Lo!
Malcom Riddoch:
I'm not sure what point you are making here James. By 'technosis' do
> you mean techno stress? That Greens concerns about biosphere
> destruction and resource depletion are dishonestly amplified by fear
> mongering and doomsday scenarios?
Moi:
'Technosis' refers to 'teknosis', a term coined by John Biram in his book
with the same name. It is the obsession with technology and the ignorance of
the fact that technology is a means to ends. Basically he takes Jacques
Ellul's thoughts from "The Technological Society" and labels the phenomena
'teknosis'. Although I agree with your statement somewhat (about the
amplification by fear/mongering/doomsday scenarios), what I intended to say
was that the milieu parties' are equally as tied to technological progress
for their solutions as any other major party . However, they would like us
to think that there will be a clean reform. And that's what it's about:
reform. It is not about revolution. What it leads to is environmentally
friendly ways to continue raping the earth. Total war.
Do you want reform (alternative energy sources) to secure your future?
Malcom:
> I think resource depletion, biosphere destruction and global warming
> are increasingly valid scientific concerns as we enter the 21st
> century. As far as I'm concerned all these human problems are
> interrelated and part of a wider human problem, as factical effects of
> the ontological gigantism Heidegger points to in his problem concerning
> technology. They're effects of the structure of our own historically
> constituted, modern human understanding.
Moi:
Indeed.
Sir Riddoch:
> I've been delving back into Heidegger's Nietzsche since the run up to
> the invasion of Iraq and interpreting neoconservatism from the
> perspective of his critique of Nazism. In the current world context I
> do find it cause for concern that our collective approach to what seems
> to be an impending global economic crash brought on by an energy crisis
> is almost certainly going to continue down the path of war rather than
> the internationalism that is needed to mitigate the transition to
> alternative energies and the different ways of life they might support.
Me thinks:
I have yet to read "Nietzsche" by Heidegger. Although certain people I know
rave about it. However, these persons, for the most part, have not read
Nietzsche. You're saying that there is a Heideggerian critique of Nazism
within "Nietzsche"? "His critique" = ?
I also see the problem with the ensuing chaos through the world, but I'm
not suprised. I think this story being played out is in congruence with the
European war stories played out (atleast) since the fall of the Roman
Empire. To some extent I want to ask you: how could we have internationalism
without war? The reason why we are in need of alternative energies is due to
those with most control over the war interests. From here until the end it
seems to be supply and demand, ones and zeros, 'scarcity of resources', ad
nauseum.
> I certainly don't intend to stress anyone out about it all, this is
> just the conclusion I'm coming to given my starting proposition, which
> was to take Gestell seriously as the structure of our current form of
> modernity.
Well, I think most philosophers avoid political engagement because they're
afraid. Strauss writes that Socrates avoided politics until late in his life
because he knew he would be killed if he were political when young.
"We confront the practical fact of living in a transient world which is not
characterized by devlopment per se but by development toward specific
conditions. Our technological world is not an area of unlimited
possibilities; rather, it possesses and embryonic character which drives
toward a predetermined maturity."
Ernst Jünger, "Technology as the Mobilization of the World Through the
Gestalt of the Worker, "p. 277
Fanx,
James
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Malcom Riddoch:
I'm not sure what point you are making here James. By 'technosis' do
> you mean techno stress? That Greens concerns about biosphere
> destruction and resource depletion are dishonestly amplified by fear
> mongering and doomsday scenarios?
Moi:
'Technosis' refers to 'teknosis', a term coined by John Biram in his book
with the same name. It is the obsession with technology and the ignorance of
the fact that technology is a means to ends. Basically he takes Jacques
Ellul's thoughts from "The Technological Society" and labels the phenomena
'teknosis'. Although I agree with your statement somewhat (about the
amplification by fear/mongering/doomsday scenarios), what I intended to say
was that the milieu parties' are equally as tied to technological progress
for their solutions as any other major party . However, they would like us
to think that there will be a clean reform. And that's what it's about:
reform. It is not about revolution. What it leads to is environmentally
friendly ways to continue raping the earth. Total war.
Do you want reform (alternative energy sources) to secure your future?
Malcom:
> I think resource depletion, biosphere destruction and global warming
> are increasingly valid scientific concerns as we enter the 21st
> century. As far as I'm concerned all these human problems are
> interrelated and part of a wider human problem, as factical effects of
> the ontological gigantism Heidegger points to in his problem concerning
> technology. They're effects of the structure of our own historically
> constituted, modern human understanding.
Moi:
Indeed.
Sir Riddoch:
> I've been delving back into Heidegger's Nietzsche since the run up to
> the invasion of Iraq and interpreting neoconservatism from the
> perspective of his critique of Nazism. In the current world context I
> do find it cause for concern that our collective approach to what seems
> to be an impending global economic crash brought on by an energy crisis
> is almost certainly going to continue down the path of war rather than
> the internationalism that is needed to mitigate the transition to
> alternative energies and the different ways of life they might support.
Me thinks:
I have yet to read "Nietzsche" by Heidegger. Although certain people I know
rave about it. However, these persons, for the most part, have not read
Nietzsche. You're saying that there is a Heideggerian critique of Nazism
within "Nietzsche"? "His critique" = ?
I also see the problem with the ensuing chaos through the world, but I'm
not suprised. I think this story being played out is in congruence with the
European war stories played out (atleast) since the fall of the Roman
Empire. To some extent I want to ask you: how could we have internationalism
without war? The reason why we are in need of alternative energies is due to
those with most control over the war interests. From here until the end it
seems to be supply and demand, ones and zeros, 'scarcity of resources', ad
nauseum.
> I certainly don't intend to stress anyone out about it all, this is
> just the conclusion I'm coming to given my starting proposition, which
> was to take Gestell seriously as the structure of our current form of
> modernity.
Well, I think most philosophers avoid political engagement because they're
afraid. Strauss writes that Socrates avoided politics until late in his life
because he knew he would be killed if he were political when young.
"We confront the practical fact of living in a transient world which is not
characterized by devlopment per se but by development toward specific
conditions. Our technological world is not an area of unlimited
possibilities; rather, it possesses and embryonic character which drives
toward a predetermined maturity."
Ernst Jünger, "Technology as the Mobilization of the World Through the
Gestalt of the Worker, "p. 277
Fanx,
James
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---