Rene wrote:
> Rene wrote:
>
>> It's absolutely vital to stick to the theme of ontological lying.
>> The idea that one could be, of oneself, capable of truth, and able
>> to surpass lying, seems only acceptable to the last-minute-subjectivity,
>> one sees at work indifferently whether in politics, economics or
>> philosophy.
>
> Rene, in what way can "ontological lying" be thematised without necessarily
> lying about it (since, perhaps, it is not a topicalisable thing or
> theme...)?
>
>
> Michael, your way of putting it shows its own viewlessness.
Rene, I thought I was asking a _question_ of you... To ask does not show a
viewlessness (the questioner might be keeping the view covered for the time
being, no?), and as you say, this is a philosophy list.
> It's putting things thus, that one cannot get out.
No, not at all. There might be (my question) a certain difficulty. This
revolves around the problem of thematising something (the 'ontological')
that is not some (thematic) thing. The problem then is the difference
between something (that is not some thing) and some thing (that can be the
direct topic of some discourse). Again this is reflected in the difficulty
of threading through/out of metaphysics when the only language we have is
marbled through and through with the metaphysical. I think Heidegger shows
the way but not yet the success of "getting out". That's why I'm here.
> Meanwhile getting out might be surprisingly easy: a decision.
> Pro truth as aletheia, contra truth as mere verifiability, which
> is just a lie, and can only lead to more lie.
Agreed. But this easiness is not truly (uncoverably present) easy. Such a
decision, such a crisis, involves the bringing to presence that which hides
itself in its machinations. Your "easiness" sounds like the deceptively
simple admonitions of buddhism, especially zen. Where is the slap for the
slip? Are you the slapper here (not meant at all disrespectfully)?
> One gotta choose HERE, Michael, and if you don't, like Anthony
> didn't want, there's going to be a question, why not.
You're correct. But I know the choice has to be made. The question is not
which choice or the range of options that open themselves up, but how to
open the world up to choice. Jumping in with the first (so-called 'instinct'
or 'intuition') means my saddened response to the massacre is just as
unchosen as any other first choice. So, why not stand back for a while; this
seems like a non-choice. Heidegger's step back is in order to wind back
through to the present (verwindung), what is present in order to show its
way of presenting its (temporalising) self. The conductor brings his arms up
and his whole self to a tension of waiting before releasing the decision to
begin the piece with the downward movement. This is not negated by the
immediate feeling of being overwhelmed before what is to be presented. If a
premature ejaculatory event eventuates, then that is forgivable surely. But
my question involved the persistence of the violent revengefulness of
contemporary (if not all, according to Nietzsche) humanity and its
machinations. The example was the massacre of the kids and others by the
Chechen 'rebels'. The (my) question was how the cycle of revenge (as
exemplified in this occurrence) might dissolve.
>>
>> The current and ongoing bloody lies, that are at the base of
>> international relations, grant a chance to take an essential
>> mendacity into view, that is responsible for the filthy spectacle
>> of the last 100 years of world politics.
>>
>> Would it all be all-too-human greed and deceit, then all these
>> massacres remain without meaning, while serious undertakings,
>> investigating the relation of technology, terror and truth, might
>> still shed a meaningful light on them.
>
> And what might this 'meaning behind the moaning' [line from one of my
> somgs... sorry] this meaning of utter brutalising violence, er, be, pray?
>
> You don't WANT it to have meaning? Then it is perfect food for the
> commemoration industry: the even making less of the meaningless.
Of course I seek a meaning. This is a philosophy list, n'est pas? I was
asking you what you thought the meaning might be.
> You think that the Persian wars, or Caesar's wars, are without
> meaning, just because of the blood?
Again, of course not. I accept blood in change. But what did this event (not
a war, but nonetheless violent, like all those so-called 'suicide' bombings,
and etc) achieve in terms of any significant change. Can you not see that
the result was only (!) the death and mutilation of a number of people? And
that a punitive re-action will be on the cards almost inevitably, that will
repress whatever the aims (whatever one thinks or evaluates of these aims,
whatever they might be) of the so-called 'rebels', possibly, likely,
irretrievably?
>
>> Crying with the children is just crying with the wolves, and
>> only serves their purposes.
>
> Can one not cry then anyway?
>
> But this is a philosophical list.
I think I've gone some way to answering this.
> The people who committed the massacre (whether
> of innocents or not) had a choice
>
> Did they? A lot of things have preceded, Michael, which you leave out.
Of course they had a choice. No one HAD to take the schoolchildren etc
hostage, did they? If so (if they had absolutely no choice), what
subjugatingly enormous force forced them to do this? Were these 'rebels'
forced like their hostages, at gun and bomb point to take the hostages? By
what exactly? What do I leave out here? Of course, the 'rebels' did not come
about as such without an enormous historical precedence, but nonetheless
they surely had a choice whether to take hostages (who they probably had no
intention releasing alive anyway) or not, no?
> Then your moment comes, and suddenly Chechenyans become moral
> agents like in our philosophy books. Reality is not at all like that.
No. My moment? Whatever their existence in all sorts of terms, they are
_also_ agents when they carry out certain actions. Just because they 'are'
Chechneyans in this situation (whatever the complexities of it) does not
absolve them from the responsibility of doing this sort of thing (thuggery)
to others (it is surely very hard to think of those children as anything
other than innocents here, no?). And they (the thugs) must have been aware
of their responsibilities in this brutality, and thus they made their choice
(well in advance; it seemed like a well-planned execution). Why should one
not judge them to be thugs? Of course, that's not all they are. But to
_just_ see them as agents of 'history' in a bigger picture, and thus the
victims of this appalling brutality as much the same might be very 'smart'
for armchairists and look superkool, but isn't this another way of escaping,
of a certain oblivion?
And what is "reality" like, Rene? What do you mean by "reality"? (a genuine
question, since you raise it).
>
> to either do their dirty deed or not. They
> chose violence, and a violence that achieved nothing but the obliteration of
> small and larger humans. Their 'cause' has surely suffered, and will
> obviously suffer further violent consequences and I can not believe that
> such consequences were not equally obvious to these slimeball murderers.
>
> Can you not simply cry anyway for these poor victims? Agreed it's not good
> enough just to cry and ask as to the end of such cycles of revenge and
> violence, when one is pursuing some kind of truth, but a moment of sheer
> anti-exuberance is not at all falling into the dirty paws of the "wolves",
> surely?
>
> Sure it does. I want to be clear: what you're doing here is playing with
victims
> yourself, you're just using them for your purpose: to stay out, to not
choose,
> to not take responsability.
Now let me be clear, because I'm not sure what you're saying here: that I
bemoan the actions of those who (e.g.) spray bullets at children attempting
to escape their brutal (have you seen the pictures of the hostage
situation?) capture is some sort of manipulation by me of the victims, much
like the manipulations and obliterations of the 'rebels'? That this is some
kind of escape from commitment/decision? Strange, because I thought it
perfectly clear that I could not side with anything that commits such acts.
That I can only side (if that is the right term, and you must know how I
have argued for years around the business of 'siding') with that which
brings an end, an end! to such physical and metaphysical revenge! This is a
deathly ensteeled commitment, Rene. The Chechnyans (as represented by the
'rebels'), the Palestinians (ditto), the Iraqi 'insurgents', etc etc, (and
the Amerikans, and the Israelis, and the new Russians, etc etc) will _never_
_ever_ achieve the freedom from revenge which bespells the Nietzschean
rainbow, through the methods they employ or are employed by; they only
continue and perpetuate the oh so boringly horrific continuous status quo of
war or armed peace (as Heidegger predicted).
> Just like Anthony: using Heidegger against Heidegger.
I cannot yet fathom how you could see me "using Heidegger against Heidegger"
in this instance. Explain.
> Now there's maybe still a chance to get to the bottom, but in 5 or 10 years
the
> bloodshed can be already so gigantic, that your self-fulfilling prophecy
case
> will apply. We will be responsible, though, whatever the excuses.
I agree but you seem far more apocalyptic than I in this -;)
>
>>
>> The Asians, while in principle not capable of fathoming global,
>> eveninglandish mendacity, are working hard to see clearer.
>> They won't overcome Western superiority - technology+lies - ,
>> but their analyses are refreshing, compared to modern western
>> scholasticism.
>
> Give us some refreshing examples of such analyses then, or are you just
> celebrating with other wolves.
>
> I have named the tigers of the Asian Times more than once here, but i use
this
> opportunity for one more time praising their reporting, which remains loyal
> to itself, something our lying food for obesives has far left behind.
Why aren't the tigers lying too? I mean, how can you tell? (again, I mean no
disrespect here, a real question).
I apologise for my emotional outbursts, but I feel you are just as emotional
in your critiques of my outbursts, and anyway what's so wrong with such
emotionalities?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Rene wrote:
>
>> It's absolutely vital to stick to the theme of ontological lying.
>> The idea that one could be, of oneself, capable of truth, and able
>> to surpass lying, seems only acceptable to the last-minute-subjectivity,
>> one sees at work indifferently whether in politics, economics or
>> philosophy.
>
> Rene, in what way can "ontological lying" be thematised without necessarily
> lying about it (since, perhaps, it is not a topicalisable thing or
> theme...)?
>
>
> Michael, your way of putting it shows its own viewlessness.
Rene, I thought I was asking a _question_ of you... To ask does not show a
viewlessness (the questioner might be keeping the view covered for the time
being, no?), and as you say, this is a philosophy list.
> It's putting things thus, that one cannot get out.
No, not at all. There might be (my question) a certain difficulty. This
revolves around the problem of thematising something (the 'ontological')
that is not some (thematic) thing. The problem then is the difference
between something (that is not some thing) and some thing (that can be the
direct topic of some discourse). Again this is reflected in the difficulty
of threading through/out of metaphysics when the only language we have is
marbled through and through with the metaphysical. I think Heidegger shows
the way but not yet the success of "getting out". That's why I'm here.
> Meanwhile getting out might be surprisingly easy: a decision.
> Pro truth as aletheia, contra truth as mere verifiability, which
> is just a lie, and can only lead to more lie.
Agreed. But this easiness is not truly (uncoverably present) easy. Such a
decision, such a crisis, involves the bringing to presence that which hides
itself in its machinations. Your "easiness" sounds like the deceptively
simple admonitions of buddhism, especially zen. Where is the slap for the
slip? Are you the slapper here (not meant at all disrespectfully)?
> One gotta choose HERE, Michael, and if you don't, like Anthony
> didn't want, there's going to be a question, why not.
You're correct. But I know the choice has to be made. The question is not
which choice or the range of options that open themselves up, but how to
open the world up to choice. Jumping in with the first (so-called 'instinct'
or 'intuition') means my saddened response to the massacre is just as
unchosen as any other first choice. So, why not stand back for a while; this
seems like a non-choice. Heidegger's step back is in order to wind back
through to the present (verwindung), what is present in order to show its
way of presenting its (temporalising) self. The conductor brings his arms up
and his whole self to a tension of waiting before releasing the decision to
begin the piece with the downward movement. This is not negated by the
immediate feeling of being overwhelmed before what is to be presented. If a
premature ejaculatory event eventuates, then that is forgivable surely. But
my question involved the persistence of the violent revengefulness of
contemporary (if not all, according to Nietzsche) humanity and its
machinations. The example was the massacre of the kids and others by the
Chechen 'rebels'. The (my) question was how the cycle of revenge (as
exemplified in this occurrence) might dissolve.
>>
>> The current and ongoing bloody lies, that are at the base of
>> international relations, grant a chance to take an essential
>> mendacity into view, that is responsible for the filthy spectacle
>> of the last 100 years of world politics.
>>
>> Would it all be all-too-human greed and deceit, then all these
>> massacres remain without meaning, while serious undertakings,
>> investigating the relation of technology, terror and truth, might
>> still shed a meaningful light on them.
>
> And what might this 'meaning behind the moaning' [line from one of my
> somgs... sorry] this meaning of utter brutalising violence, er, be, pray?
>
> You don't WANT it to have meaning? Then it is perfect food for the
> commemoration industry: the even making less of the meaningless.
Of course I seek a meaning. This is a philosophy list, n'est pas? I was
asking you what you thought the meaning might be.
> You think that the Persian wars, or Caesar's wars, are without
> meaning, just because of the blood?
Again, of course not. I accept blood in change. But what did this event (not
a war, but nonetheless violent, like all those so-called 'suicide' bombings,
and etc) achieve in terms of any significant change. Can you not see that
the result was only (!) the death and mutilation of a number of people? And
that a punitive re-action will be on the cards almost inevitably, that will
repress whatever the aims (whatever one thinks or evaluates of these aims,
whatever they might be) of the so-called 'rebels', possibly, likely,
irretrievably?
>
>> Crying with the children is just crying with the wolves, and
>> only serves their purposes.
>
> Can one not cry then anyway?
>
> But this is a philosophical list.
I think I've gone some way to answering this.
> The people who committed the massacre (whether
> of innocents or not) had a choice
>
> Did they? A lot of things have preceded, Michael, which you leave out.
Of course they had a choice. No one HAD to take the schoolchildren etc
hostage, did they? If so (if they had absolutely no choice), what
subjugatingly enormous force forced them to do this? Were these 'rebels'
forced like their hostages, at gun and bomb point to take the hostages? By
what exactly? What do I leave out here? Of course, the 'rebels' did not come
about as such without an enormous historical precedence, but nonetheless
they surely had a choice whether to take hostages (who they probably had no
intention releasing alive anyway) or not, no?
> Then your moment comes, and suddenly Chechenyans become moral
> agents like in our philosophy books. Reality is not at all like that.
No. My moment? Whatever their existence in all sorts of terms, they are
_also_ agents when they carry out certain actions. Just because they 'are'
Chechneyans in this situation (whatever the complexities of it) does not
absolve them from the responsibility of doing this sort of thing (thuggery)
to others (it is surely very hard to think of those children as anything
other than innocents here, no?). And they (the thugs) must have been aware
of their responsibilities in this brutality, and thus they made their choice
(well in advance; it seemed like a well-planned execution). Why should one
not judge them to be thugs? Of course, that's not all they are. But to
_just_ see them as agents of 'history' in a bigger picture, and thus the
victims of this appalling brutality as much the same might be very 'smart'
for armchairists and look superkool, but isn't this another way of escaping,
of a certain oblivion?
And what is "reality" like, Rene? What do you mean by "reality"? (a genuine
question, since you raise it).
>
> to either do their dirty deed or not. They
> chose violence, and a violence that achieved nothing but the obliteration of
> small and larger humans. Their 'cause' has surely suffered, and will
> obviously suffer further violent consequences and I can not believe that
> such consequences were not equally obvious to these slimeball murderers.
>
> Can you not simply cry anyway for these poor victims? Agreed it's not good
> enough just to cry and ask as to the end of such cycles of revenge and
> violence, when one is pursuing some kind of truth, but a moment of sheer
> anti-exuberance is not at all falling into the dirty paws of the "wolves",
> surely?
>
> Sure it does. I want to be clear: what you're doing here is playing with
victims
> yourself, you're just using them for your purpose: to stay out, to not
choose,
> to not take responsability.
Now let me be clear, because I'm not sure what you're saying here: that I
bemoan the actions of those who (e.g.) spray bullets at children attempting
to escape their brutal (have you seen the pictures of the hostage
situation?) capture is some sort of manipulation by me of the victims, much
like the manipulations and obliterations of the 'rebels'? That this is some
kind of escape from commitment/decision? Strange, because I thought it
perfectly clear that I could not side with anything that commits such acts.
That I can only side (if that is the right term, and you must know how I
have argued for years around the business of 'siding') with that which
brings an end, an end! to such physical and metaphysical revenge! This is a
deathly ensteeled commitment, Rene. The Chechnyans (as represented by the
'rebels'), the Palestinians (ditto), the Iraqi 'insurgents', etc etc, (and
the Amerikans, and the Israelis, and the new Russians, etc etc) will _never_
_ever_ achieve the freedom from revenge which bespells the Nietzschean
rainbow, through the methods they employ or are employed by; they only
continue and perpetuate the oh so boringly horrific continuous status quo of
war or armed peace (as Heidegger predicted).
> Just like Anthony: using Heidegger against Heidegger.
I cannot yet fathom how you could see me "using Heidegger against Heidegger"
in this instance. Explain.
> Now there's maybe still a chance to get to the bottom, but in 5 or 10 years
the
> bloodshed can be already so gigantic, that your self-fulfilling prophecy
case
> will apply. We will be responsible, though, whatever the excuses.
I agree but you seem far more apocalyptic than I in this -;)
>
>>
>> The Asians, while in principle not capable of fathoming global,
>> eveninglandish mendacity, are working hard to see clearer.
>> They won't overcome Western superiority - technology+lies - ,
>> but their analyses are refreshing, compared to modern western
>> scholasticism.
>
> Give us some refreshing examples of such analyses then, or are you just
> celebrating with other wolves.
>
> I have named the tigers of the Asian Times more than once here, but i use
this
> opportunity for one more time praising their reporting, which remains loyal
> to itself, something our lying food for obesives has far left behind.
Why aren't the tigers lying too? I mean, how can you tell? (again, I mean no
disrespect here, a real question).
I apologise for my emotional outbursts, but I feel you are just as emotional
in your critiques of my outbursts, and anyway what's so wrong with such
emotionalities?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---