On Saturday, October 30, 2004, at 12:55 AM, James Garrabrant wrote:
I find
this (*almost an authentic revolution*) to be an oftcited argument for
apologists of Heidegger's affiliation with nazism.
In what sense? I find Heidegger's philosophical entanglement with Nazism rather fascinating and, quite the contrary to the apologists, deeply implicated in his fundamental philosophy. What this means is not simple however, no matter what the anti-apologists might think, but goes to the heart of our modern order of which Nazism was only one historical effect. I take his Nazi affiliation deadly seriously as for me it is central to his entire deconstruction of Nietzsche, its problem concerning technology, and the later task for thinking. From the Kehre through to his demise in 1976.
There is no need for patrimony. In saying "worst thing that could happen" I
meant not "the worst thing, all environmental possibilities included" but
rather "the worst thing that could happen would be that there is no
environmental disaster or that it only affects already destitute regions and
our life continues in a bubble..." I have no doubt whatever happens (and I
plan on disaster) that the government will hang for all it can.
My apologies for misunderstanding your irony and I agree that business as usual would be a disaster although I cannot separate that from the ongoing political and environmental disasters. I don't think our modern order can continue as it is because it is based on constant growth, the growth of debtor economies, growth of consumption, growth of populations, and all this is based on the constant growth of technological order and the modern understanding that implies. Call it modernity or globalisation, it's a philosophical order for which the will to will wills nothing other than the constant expansion of its own order, 'its will is what it wills', and all else is a factical effect of this historical mass subjectivity, at least from the perspective of Heidegger's Nietzsche.
What have I not previously formulated was the problem of
modernity as a curve into the abyss. Thanks for the metaphor.
You can thank Professor A Bartlett's teachings on the simple mathematical consequences of exponential growth ( http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/econ/bartlett.htm ). I have an excellent DVD of one of his lectures that's well worth a look at if you're interested. I think the 'curve into the abyss' fits both the Nazi trajectory as well as post-WW2 globalisation and the logical possibilities of neoconservatism in the context of energy decline. The 'will to will' wills itself exponentially into a Nietzschean aporia, a form of psychosis or the complete subjectivisation of the world.
So, why do you stay in the civilized world?
Where else is there to go? Besides, I think civilisation is part of the good the true and the beautiful, it's just that our modern planetary civilisation is fundamentally flawed, it has a blind spot that is not only blindingly self-evident but actively hides itself. Our ignorance seems to be all knowing. Everything it knows, which is the world as a whole, is either amenable to calculation or a matter for baseless belief to be defended at all costs. But how do you calculate one's own blind spot, a nothing?
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---