I fail then again at casting pearls (or even more like, stale crumbs);
enough; Jud, I fear you'd make a terrible musician: you do not know how to
*listen* (quietly, without comment, otherwise you can not hear any thing
except your self: of course, I am speaking of hermeneutics here, not the
business of accurate reception of the ear-brain), and worse, you do know
that you do not know, and so, ingenuously immediately, losing/wasting no
time over thinking/listening/digging ,fill in all the spaces offered up with
the same old turnarounds and counterattacks (as if you'd been attacked or
asked to perform an unutterably disgusting task); and that's why, despite
all your terrifying talents, wit and intelligence, you haven't the slightest
inkling (philosophy-wise), you don't have the grace to tinkle, twinkle or
tingle. Shame.
regards
michaelP
ps: if you bother responding to me on this in any other way than taking up
what I have suggested, even for a brief fun interlude between the usual
headbangings, then do not expect a reply from me: no point.
> In a message dated 12/10/2004 07:24:40 GMT Standard Time,
> michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Jud, after (wow) finding out that ordinary germans wittingly or unwittingly
> went along with the holocaust asks this:
>
>> But who gave Heidegger HIS orders? Did he NEED them? Did he give HIMSELF
>> [will to will]
>
>
> Jud:
> You really make me smile [genuinely] Michael. Did you think for one moment
> that I was unaware
> of the complicity of the majority of the German people in the persecution of
> the Jews?
> The first thing I noticed when I visited Germany for the first time after
> the war [actually in 1958]
> as a member of a Liverpool Labour Party delegation to Kassel, I was amazed
> at the organised way that the Germans
> structured their society, and the horrified looks upon the faces of ordinary
> Germans if any little detail of their robot-like
> hive-life was *abused.* I was amazed at the celebration and ubiquity of
> uniforms — everybody who was involved in any way with an organisation
> of any kind wore a uniform. Newspaper vendors appeared to be dressed like
> fieldmarshals, and pedestrian-crossing keepers
> acted like little Hitlers - striding to the centre of the road and
> perfunctorily holding their lollipops aloft like it was Roman Tribune's
insignia.
> Counter clerks barked orders at each other, and ticket clerks passed tickets
> to travellers with a quick, sharp arm extension
> which reminded one of those Gestapo police screaming "Papers! Papers! Their
> society [like the Japanese one] reminded me of an anthill
> or perhaps a beehive. The place was spotless of course — but it completely
> lacked a *soul* [to borrow a religious term.] ;-)
>
> Michael:
> Jud, if you were to truly ASK this question of what calls for Heidegger's
> thinking (the "giving of orders"), the es gibt, and the relation of this to
> "necessity" and "will", and not just look for a ready-made answer or
> ridicule or the tired flattened version of questioning as a questionnaire,
> not just jump the gun, but perhaps allow a real space of the question-mark
> to enter your orbit, a pause in the relentless pursuit of know-it-all
> certainty, the taint of certainty, register the question-mark as a fermata,
> an erotic tension in the allowing of stillness before plunging in with what
> you already have in excess.... you just might think in the sense of awaiting
> an answer to your call.
>
> Jud:
> The same old Heideggerian shibboleth I'm afraid
>
> (1) If you were to truly ask...
> (2) If you were to read Heidegger with...
>
> Those words could have been said to Heidegger by Father Krebs when Heidegger
> jacked in the Catholic church.
> Heideggerianism [like Catholicism] is a FAITH - it is not something RATIONAL
> which the intellect accepts
> as an acceptable representation of the world and how we should address the
> environment in which we find ourselves.
> Those that lack the *faith* are seen as being in some way *blind* or
> *stupid* or *lazy* for not reading more of the *word.*
> It never occurs to heideggerians to question the creed, to look inwardly,
> and ask themselves:
> "Hold on a moment — just what am I asking this guy to swallow? If he tried
> to tell me that there was a little purple lizard who lives in the bole of an
> oak which is in direct contact with Buckingham Palace and controls the royal
> family by means of thought transference — would I believe him?
> The above illustration is no silliness, for such is the incredibleness and
> implausibility of Heidegger's childish doctrines of *Being* and the
> see-through Daseinic trick, that in my book if you believe Heidegger you are
very
> likely to believe me concerning my craniate arboreal controller.
>
> Once an intelligent person has read and absorbed Heidegger's Grundbegriffe
> and recognised its childishness there is no turning back —
> no enrolment in the philosophical kindergarten is possible. The brain
> rejects that which is patently puerile, and the only way to overcome
> disbelief is to begin to FORCE ONESELF to believe — irrationally —
> inauthentically — dishonestly. I have to much self-respect to lower myself
into what
> I see as the ruminative gutter, and intellectually speaking I perceive
> Heideggerianism as the philosophical equivalent of skid-row.
>
>
> Michael:
> You are in close proximity to genuine questioning
> (particularly if you isolate the question from your concern with "Heidegger
> the Nazi" and with laying blame, from the question concerning the "giving",
> the "needing" and the "willing" [please do not just respond with your 'X
> does not exist' mantra, a copout] with which you begin above.
>
> Jud:
> Jud;
> As I have said many times before, Heidegger's fanatical Nazism is a
> side-issue, the main evil is his philosophy.
> The fact that his politics were evil too [as well as his doctrines] is
> instructive in the way it points to his whole *Being*
> being evil and inextricable mixed. As Rockmore says:
>
>
> ' ... Heidegger's original approach to Being was as being is manifest in the
> "here and now" -- Dasein, being (sein) here (da). This introduces a
> positivistic, Hegelian ("the real is rational") aspect to any possible moral
guidance
> from this system. The here and now in 1933 meant Adolf Hitler. The truth and
> greatness of National Socialism was an authentic "uncovering" of Being. When
> this didn't seem to work out, Being "withdrew" itself, according to
> Heidegger. '
>
> Jud:
> We can see here that Heidegger's *Being* is no more than a lifestyle tool,
> to be traded in for another version, depending upon the circumstances of the
> zeitgeist.
> First it is the Catholic church which was: *The authentic "uncovering" of
> Being, then *Being* withdrew into its transcendental shell again, then out it
> pops once more as Lutheranism was passed the baton of *Being.* Then
*Being*
> bows out once more, but only to emerge again like some Nazi eagle from a
> cuckoo-clock as Nazism became the final custodian of *Being* and remained the
> true steward of his soul until his dying breath.
>
> MIchael:
> Trans-late your (thinking) self from "orders" to "calls" and "who" to "what"
> and
> bracket out (for now, not for ever) the concern with Nazism, and, if you
> pause a while, you might be asking as to the very be-coming of philosophy
> its self. Otherwise, it's just ridicule business as usual: shame.
>
>
> Jud:
> In an exchange with Ted Keller on Relativism and Marxism, by Kelley Ross:
>
> 'Hitler was no philosopher and gave no intellectual respectability to
> Fascism. That it got from philosophers like Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.
Heid
> egger, indeed, is the perfect relativistic philosopher of Fascism, as he
> recognised and honestly acted upon himself. The self-deception or bad faith of
the
> deconstructionists and "post-modernists" who constitute the vanguard of
> contemporary relativism is that they do not or cannot translate their obvious
> intellectual dependence on Heidegger into an acknowledgement of the
totalitarian
> nature of their own project. If truth, indeed, is just a matter of POWER, as
> Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault can all agree, then actual power is
> actually self-justifying, and no mere intellectual objections to it, whether
> in the name of truth or justice, have any meaning. The mere powerless
> individual, who to Socrates or Kant may actually be alone in seeing the
Truth,
> becomes a mere meaningless "abstraction" to all sub-Hegelian theories.'
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jud
>
> Personal Website:
> _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
> (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
> E-mail Discussion List:
> nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
enough; Jud, I fear you'd make a terrible musician: you do not know how to
*listen* (quietly, without comment, otherwise you can not hear any thing
except your self: of course, I am speaking of hermeneutics here, not the
business of accurate reception of the ear-brain), and worse, you do know
that you do not know, and so, ingenuously immediately, losing/wasting no
time over thinking/listening/digging ,fill in all the spaces offered up with
the same old turnarounds and counterattacks (as if you'd been attacked or
asked to perform an unutterably disgusting task); and that's why, despite
all your terrifying talents, wit and intelligence, you haven't the slightest
inkling (philosophy-wise), you don't have the grace to tinkle, twinkle or
tingle. Shame.
regards
michaelP
ps: if you bother responding to me on this in any other way than taking up
what I have suggested, even for a brief fun interlude between the usual
headbangings, then do not expect a reply from me: no point.
> In a message dated 12/10/2004 07:24:40 GMT Standard Time,
> michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Jud, after (wow) finding out that ordinary germans wittingly or unwittingly
> went along with the holocaust asks this:
>
>> But who gave Heidegger HIS orders? Did he NEED them? Did he give HIMSELF
>> [will to will]
>
>
> Jud:
> You really make me smile [genuinely] Michael. Did you think for one moment
> that I was unaware
> of the complicity of the majority of the German people in the persecution of
> the Jews?
> The first thing I noticed when I visited Germany for the first time after
> the war [actually in 1958]
> as a member of a Liverpool Labour Party delegation to Kassel, I was amazed
> at the organised way that the Germans
> structured their society, and the horrified looks upon the faces of ordinary
> Germans if any little detail of their robot-like
> hive-life was *abused.* I was amazed at the celebration and ubiquity of
> uniforms — everybody who was involved in any way with an organisation
> of any kind wore a uniform. Newspaper vendors appeared to be dressed like
> fieldmarshals, and pedestrian-crossing keepers
> acted like little Hitlers - striding to the centre of the road and
> perfunctorily holding their lollipops aloft like it was Roman Tribune's
insignia.
> Counter clerks barked orders at each other, and ticket clerks passed tickets
> to travellers with a quick, sharp arm extension
> which reminded one of those Gestapo police screaming "Papers! Papers! Their
> society [like the Japanese one] reminded me of an anthill
> or perhaps a beehive. The place was spotless of course — but it completely
> lacked a *soul* [to borrow a religious term.] ;-)
>
> Michael:
> Jud, if you were to truly ASK this question of what calls for Heidegger's
> thinking (the "giving of orders"), the es gibt, and the relation of this to
> "necessity" and "will", and not just look for a ready-made answer or
> ridicule or the tired flattened version of questioning as a questionnaire,
> not just jump the gun, but perhaps allow a real space of the question-mark
> to enter your orbit, a pause in the relentless pursuit of know-it-all
> certainty, the taint of certainty, register the question-mark as a fermata,
> an erotic tension in the allowing of stillness before plunging in with what
> you already have in excess.... you just might think in the sense of awaiting
> an answer to your call.
>
> Jud:
> The same old Heideggerian shibboleth I'm afraid
>
> (1) If you were to truly ask...
> (2) If you were to read Heidegger with...
>
> Those words could have been said to Heidegger by Father Krebs when Heidegger
> jacked in the Catholic church.
> Heideggerianism [like Catholicism] is a FAITH - it is not something RATIONAL
> which the intellect accepts
> as an acceptable representation of the world and how we should address the
> environment in which we find ourselves.
> Those that lack the *faith* are seen as being in some way *blind* or
> *stupid* or *lazy* for not reading more of the *word.*
> It never occurs to heideggerians to question the creed, to look inwardly,
> and ask themselves:
> "Hold on a moment — just what am I asking this guy to swallow? If he tried
> to tell me that there was a little purple lizard who lives in the bole of an
> oak which is in direct contact with Buckingham Palace and controls the royal
> family by means of thought transference — would I believe him?
> The above illustration is no silliness, for such is the incredibleness and
> implausibility of Heidegger's childish doctrines of *Being* and the
> see-through Daseinic trick, that in my book if you believe Heidegger you are
very
> likely to believe me concerning my craniate arboreal controller.
>
> Once an intelligent person has read and absorbed Heidegger's Grundbegriffe
> and recognised its childishness there is no turning back —
> no enrolment in the philosophical kindergarten is possible. The brain
> rejects that which is patently puerile, and the only way to overcome
> disbelief is to begin to FORCE ONESELF to believe — irrationally —
> inauthentically — dishonestly. I have to much self-respect to lower myself
into what
> I see as the ruminative gutter, and intellectually speaking I perceive
> Heideggerianism as the philosophical equivalent of skid-row.
>
>
> Michael:
> You are in close proximity to genuine questioning
> (particularly if you isolate the question from your concern with "Heidegger
> the Nazi" and with laying blame, from the question concerning the "giving",
> the "needing" and the "willing" [please do not just respond with your 'X
> does not exist' mantra, a copout] with which you begin above.
>
> Jud:
> Jud;
> As I have said many times before, Heidegger's fanatical Nazism is a
> side-issue, the main evil is his philosophy.
> The fact that his politics were evil too [as well as his doctrines] is
> instructive in the way it points to his whole *Being*
> being evil and inextricable mixed. As Rockmore says:
>
>
> ' ... Heidegger's original approach to Being was as being is manifest in the
> "here and now" -- Dasein, being (sein) here (da). This introduces a
> positivistic, Hegelian ("the real is rational") aspect to any possible moral
guidance
> from this system. The here and now in 1933 meant Adolf Hitler. The truth and
> greatness of National Socialism was an authentic "uncovering" of Being. When
> this didn't seem to work out, Being "withdrew" itself, according to
> Heidegger. '
>
> Jud:
> We can see here that Heidegger's *Being* is no more than a lifestyle tool,
> to be traded in for another version, depending upon the circumstances of the
> zeitgeist.
> First it is the Catholic church which was: *The authentic "uncovering" of
> Being, then *Being* withdrew into its transcendental shell again, then out it
> pops once more as Lutheranism was passed the baton of *Being.* Then
*Being*
> bows out once more, but only to emerge again like some Nazi eagle from a
> cuckoo-clock as Nazism became the final custodian of *Being* and remained the
> true steward of his soul until his dying breath.
>
> MIchael:
> Trans-late your (thinking) self from "orders" to "calls" and "who" to "what"
> and
> bracket out (for now, not for ever) the concern with Nazism, and, if you
> pause a while, you might be asking as to the very be-coming of philosophy
> its self. Otherwise, it's just ridicule business as usual: shame.
>
>
> Jud:
> In an exchange with Ted Keller on Relativism and Marxism, by Kelley Ross:
>
> 'Hitler was no philosopher and gave no intellectual respectability to
> Fascism. That it got from philosophers like Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.
Heid
> egger, indeed, is the perfect relativistic philosopher of Fascism, as he
> recognised and honestly acted upon himself. The self-deception or bad faith of
the
> deconstructionists and "post-modernists" who constitute the vanguard of
> contemporary relativism is that they do not or cannot translate their obvious
> intellectual dependence on Heidegger into an acknowledgement of the
totalitarian
> nature of their own project. If truth, indeed, is just a matter of POWER, as
> Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault can all agree, then actual power is
> actually self-justifying, and no mere intellectual objections to it, whether
> in the name of truth or justice, have any meaning. The mere powerless
> individual, who to Socrates or Kant may actually be alone in seeing the
Truth,
> becomes a mere meaningless "abstraction" to all sub-Hegelian theories.'
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jud
>
> Personal Website:
> _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
> (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
> E-mail Discussion List:
> nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---