-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: dinsdag 5 oktober 2004 18:29
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: [fyi] Economic Mythology
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:40 AM
Subject: RE: [fyi] Economic Mythology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
> Verzonden: maandag 4 oktober 2004 15:56
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: Re: [fyi] Economic Mythology
>
>
> he misses the core myth of the times, "the market", ...the deified market,
> to which everything is owed and whence all good comes, ...and its great
> adversary, "gummint", and source of all that is evil
>
>
>
> And the thinking on this myth-market is, again, the most dangerous
> form of thinking: the one that only meets confirmation, as its fuel.
> The myth of Greek myth as the mother of all myth, is the myth of the
> really helpless, of those who can keep their lips above the rising
water
> only with help of values, that miraculously have a status, just by
> claiming them: the best founded mythology: spiritual emptiness
expressed
> in physical emptiness - money.
>
> Obsessive lying shows what they really are: victims.
>
> Whoever is caught in this myth, goes under, pockets full or empty.
> Sucked by the one big vacuum cleaner.
>
> Which makes me think: when, as Heidegger writes, we've reached an age
> in which 'what is' and what's in this 'what is' (Geschick) touches
> every individual *directly*, could this have been done without the real
> existing myth of democracy and freedom...?
> Even if it's the most ingeneous of myths with a happy ending, the truth
> (destruction) of this myth has it in a fest grip. As Nietzsche hoped,
> the power of the individual then increases enormously, and he is the real
> president, to whom things and words flee.
>
> rene
Rene,
i like what you say as applied to Power; but i don't understand how you
can fail to distinguish between the creatively heuristic constructs of the
spirit and the meretricious usages of power?
Bob,
I think reality (art expositions, philosophical, political discussions) itself
shows their contamination. The analysis of contamination though serves the one
and only purpose of difference. Difference of 1: power (Macht), that remains
closed in itself, and ends in violence 2: the power of capability and will.
(Vermoegen). One has to go deep into (the indifference of) power, to set them
apart. There is a *constellation*: power (1) gets overwound, when and as long
as (2) is blocked. (1) is therefore dependent on what (1) itself is not
*capable* of admitting: an unpower at the heart of power. Must get uglier and
better visible. (obesity and cold cynicism (doggishness) cannot lie)
...got to go restore the spirit
thanks, rene, think finally get your pt, ...only can't yet concede it
exclusive validity.
Validity would imo be the inadequate word here, because we're not talking
of content and intent, but of whether the content and intent and their
restoration make a chance, when the power of nihilism is not wholly fathomed.
The best intentions can do the greatest harm here. They mostly grow on
the weak ground that cannot resist the persistance of escapist war mongers,
as is the case of Kerry, Friedman and all those who succumb to modern terror.
It's either/or here, but not for my sake, not because i would have sthing
that i know better.
But you hit the nail on the head: it is precisely this that nobody could
grant to Heidegger: that he broke through subjectivism. Instead they
take his theory, claim its superioriority and remain just what they were.
If needed, they always can ridicule the 'subject' Heidegger.
While i say: it's either *being* the Da, or merely talking about.
Between these there can be no mediation. That is: after the in-difference
has been carried to the end.
Silly. As if one can stop the message by killing the messenger.
thanks again too, Bob, talking to you always pays off.
rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---