-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens bob scheetz
Verzonden: maandag 8 november 2004 7:12
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: The Non-God in Heideggerian Thought
> Bob, could you be more specific? The decline of physis, all right,
> but this is new to me.
Rene,
I've been reading his holderlin explication and considering his congruency
with heid, and all that implies vis a vis hegel and schliermacher, the
tradition of german idealism, romanticism, and grecophilia. And whereas the
early heid of caring authentic being toward death signifies for me a death
of god theology/existentialism advancing (deconstructing) the pauline
tradition of the suffering man-god everyman, heid's holderlin seemingly
entails a tropological shift, with the disembodied poet's consciousness
everywhere reading essences thru appearances.
So what I meant was that christ, the platonic idealisation that dominates
our tradition, is every bit a greek god all the way from prometheus,
Bob,
One could add metaphysics itself. It cannot come lose of its (Greek)
origin, even when it is turned upside down by Nietzsche.
Heideggr though, as in Principle of ground, suggests that the Romans
brought a different tone into philosophy when they translated from
the Greek. (arche - ratio)
While all you say might be true, the tone might have changed everything.
At the same time the tone is not objectifiable, which could indicate
to the impossibility to knwo the change one is oneself in.
Actually, it is Hoelderlin who brings Christ and Dionysos very close,
a.o. in Der Einzige/The only one, a strange title for a poem, which
shows that Christ is NOT the only.
Spontaneous wineflowing was not unfamiliar in Greece as it was in Cana.
Christ, showing his wounds to the apostles, the "heroes" as Hoelderlin
calls them rightly, and Dionysos Zagreus, who is torn to pieces himself
as well, both depart and come back, born again. Even Dionysos name is
ambiguous. It can mean: born from Zeus, or born-again. (or both: after
the dangerous birth by Semele, protected from the heat of the lightning
by cool ivy, he is implanted into Zeus' leg.)
Nietzsche saw the two together, in the context of the overcoming of
widerwille.
(i saw that Negri (Empire) has written on Dionysos. Filled some of the
marxist deficit..)
Without a Dionysos or Christ or Mohammed, sexuality and brutality gain
free space. American fundamentalist Christianity leads to the Animal house,
so much is clear. That the Dionysic, like the Germanic or the Arabic, is itself
blackened and attacked, is, for those who have discovered the mechanism,
only natural. SO it was the opposite: the incorporation of the negative into
the whole - philosophical examples: Spinoza, Hegel - and not its exclusion,
which is so typical of one-sided thinking, and which leads to the ueber/unter
mensch gigantomachia.
America is gonna be very ugly, as ugly as they had never thought they could
become. They really have no idea, to what degree they're already hated to-day.
When Friedrich the Great was teasing his ambience once again with atheistic
jokes, a clergyman protested: but Sire, there is absolute proof ot the existence
of God. What then, Friedrich asked. The Jews, sire, the Jews! It's a German
legacy, so the facts fill in automatically.
as is
the aristotelian conception embodied in scholasticism, and which very early
on gained the ascendancy over the pauline (jewish) via crucis.
One can also, with Nietzsche, consider Christianity itself the Jewish
religion gone global.
Therefore
the notion that heid abandoned the theological trope of the RC christ of his
youth for the greek theological trope involves a misconception, ...the
latter being merely an earlier evolutionary stage. But what i do think he
did was to move from the greco christ trope of his youth to the earthbound
"jewish" trope of a suffering and dying humanity, and back to a greek
rarified all-knowing gnostic trope, and suffering et al a mere melancholy
appearance, voluntarism (formerly care) the essence of nothingness (formerly
being), where somehow the immanent spirit of being, if unobstructed by the
will, moves beings toward their destiny.
>
> , overwhelmed
> the whole, ...rendering all things phenomenal (subjects/objects), nihil.
>
>
> that's turning everything upside down. The reasons for the nihilism
> that befalls everything, also the s-o relation - everthing VIA the
> s-o - are meanwhile explained by him, but mostly not considered.
> It's not the s-p relation *as such* that is attacked, but its
exclusivity,
> which keeps everything within the limits of everydayness.
everydayness with its sweat and suffering is the existential condition par
excellence, ...everyman the subject, and sweat and pain and taxes and rulers
etc, the object, ...absolsutes, to prescind conceptually from which seems
dishonest, ...at the same time giving equal weight to wonder, awe, mystery.
neither absolute can sublate the other, i think
True. In fact, Hoelderlin's 'essences' are at the heart or the bone of
sensuousness. He, and Heidegger, took the impossibility of the
aistheton-noeton distinction seriously: no gods without the abysmal-
sensuous. Maybe i'll bring some parts of the eveninglandish conversation
on Hoelderlin. Starting point is Nietzsche's insight that with the end
of the supernatural, also ends the natural insofar it is the natural
opposed to that supernatural. Hence the new alienation of the sensible,
its transformation within the realm of the technological), for which
there are still not names, let alone understanding.
> certainly genre criticism pricks him down for theology. the structures of
> his thot, despite the literalness (an old rhetorical trope), are
> theological, eh?
>
> and of course, ultimately, all writing being polysemous embodies
> simultaneously all levels of meaning?
>
> bob
>
> ps. at the moment usa feeling very '33 ish, ...das volk voted emfatically
> for war, culture war and empire, ...meaning the rest of the world is going
> to feel the lash. apologies
>
>
> - Hitler was never chosen, but took all power after a young Dutch
> communist set fire to the Reichstag.
> - Germany had real enemies everywhere, who already had tried, and
> succeeded, to ruin it. USA have no excuse. 9/11? In this context
laughable.
rene, obviously there are differences, but now you mention it the "9/11"
pretext appears remarkably similar to the "Reichstag fire" pretext; "enemies
everywhere", to "global terrorism"; both were "selected" in the first
instance to be ratified subsequently by winning a popular vote, ...even to
hitler having his hindenburg, and w his colin powell.
And there's so much more, that the legacy leaves no doubt.
What about Stauffenberg trying to kill Hitler, but hitting Roosevelt
instead, so to say?
(And there's the never ending gas story.)
Who could be the modern Stauffenberg in the era of the Worker?
Juenger, in his 1939 book, already put a nobleman as hitman on the stage.
That appeared to be good intuition, 5 years later. Clergy and bourgoisie
were already too weak.
But who now? Only individuals are left. Still, they might become more
powerful than the current centres of power. I must think again of both
Dionysos' and Christ's incredible victory tours.
(Also Juenger in that vein in: "The coming Titans.")
>
> the current case of the USA is incomparingly more grave and black, because
it
> is all done voluntarily. I agree with you, that now we enter the belly of
the beast.
> Sadr City is first on the menu.
>
i agree, shocking and alarming, ...given usa potential for military
apocalypse combined with a degenerate power elite.
thanks for indulging my amateurishness, rene.
bob
I'm only arrogant as to Heidegger, and only negatively: to those who say they
know, i say: no you don't, you can't. As to the positive, still a long way off,
i say: all help is welcome. I seem to try to find a way from extreme individualism
to Dionysos, to a fundamental change of everydayness, of 'das Man' itself. Hence
the taking back of subject-object into openness. If this is not done, power rules
subject, object, everything, and easily. One can clearly see now, that there's no
resistance left, and maybe that's not coincidental. (no Dasein, no possibility
left, only the weight of the actual, and fear to meet it)
regards
rene
> rene
>
>
> more to Haukur see below
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Haukur Thor Thorvardarson" <a02hauth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: The Non-God in Heideggerian Thought
>
>
> > Henk van Tuijl wrote:
> >
> > >> The God who has made his way into philosophy, the God caught in the
> > >> essential metaphysical history of nihilism, governed by the
> > >> onto-theo-logic, is
> > >> furthest removed from the "godless God" Heidegger will pass by with
> > >> the "the last god/s" in "Contributions to Philosophy (from Enowning)"
> > >> (2001).
> > >
> > >
> > >> Who are these god/s that are recognized in primordial Greek
> > >> experience for Heidegger?
> > >
> > >
> > > The God of ontotheology is a Deus faber. The Gods of the Greek appear
> > > at crucial moments in the guise of beings and change the course of the
> > > lives of men and women.
> > >
> > I don't see your point here, even if Zeus would return how would it wake
> > the people up from the nihlisticladen nightmare?
> >
> > And I don't think that Heidegger would even say that the God of
> > ontotheology is a Deus Faber, rather Heidegger here is
> > referring to Meister Eckharts Non-God. That is all our ideas of God are
> > not God, God is unknown to us and we must in a
> > way turn ourselves towards God and be open towards the mystery.
> >
> > /Haukur.
>
>
> Haukur,
> First turn away from ourselves: i think this is a good provisional way
of
> stating the case of the godly. God stays out of it. No theo-logy, no
speaking
> of God, no s-p objectivation.
> Heidegger writes in the eveninglandish conversation, that nowhere more
than
> in the short poem "What is God?", the loneliness of man is deeper felt.
>
> What is God? Unknown, yet
> full of attributes is the face
> of the sky, from him. The lightnings namely
> the rage of a God are. The more is something invisible
> the more it sends itself into strange. But the thunder
> the praise is of God. Love for immortality
> the attribute too, as ours,
> is of a God.
>
>
> Was ist Gott? unbekannt, dennoch
> Voll Eigenschaften ist das Angesicht
> Des Himmels von ihm. Die Blitze nämlich
> Der Zorn sind eines Gottes. Je mehr ist eins
> Unsichtbar, schicket es sich in Fremdes. Aber der Donner
> Der Ruhm ist Gottes. Die Liebe zur Unsterblichkeit
> Das Eigentum auch, wie das unsere,
> Ist eines Gottes.
>
>
> Of course, if one wants, all this *can* be reshaped into
> s-p statements. The un-poetical even *must* do it.
> Hearing 'harte Fuegung', severe joining, has become impossible then.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---