-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: maandag 25 oktober 2004 15:15
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
rene just now (whatever that means):
> Thanks Malcolm for the energy boost of the Heidegger list.
> (We've got to raise more energy than the earth is losing)
>
> Hydrogen energy, or whatever TECHNOLOGICAL effort to face the
> permanent crisis we're in, CANNOT be a solution, Suppose even,
> that it would work somehow, then the real problem just remains,
> waiting to become acute in what always will be unforseeable
> circumstances.
>
> The only 'solution' can be: not working towards solutions anymore.
> They themselves are the trouble. Cos they have their ground in
> (the holding sway of) subjectivity. And any widerwille or rage
> against not being able to bring solutions, will only entangle more
> into subjectivism, at last completely irrational subjectivism.
> (fundamentalism: principle of reason as will-to-will)
>
> And meanwhile letting the world fall apart? Sure, it cannot be saved,
> it is wrong to try to save THIS any longer. Cut the ropes, and stand
> on your own feet, that's postmodern individualism, i suppose: carry
> the cross of metaphysical completion: a destiny.
>
> (then behind the world may come the earth)
Brilliantly put. The fundamental problem (which is ultimately not a problem)
is perhaps the very entanglement/complex -- problem-solution -- its self. It
(the problem-solution complex) needs to get lost, to be left, closed down
like a window of a computer application, deprived of energy [sic]. What's
left? A surprise, perhaps...
Hoelderlin, Nietzsche and Heidegger all expect an unequalled revolution.
Now, if you go along, Michael, one might see here one more time, and sharper,
why it is not allowed to step aside like disillusioned passive nihilists.
Juenger, in Eumeswil, has described this last man, living by the African coast,
using the remainders of a foregone civilization, and without any spontaneity
left.
That's why, as long as nothing new arrives, we'll have to stick to technology,
as the only chance to turn the wheel, which cannot even really be done by us
(remember: "no human institution alone...")
So the surprise would be in the 'cooperating instance', of which nothing can be
said on beforehand.
Hoelderlin has already described the different phases of this happening.
Heidegger has gone back to the presuppositions that must be met if a change
will have any chance. Gods might pass by, without being noticed.
regards
rene
i'm rather busy just now, so i haven't answered your last post,
as i didn't Ariosto's (who will grant me the favor of calling
him Diabolo, won't he?), and perhaps even more. I'll catch up.
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---