-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: donderdag 23 september 2004 15:17
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: pain/peinne a ma coeur
>From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx>
>To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: pain/peinne a ma coeur
>Date: Wed, Sep 22, 2004, 12:09 pm
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
> Verzonden: woensdag 22 september 2004 13:56
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: pain/peinne a ma coeur
>
>
> Rene recently:
>
>> We seem too weak
>> to even willing to analyze, and question the relation of politics and
>> philosophy, between 'this world' and 'world'. I'm the only one not
>> stopping, and look how i bore everyone.
>> That's all right with me, but the others are not all right: they're
>> pretending to do philosophy, but they're only in it for themselves.
>> All right again! Those with eyes can see.
>
> Rene, I for one have never found your posts boring, mostly the opposite and
> sometimes to such an extreme of stimulating that I find myself bewildered
> and unable to articulate even that bewilderment. As for the questions of the
> relations between politics and philosophy (and your suggestion that to avoid
> such in your terms, is itself a pretence of philosophy), that itself (the
> questioning, asking the right questions so as to gain some sort of access,
> some rightful fitting way to the articulation of the 'real' problems) is a
> philosophical problematic, and may not necessarily be accomplished in a
> direct or crude (cf Jud) manner. You tend to hit things head on with a
> frightening and such frightful passion (I love it, but) that sometimes
> brings you into a certain proximity with Jud in a certain accusatory mode of
> speech.
>
> That's inevitable, Michael, and i won't argue with it.
> You've made this move ('but you too...) several times lately, it's your
> choice.
Mea culpa, Rene, but there is a but: but such an accusatory tone is not my
norm; your speech marbled through recently with mentions of "lies" without
much elaboration on what you mean by "lies" (of course I know what the word
means in an everyday sense; I presume you mean it in a more philosophical
sense...) can become somewhat oppressive whilst being fascinating.
Michael,
Also the oppressiveness is essential. I remember to have brought ample
explanation, but maybe it wasn't noticed, on account of What is called
thinking, the hunting character of representation (Vorstellen as nachstellen),
breaking through in Nietzsche, unmasking truth as the sort of error, that a
certain life form needs to stay alive. And that as long as Nietzsche is left
out, there is no chance that the lying of our global peace and liberty spreading
organizations is detected, and that it would go on indefinetely, if not shut down
by nuclear strikes. We're getting nearer.
Did you forget?
> This can be off-putting, since few of us enjoy being on trial from
> the outset of a possible discussion.
>
> I understand. It is not, though, my intention to bring thugs to justice,
> but to show some first steps, which, when not taken (my or another way),
> leave no possible discussions at all. For instance, i liked your last mail,
> but still there is this not-getting-from-the-spot, because you bind
> yourself, like others, to some last distinction*.
I have looked, Rene, at the asterixed note and I am still confused as to
what "last distinction" you mean... are you speaking of my retention of the
ontological difference? Do you see this as a stumbling block to some kind of
moving on or progress?
But of course there must be something that holds you back; and me, and
everyone. You want to deny that? But such denial belongs to subjectivism,
and Heidegger treats that under the title of the leaving out of the staying
out. (also treated extensively by me) Ontological difference is not
something to be used as a means of defence against criticizers of Heidegger.
Because a critics like Jud's is itself lastly a consequence of od: Das Sein
[-as Sein des Seienden-] wird zum Gespoett. Heidegger says it, and Jud
proves it. In this world, as it is now, Being and truth HAVE no place, that's
Seinsverlassenheit: the world, that which is, is LEFT by Being.
When od, as the realm of metaphysics, is completed like metaphysics itself,
then further development of ontol. difference, the reduction of what is to an
essential being, must be considered as madness. Right. That is what can be seen
everywhere now: the continuance of burned-out metaphysical notions, which bring
highly destructive PHYSICAL annihilation.
> But please, consider my critics to be positive:
I do Rene, otherwise I would not be so eager to continue to respond...
> sometimes i'm really amazed, for instance, at what you and others
> are capable of saying in a language that i consider to be a big handicap in
> dealing with German philosophy. I'm happy to be linguistically closer, and
> all i can say is: as long as people don't simply start learning German, i
> can't take them seriously. And i can't take them seriously, because *they*
> are not serious.
I can see and have already experienced what a handicap an absence of German
is for someone, like me, exploring Heidegger et al. But, slightly in tune
with Allen's mention of the Euthyphro, which I read quickly this morning, I
wonder whether you might be more gracious in taking more seriously the
impoverished recipients of your gifts. Is it not a splendid feature of a
list such as this that we can share in the diverse gifts given daily from
equally diverse backgrounds and foregrounds, jumping and flitting across the
abyss? I, for example, am a composer not an academic, and I hope I bring a
different tonality as a result of listening in that composerly kind of way
to the (good and bad) music of others on this here list, no?
The language item was generally meant. Can't everybody see that talking
of Heidegger presupposes knowledge of the German language? Or does one
play chess without knowing the rules?
Imo the name Heidegger cannot be linked to your predilections, so if
this is what you want, i'd stay away from *him*. But this is already so
since Wagner-Nietzsche. Celan: don't enlarge art (with philosophy and
great themes etc.), but drive her into narrowness. So that she first
grows into the ground (not toward applause), and is so able to surprize
the modern bottomless. I'd say the duty of art lies there, but who wants
duty and responsibility?
I delight in the apocalypsos you bring to the list.
i don't, Michael.
> *this too is not reproach. The reason for it lies in the metaphysics itself,
> that is in our body. Last distinctions have been cleared away by absolute
> idealism, because it went, had to go after the unconditional, despite Kant's
> warnings. We just don't tolerate, despite all structuralism, that something
> else is thinking in us, but i cannot help exposing it, because anonymous
> self-evidence is the real terror. And global Americanism its most dangerous
> form.
> And as long as it is sought elsewhere, the room for 'possible discussion' is
> really cut off. So, looking for the origin in oneself, is inevitably painful
> yes, and it is easier to blame Slim Shady. If necessary, i play that part.
Sometimes I perform a kurt cobain** [see below]
> IF it is true what you say, and what others who went away, said, why can't
> they just go on, why do they leave?
I do not think Anthony left because of his (seemingly bitter) differences
with you
he himself said so.
anymore than Michael did.
idem
It seems to me that the list had become
so bitchy and bitty and bitter (mea culpa in some degree) and so little to
do with enjoying Heidegger (etc) and the good grace of stimulating
discussions between mutually respecting interlocutors whatever the
differences. And Allen did not leave so much as take a holiday. And, I am
always leaving...
Enjoying (one's) Heidegger... by lying away what does not fit in with one's
own idiosyncrasies - i don't respect that. And we, sorry: i, see that
mendacity enough everywhere now. But, while i expose, why don't they go on,
when they're so sure as they say they are? I repeat this point, because it is
interesting: there is, apparently, a limit to lying. And although the liars
can't/don't want to understand their unmasking, still they're worried. Why
would that be? Here's a perspective...
regards
rene
> Dies it point to a lack of confidence, they simply
> are not capable of acknowledging? But then what about the confidence of this
our
> Western world, is it not another lie, hiding behind automatic weapons? When
i'm right,
> and there is no real confidence, THEN what happens now, is irresponsible,
and my
> doggish insistence really quite innocent.
Exactly. But taking too much notice of "confidence" is itself a confidence
trick. I think we should be thinking (or rather smelling) of 'taste' for
reasons of the absence of concrete others and the desultory absent presence
of yet others, perhaps...
And the "hiding behind automatic weapons" can take many forms, often
unacknowledged, no?
regards
michaelP
>
>
>
**
I am buried up to my neck in
Contradictionary flies
I take pride as the king of illiterature
I'm very ape and very nice
If you ever need anything please don't hesitate to ask someone else first
I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.
I've seen it all I was here first
Out of the ground
Into the sky
Out of the sky
Into the dirt
(Very Ape [from Nirvana 'In Utero'])
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---