomparably more than 'real things',
concerns us.
> (Dasein the being that cares for its own being)
...wherein resides all hope, yes, ...but obviating darwin, freud, weber, &
co., denying them ontological import, in the name of diss-occluding
possibility is equally errant and willful, no?
It's not so much obviating Darwin a.o., it is obviating universal
objectivism, by first letting see what that is, and where it reigns -
everywhere, and esp. there where we don't want it. Darwin and Lorenz
are in those innocent-looking moderators, that are read every day,
and who excuse the postmodern variant of torture, by postmodern
lying. Far from being able of occluding this 'pestilence', therefore
not willing at all to destroy, on the contrary: untiredly showing it,
what it is and does, not concerned to convince, not willing to be right,
to 'overcome'. Just granting chances to see what's going on and what it
is that holds us.
If it would be all clear, then we could read Darwin and Freud with a
smile again.
MichaelP, in his critics of Jud, shows the (inevitable) mistake: one cannot
show objectivism, and expect at the same time that those representing
it, agree with you. To objectivism belong the masses that live in it.
This is so much so inevitable, that one could say the same to me, who is
talking to you. And indeed that's true, but i'm aware of it, and hope you
are too. Then the snake loses its venom, or rather we would know how to handle
it.
so, agreed, there must be a transformation of self; but that don't excuse
one from the rev
I feel more revolutionary than anyone. Any protagonist of radical change
should first ask: am *I*, are *WE* capable of revolution? The responsibility
is high enough. (Dasein=Mitsein)
> So, Jud is right, when he says: Dasein does not exist. He is, though,
not right,
> when he would say: Dasein, as possibility, does not exist. Because then
he would
> deny his own doings, as far as they're not biologically predetermined
(that is:
> by his 'existents'). As long as i still see flexibility in an opponent,
there is
> possibility, perspective, a reason to continue talking. Which in case of
the
> others' was gone entirely, so that they had only one option left, when
forced to
> move: out.
...of course, you're right, here, ...and your judgement sacred (free
country), but the enunciations of power are patent, and power never defers
to truth.
you mean *my* enunciations? If so, i would be driven by revenge and rancor.
i don't deny that, just every time try to defer, turn away from what/who one
thinks one has overpowered. So that i think i can say i'm not sitting on them,
and can resume a conversation any time. I'm ready, i'm waiting...
rene
bob
>
> 'but i could be wrong...'
>
> rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---