-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
Verzonden: donderdag 4 november 2004 3:41
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: Eminem mosh - Susskind
rene writes,
True, but i'd prefer very much his barking to your feeling sorry.
I thought you would feel this way.
A barking as a result of an impossible situation, points to an
inevitability, a being driven rather than freedom, not?
I think the current notion of freedom is worthy of decaying.
It's now just the freedom of the individual consumer. They say that
Western children have, at the age of 18, consumed 40.000 tv murders.
I think Jan and myself started a discussion of freedom. It seems the will or
desire is enslaved by cognition intent on grasping an object as answer to
its doubting hindrances that cause it problems that are perceived as having
to have a solution. I have been looking through Hanna Arendt's _Life of the
Mind_ volume two and she thinks that the domain of the will belongs to the
category of causality, "which Heidegger, in agreement with Nietzche, derives
from the the willing ego's experiences of causing effects, hence from an
illusion produced by consciousness." More than this Nietzsche says that the
will is an instinct for punishing and judging. It deprides becoming of its
innocence whenver "being in this or that state is traced back to will, to
intentions, to accountable acts: the doctrine of the will has been invented
essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is of finding guilty"
(twilight of the idols, the four great errors). They are accountable because
they can be inserted within a cause-effect narrative by a sort of
cause-finding drive that Nietzsche writes is the oldest psychology where all
events "is an action, every action the effect of a will, the world became
for it (the oldest psychology) a multiplicity of agents, an agent
('subject') foisted itself upon every event." (the four great errors).
Another error is that a chance occurrrence is given a *human* meaning
because following our own image we believe any chance event has to be
motivate by a cause or reason. This great convalescent knows from experience
that the cause-looking curiosity of this drive is drive by our need to find
a meaningful cause to feelings: "every sort of restraint, pressure, tension,
explosion in the play and counter-play of our organs, likewise and
especially the condition of the nervous sympaticus -- excite our
cause-creating drive." In the manner of Hume Nietzsche points that the
experience of the impression of previous memories are used in this causal
explanation where what is more memory is always the reservoir of utilitarian
interests. To begin to understand this construction of consciousness by a
utilitarian will is to see what blinds from recognizing the withdrawal and
essential swaying of Beyng. Ereignis is completely unexpected and a chance
happening which we are not even sure happens because it's a riddle to human
understanding. We probably have to have a good sense for an amor fati as
Nietzsche says. If we twist free from a subjectivistic or anthropological
human comprehension that is always willfully grasping an object by defining
its causes through a synthesis of the categories then the liberation of the
will is at the same time a submission to necessity, to need, to fate. Here
is where we discover the release of a destiny as the differentiation of a
non-willed de-cision that is 'free' and that separates sky and earth, gods
and mortals creating the pathos that Nietzsche calls *distance* which is to
say openness, Ereignis of the truth. As an alternative to the rulership of
instrumental reason Arendt writes that we have gellasenheit which she
describes as a listening activity that in letting be obeys the call of being
and prepares us for thinking that is non-willing. I would say that it is
already thinking that is non-wiling. When the discussion turns to questions
having to do with understanding how consciousness is constructed in order to
comprehend and master events then this is falls under what Heidegger calls
the GUIDING question. Once we start to leap or cross over and through
another beginning then we are in a GROUNDING question. The history of
metaphysics falls under the guiding question whereas destiny or amor fati is
the unexpected arrival or 'fall' of a grouding question.
The guiding question as is clear now is a question of questioning, of asking
the question "what is a thing". It doesn't matter if the thing is an event
we are still treating it as a thing when we inquire in a subjectivistic or
human manner or under the subject-predicate order: "... we call the question
"What is being?" the *guiding* question, in contrast to the more original
question we call the *grounding* question (Nietzsche: volume 2 pg 193 in the
English translation)." The leap is that from the human to the overman that
is negotiated by listening to Zarathustra's teaching of the most abysmal
thought of the eternal recurrence which forever remains a sealed door, a
limit, remains the frontier of metaphysical thinking where it gets tied up
in a complex system of aporetic knots,-- cloud of ink of an octopus and dark
night of propositional discourse! This is the only *chance* we have Rene. I
was reading the postings for May 2004 around the time you were talking to
Aquino before he left. You were saying the things that needed to be said and
I agree with the basic drift and direction of your Heidegger thoughts and
objections.
Agreeing on Heidegger is a difficult thing. Agreeing, like disagreeing is
a form of translation. But the only real translation is the one exceeding
correctness, no preceding it
You are reading Heidegger well but sometimes you make and
encourage all this stupid nonsense that is no more than the expression of
subjectivistic opinions. Your discussions with Judes are sometimes and often
pure clash of wills and plague of opinions on this list. I don't feel sorry
for you in the least bit for getting caught in the trap of an operatic
buffoon whom you seem to think is more honest than he is. You are the person
the least likely to be intimidated on this list, you always have been but
your strong nature gets you into stupid and agressive subjectivitic opinions
that are not *grounded* in REAL issues on this list.
You know it better too? You KNOW what the issues are? I don't know what
the issues are, and insofar you, or MichaelP, or Anthony, or Jud, or
anyone say they do, i'm curious to hear, but when i press a bit, it
appears they all don't know. But they cannot admit that, so they are
in a trap. I'm curious about the mechanism at work, and i think that it
is a real issue.
Not being able to admit is, writes H in Nietzsche, the feature of all
power. So above all, Nietzsche would be its victim, the one who is our
only hope, as you say. But then we should be a lot more moderate. And
i think that that is our only chance, as a whole, but also everyone for
himself.
Here we have our first ritual murder. The victim Theo van Gogh is a
grandgrandson of the brother of Vincent, and he lost more than an ear.
The constellation of things and persons is really bizar...
Anyway, the ugly hypocrisy of those getting afraid now, while supporting
a slaughter of 100.000, is too massive to admit. A fortiori the slaughter
of the Germans, and the burning of their houses in the former century.
Talking to Jud (after having fallen into a similar trap you are now in)
has resulted in clearer exposure of the mechanism, and i consider those
trapped not as responsible individuals, that is: not insofar as they are
trapped.
You are one of the
respected elders or senators on this list so I think you should try and act
more responsibly and start leading [as should peep, jan, and others...and
judes can be the clown] deeper, more serious and esoteric discussions so we
can start establishing the production of a conversational circle that we
can be proud of belonging to.
Best Wishes,
Ariosto
You're making the same point as MichaelP. But to me the esoteric and the
profund are the annoyance, if they are used to be superior.
I consider this to be at the heart of the issue of the rotten race: we're
all together in this abyss, and esp. the parentless are more exposed to it
than others, and who's not without father and mostly mother too?
But philosophy or theology are not an answer to that. But why should i get
annoyed at all those lying their way out? Should i be jealous? Should i
try convince them? I rather respect their refusal of philosophy, which is
more philosphical than they (can) think, than placing myself higher, but
inevitably on the burst ground they're standing on.
Notice that the by you adduced Nietzsche considered widerwille and
contempt his biggest enemies. Only contempt *out of love* is just,
and only 'amor fati' is able to see Venus' smiling in everything
that encounters.
"Who did corrupt as first the loving bonds?" As long as we carry the dog's
necklace, that came instead, everything becomes narrowed, and there's no
real breathing.
Hoelderlin was ridiculed, not only by Schiller. He published the
Night-songs, but sophisticated aesthetes missed the esoteric, i guess.
Heidegger has been scolded by all those with their finesounding names.
i remember "ruediger Hund", filthy dog. Of course they'll deny, like
our ownmost Jud now denies. But we're not going to bring to him the pleasure
of defending himself and attack his dogman. One can witness the dissection,
if one is satisfied with a good memory rather than a good philosophy.
best
rene
X - here's the envious Cerberus, cave canem.
X - (Cerberus' spot)
_________________________________________________________________
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special
stationery, fonts and colors.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---