-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: maandag 30 augustus 2004 19:26
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: the list of the end?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:21 AM
Subject: RE: the list of the end?
>
>
> -
> 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)
>
>
>
> and that's the entire contribution of Heidegger to the German
revolution.
> first get to know: who are we?
> It's so simple: how ever, without this first, can one begin anything?
> Just on the basis of injustice? (Treaty of Versailles or Auschwitz)
> But THAT is incredibly dangerous, THAT is power and hybris.
> So: no program, no lies. Sofar we're nothing, but we want to work to
become
> something.
>
> or how do you think, did ever in man's history originate something
great?
>
> by proclamation?
Rene,
of course, i cling to my paltry labor theory of value, ...consider
history replete with "wonders" of man, ...technology, high art...and not
least, the struggle for the right, ...and consider it impious
(insouciance/hubris of the privileged) to disparage it for a neutering
being. to a significant degree through labor one learns, wins illumination,
and self.
apart form Power's perpetual method of reification, the notion of
anathematizing objectivation tout court seems to me a far gone essentialism.
Bob, some more on objectivation, or vorhandenheit, as the reigning sense of
being, not directed against you, but also not leaving out the place of
socialism in the 21st century.
Also this neutering being is itself already a consequence of universal
objectivation. Like in Dreyfus', Anthony's, Jud's, almost anybody's view.
Also the being of "Heidegger's philosophy of Being".
But, even if they wildly deny the question, what they give, is an answer.
The real enemy is therefore unconscious active nihilism: the denial of
something essentially, fundamentally wrong. As if, by changing titles and
puppets, there can come real change. Also the demise of communism and socialism
is a consequence of universal objectivation: they need strong belief
and trust in order to exist (act), which can't apparently be raised anymore.
The center of revolutionary activity is now the Islamic movement. Religion,
far from evaporating (Anthony again), linked with an origin, and bound to a
land, looks stronger than eracinated Western idealism. This movement cannot
escape from being instrumentalized in the global struggle, meanwhile its
characteristics point to where the fundamental nihilism is at work, already
analyzed by Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: the destruction of homeland and gods,
as on which rests anything else.
Through it all this event accelerates its pace without even payed attention to.
It's a strange thing, this all-pervading objectivation. The limit of what can be
willed. Not at all a topic for discussion. During discussion it hollows out everything
spoken of, and it's just the widerwille against a possible being-wiped-out, that forbids
intelligent men and women to go through the knee. They would not know how to do it. The
only alternative though, amidst growing tension, is that not bowing means they will be
broken.
All this nihilism, objectivism, that's going on like a destiny that seems only to
consist in continuous, maniacal, denial - so that it can be effectuated unhindered -
is the reality of today. All the dissolving does NOT lead to sthing new, so why don't we
stop lying about it? Because we cannot afford to? Has this dissolving become our secret
essence? So that even dissolution, un-essence (Unwesen), are bound to essence, can't come
loose from which, rather than being anathematized as essentialism, is in need of being
thought anew. Forcefully.
Then it becomes a peculiar twisted thing to hear those behad by nihilism (all), deny it,
while using words like essentialism, reification etc. In the end it does not matter anymore,
and one picture from Abu indeed says more than tenthousand philosophers. And in seeing that
would consist all my priviligedness, nothing special.
Would one not become automatically desperate and alone vis-a-vis Heidegger/Hoelderlin/Nietzsche,
then one would be able, if willing, to envisage the background power of dissolution: its exclusive
and unnoticeable self-evidence. Not a concept, comprehended, but it itself: its silent raging.
Would one experience it thus, then already sthing would have happened, changed: as raging silence
it is not objective, but already there (in Stimmung), apart from us, and not needing us at all.
And if it is not noticed, that is not even negative, but a first pre-condition of coming into
contact with what is coming to us. (it's already there, but not yet discovered).
Otherwise there can only be contact with self-made, which is not real contact. H's way would be
the only one capable of acknowledging. But for that, the widerwille against time and against
ourselves as essentially timely, must be overcome. (acknowledgment of being and time)
rene
bob
ps. sorry for the delay, ...my modem got fried in an electrical storm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---