-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
Verzonden: zaterdag 6 november 2004 21:32
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: The Sewer's Suppressio Veri
Rene man I'm sorry, It was harsh abuse even for someone like you who is used
to this.
Not at all, i appreciate your being honest. Not that i'm a flagellist, but
there's probably truth too in what you say.
But reading this phony fuck again today, it blows my mind that you
can't see this theatrical buffoon for the carboard cutout he is. He admits
to being a total insensitive to abuse no wonder he has no limits when it
comes to hurting people. Me too, I can be a little insensitive sometimes
especially at home but his guy is using the distance conversations as a
protective shield and license to say whatever he wants. To outsiders it
must seem very real and just not worthwhile. I have seen this kind of
display of forced sentiment and acting out before. It's part of our online
culture which fucks up newbies [some of whom remain perpetual innocents] all
the time. That's why metacrap or self-referential analysis to me means
discussing the nature of a conceptual persona and how it makes art into an
everyday life experience. The rules of engagement and conversation are
different in this frontier culture where institutional authority means fuck
all and those who are experimenting and tinkering with its potential show
what it means to be a real free spirit. I respect this fucking goof more
than you might imagine. Have ever since the "Let's follow Allen's
example..." suggestion. That wasn't someone who wasn't intelligent and well
read and a good writer. I'm not very comfortable around religious people and
their visible institutions. Maybe it's the visibility of it all or the
reification of reference around a fixed cannon, I don't know, but one thing
I am very glad of is that I never had a relegious mother or environment and
that has made the difference. I like religious discourse a lot especially
the crossed variety that many of us grow up with today that doesn't have an
institutional home and seems to be yet a homegrown experience of tinkerers,
maverick amateurs of a free spirit that is formless and very much a part of
the wild. The tameless and impossible to domesticate... this seems to me to
be the mystery today. Jud said he is commiting his life to anti-Heideggerian
studies. I let him go right after the last list scandal but you think you
can change his mind, make him reason like you do, making him see *your*
point of view. Everytime you do this he makes you look stupid and what is
your response? You get all upset and start calling him dispicable and
droping the ad-homs ad-nauseam. Leave him alone. He is not interested in
thinking with Heidegger. Your denial of the situation that you are totally
trapped in probably stems from the fact that it has been going on for so
long. It's theatrical humor Rene. We are going to establish spiritual
conversational circles that are innovative and that read Heidegger as the
devotional and inspiring spiritual being that he was. If you are comfortable
with this then you'll be happy here with us and a little less miserable.
Ariosto
I liked the letter before this one more, but please don't apologize.
There was a time when i really got mad at him, because of "the nazi
Heidegger" and the bad air everything else had to breath, but he has
changed that now. Proof that he can be influenced.
Apart from that, i don't mind his opposition to Heidegger at all, and
as the quote from Nietzsche 1, the one that Michael does not understand,
says, there's more philosophy in the rejection of thinking, than in "the
gimmick of spiritual discourse and refreshment, which is merely despicable".
Take your choice. I have no trouble to be an idiot in the eyes of shrewd
dialogue. In fact Jud is doing the work of the first, prohibitive, step
of formal indication. Whatever a sentence containing the word being, or
truth etc. might mean, it is not about the occurrent. Your fault now is to
give the occurrent (the they) to him so that the issues are for you.
That's hybris, also, in your case, a bit oldmannish, Jud looks younger.
No, i think there happened much more than you have perceived, once one
abstracts from the usual sensibilities. Like in your other mail to me,
i must say, even if i would deny the things said, i cannot deny feeling
addressed. It proved that the past is not just over with, like the past
of this list also still *is*.
I remember Heidegger talking about Schelling once, that Schelling was
truly a profound thinker. And that he himself was not, and that he didn't
try to be profound and speculative. We're no longer in the metaphysical
position to throw the banal away, one must face it, at face value.
This world has no depth, and it is ony misleading to suggest and search
for it. One would never, for instance, then reach BT's 'everydayness'.
It would be at most a category, not an existential, which concerns
Dasein.
(when the next step is done, and the banal is 'lifted' (shown as such,
not transcended), then all come and protest, that that is illegitimate.
But while they speak of overcoming metaphysics, they themselves walk
into the first everyday-metaphysical trap, instead of stepping back
from the beginning. One better refuse all of it bluntly than fake it.
rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---