James says:
> Hi,
>
> I expected a bombardment of similar replies...
> I appreciate your position and I'm sure my opinions concede to yours on
> varying levels. I figured my statement on encouraged passivity would be seen
> as problematic - problematic for that it implies a subjectivity that a
> Heideggerian is right to criticize:
> E.g. Rene's post on 2004.10.25 12:22 GMT "Re: Energy decline and
> totalitarianism" ["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)"]
>
> The thrust of the statement on political passivity (pol. passivity is
> something that I see as insiduous to Heidegger to on certain levels) was to
> put focus on the need of philosophical thinking *and action* regarding
> tradition(s). In other words, waiting for God is awe-somely trite. The gods
> have forced a hotblooded stream to flow through some of us. I ask you if you
> don't feel at all the same -- if you're not also thrown into the
> 'responsibility of the intellectuals'?
James, the hotblooded stream runs through me too (too much). Thinking
neither-passivity-nor-activity is still thinking and is the very response of
the intellectual-qua-intellectual; the attempt to think non-subjectively --
as not a subject -- (if indeed possible; it's similar to thinking
non-predicatively, extremely difficult if not impossible) is (in this case)
the "'responsibility of the intellectuals'". Could thinking
non-subjectively (as not-a-subject) be something like allowing thinking to
happen without a thinker, setting thinking free of the thinker who thinks?
Waiting upon X (like a waiter waits upon a table, not so much waiting for
X)? Isn't that what the beckettian tramps do wrt godot? In the mean time,
time times, we witness the timing of time, awhiling... not nothing.
regards
michaelP
>
>
> Kind Hailings,
> James
>
> ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
> Från: "michaelP" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Till: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Skickat: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:27
> Ämne: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
>
>
>> > Rene:
>> >> Gods might pass by, without being noticed.
>>
>> James:
>> > I find that very likely, considering, what I see to be, the extremely
>> > passive position Heidegger encourages us to assume.
>> >
>>
>> James, for me,, heidegger neither encourages passivity nor activity (all
>> that activity could be seen as the problem) but rather encourages us to
> see
>> non-subjectively (subjectivity involves both passivity and activity,
>> thus...), and that is his extraordinary value as a thinker (for me, that
>> is).
>>
>> regards
>>
>> michaelP
>>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Hi,
>
> I expected a bombardment of similar replies...
> I appreciate your position and I'm sure my opinions concede to yours on
> varying levels. I figured my statement on encouraged passivity would be seen
> as problematic - problematic for that it implies a subjectivity that a
> Heideggerian is right to criticize:
> E.g. Rene's post on 2004.10.25 12:22 GMT "Re: Energy decline and
> totalitarianism" ["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)"]
>
> The thrust of the statement on political passivity (pol. passivity is
> something that I see as insiduous to Heidegger to on certain levels) was to
> put focus on the need of philosophical thinking *and action* regarding
> tradition(s). In other words, waiting for God is awe-somely trite. The gods
> have forced a hotblooded stream to flow through some of us. I ask you if you
> don't feel at all the same -- if you're not also thrown into the
> 'responsibility of the intellectuals'?
James, the hotblooded stream runs through me too (too much). Thinking
neither-passivity-nor-activity is still thinking and is the very response of
the intellectual-qua-intellectual; the attempt to think non-subjectively --
as not a subject -- (if indeed possible; it's similar to thinking
non-predicatively, extremely difficult if not impossible) is (in this case)
the "'responsibility of the intellectuals'". Could thinking
non-subjectively (as not-a-subject) be something like allowing thinking to
happen without a thinker, setting thinking free of the thinker who thinks?
Waiting upon X (like a waiter waits upon a table, not so much waiting for
X)? Isn't that what the beckettian tramps do wrt godot? In the mean time,
time times, we witness the timing of time, awhiling... not nothing.
regards
michaelP
>
>
> Kind Hailings,
> James
>
> ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
> Från: "michaelP" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Till: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Skickat: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:27
> Ämne: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
>
>
>> > Rene:
>> >> Gods might pass by, without being noticed.
>>
>> James:
>> > I find that very likely, considering, what I see to be, the extremely
>> > passive position Heidegger encourages us to assume.
>> >
>>
>> James, for me,, heidegger neither encourages passivity nor activity (all
>> that activity could be seen as the problem) but rather encourages us to
> see
>> non-subjectively (subjectivity involves both passivity and activity,
>> thus...), and that is his extraordinary value as a thinker (for me, that
>> is).
>>
>> regards
>>
>> michaelP
>>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---