>> 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?
No, rene, I didn't forget, sorry, just didn't relate it immediately in each
case to "lying" as such... OK, you've re-minded me, and I'll be looking
again at previous posts.
>> 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?
No! I simply asked how you see the retention of the OD as a stumbling
block... that be-ing with-draws?
> 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.
I have not denied this.
> Because a critics like Jud's is itself lastly a consequence of od: Das
Sein
> [-as Sein des Seienden-] wird zum Gespoett.
I 'understand' everything up to "wird zum Gespoett"; can you please
trans-late for me?
> 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,
With no attempt at an anticipatory denial on my part, please explain/reason
how/why ontological difference is (the last vestige of?) metaphysics: again
I am not denying such a claim, but want it substantiated in some way...
> 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.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure at all that "further development of ontol.
difference" is at all "the reduction of what is to an essential being".
Precisely the ontological difference demands/commands the (different)
difference between be-ing and any being (or all beings, or
beings-as-a-whole, or the common-ness or averageness or 'essence' of beings,
etc), and demands it not be reduced to such flattening. To do THIS would be
madness! What re-mains with the dissolution of the OD? Is this the same as
what remains when the destruction of appearance means the destruction of the
real in Nietzsche? A play of surfaces without the depth that surfaces need
to BE superficial?
> That is what can be seen
> everywhere now: the continuance of burned-out metaphysical notions, which
bring
> highly destructive PHYSICAL annihilation.
Right on, there. But then it demands we difference the metaphysical with
utmost care.
>
>> 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?
A certain acquaintance, surely, but not necessarily, fluency; especially
given the fact of others' fluency on the list: my point. Surely you can
admit a seriousness not entirely academic?
I'm sorry, but I think your suggestion to stay away from Heidegger if the
accent is on the poetic, the musical, is highly insulting, and worse,
narrow. It's not a matter of "enlarge [ing] art (with philosophy and great
themes etc.)", perhaps more a matter of incorporation, of an other kind of
total commitment; perhaps in the same manner you bring EmineM to bare...
Heidegger saw the intimacy of poesis and thinking, no? despite their
differences, no? Duty and responsibility are precisely incorporated in what
I referred to as "commitment" above, and thus are seriously involved in
other ways of intimating with Heidegger?
> I delight in the apocalypsos you bring to the list.
>
> i don't, Michael.
A pity. Delight is not at all happiness or simple (or complex) pleasure. A
dark light is still a light and alight(ing).
>> *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
Publicly?
> 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...
So, open up such a perspective, huh? I do not see how or why enjoying [see
delight above] Heidegger is _necessarily_ achieved by what you call "lying".
Your expose[acute accent]s seem to exclude your own... I think in some cases
your passion (wonderful as such) exceeds your reason (bewidering sometimes
as such) and thus exposes your self to the slings and arrows of preachdom
(so much like Jud, but mercifully, without his utter agnorance). But, my
respect (for you) grows for your total commitment and fundamental verstehen
despite your 'tone'.
much regards
michael
>
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>
>>> 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?
No, rene, I didn't forget, sorry, just didn't relate it immediately in each
case to "lying" as such... OK, you've re-minded me, and I'll be looking
again at previous posts.
>> 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?
No! I simply asked how you see the retention of the OD as a stumbling
block... that be-ing with-draws?
> 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.
I have not denied this.
> Because a critics like Jud's is itself lastly a consequence of od: Das
Sein
> [-as Sein des Seienden-] wird zum Gespoett.
I 'understand' everything up to "wird zum Gespoett"; can you please
trans-late for me?
> 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,
With no attempt at an anticipatory denial on my part, please explain/reason
how/why ontological difference is (the last vestige of?) metaphysics: again
I am not denying such a claim, but want it substantiated in some way...
> 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.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure at all that "further development of ontol.
difference" is at all "the reduction of what is to an essential being".
Precisely the ontological difference demands/commands the (different)
difference between be-ing and any being (or all beings, or
beings-as-a-whole, or the common-ness or averageness or 'essence' of beings,
etc), and demands it not be reduced to such flattening. To do THIS would be
madness! What re-mains with the dissolution of the OD? Is this the same as
what remains when the destruction of appearance means the destruction of the
real in Nietzsche? A play of surfaces without the depth that surfaces need
to BE superficial?
> That is what can be seen
> everywhere now: the continuance of burned-out metaphysical notions, which
bring
> highly destructive PHYSICAL annihilation.
Right on, there. But then it demands we difference the metaphysical with
utmost care.
>
>> 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?
A certain acquaintance, surely, but not necessarily, fluency; especially
given the fact of others' fluency on the list: my point. Surely you can
admit a seriousness not entirely academic?
I'm sorry, but I think your suggestion to stay away from Heidegger if the
accent is on the poetic, the musical, is highly insulting, and worse,
narrow. It's not a matter of "enlarge [ing] art (with philosophy and great
themes etc.)", perhaps more a matter of incorporation, of an other kind of
total commitment; perhaps in the same manner you bring EmineM to bare...
Heidegger saw the intimacy of poesis and thinking, no? despite their
differences, no? Duty and responsibility are precisely incorporated in what
I referred to as "commitment" above, and thus are seriously involved in
other ways of intimating with Heidegger?
> I delight in the apocalypsos you bring to the list.
>
> i don't, Michael.
A pity. Delight is not at all happiness or simple (or complex) pleasure. A
dark light is still a light and alight(ing).
>> *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
Publicly?
> 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...
So, open up such a perspective, huh? I do not see how or why enjoying [see
delight above] Heidegger is _necessarily_ achieved by what you call "lying".
Your expose[acute accent]s seem to exclude your own... I think in some cases
your passion (wonderful as such) exceeds your reason (bewidering sometimes
as such) and thus exposes your self to the slings and arrows of preachdom
(so much like Jud, but mercifully, without his utter agnorance). But, my
respect (for you) grows for your total commitment and fundamental verstehen
despite your 'tone'.
much regards
michael
>
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---