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.
I don't know why you think everybody thinks you are a flagellist. I just said you have to deal with a lot opposition and animosity directed at you personally. You are the one that says that people call you "Nazi" and threaten to call your employer and such. You seem to get into a lot fights maybe too many. You don't upset me often since you and I do in fact co-operate to open texts that would otherwise remain close. When you irritate me is when you jump to conclusions about this or that or when you make generalizing statements and presents what amounts to just a personal opinion. You think too fast and react like Nietzsche's sensitive who can't hold back from responding to the smallest agitation. Like Stuart and some others I think we should all think as slowy as possible and let thoughts incubate and mature slowly and come out on their own as it were. When you start bitching about how horrible things are it doesn't reflect the sense of urgency that Heidegger was going through in the thirties and that I am trying to work with. No, you sound like a miserable old woman.
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.
Since I have been back I don't think the Heidegger the nazi is serious in the least bit but funny and at worst boring. People who have been reading Jud more closely point out he is not consistent which is a sign of his conviction about whatever he says. As far as "bad air" is concerned that seems complicated since to me it's a question of how anyone perceives this situation. If it is taken seriously then you are in trouble because he is half serious at most. The other half is a clown.
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.
Not sure what you mean exactly maybe if you say more. My understanding is that if you drop the word "being" or "Beyng" then it doesn't matter since as I read it it is always a question of grasping and failing to grasp a dynamic mobility, an *energetics* perhaps that is always undergoing transformation. Do you see that the word "Dionysus" points to a changing dynamic? It's a mode or manner, way of proceeding that shapes a writing conversational circle such as this one. And this is attuned not because it results as a consequence of what we do and in that sense is an 'occurrence'; a a consequence in other words of our subjective will or understanding. No, it's the 'result' of self-work, slow thinking that remains with that which is yet to be thought, that withdraws willing into non-willing and meditates the possibilities of thoughts that are the to-come. This is how I read negative labour in Negri btw. You fail too much in bringing out this kind of negative labour in Heidegger imo and it shows in your reactionary impatience towards that class of people you call 'Americans' for example. Presumably here the word 'American' is not a dynamic mutability but something all-too-stable and permanent and easy to grasp and see and made to the measure of lazy thinkers who need an easy target for their resentment and hatred.
That's hybris, also, in your case, a bit oldmannish, Jud looks younger.
No way I am the young one who brings fresh air to this list. Jud and you sometimes sound like grandpa; that's not me. I'm not even going to mention grandpa krishna who is still reading Sartre.
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*.
It must be overwhelming since you were adrressed by peep too. He asked which way...? way...? We need to establish a fluid sense of direction on this list. That's why I bring up things like at the end of volume two of Nietzsche the distinction between a guiding question and grounding question. It points to going "from this..." to "going towards this....X". This is the distinction of Contributions also so in volume two we have the thoughts of the contributions also in Heidgger's mind and Ga39 and then Schelling on freedom (1936). These are the texts that are on the table right now as far as I am concerned and many others too of course (and each person has their own thoughts and readings in the bcak of their minds) but here is the order of this chaotic writing conversation. The path or way is what I before was saying is the constitution of Persephone. It's articles are like "the direction is from subjectivity to Da-sein" and these are our GOALS as a writing conversation.
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.
I did bring out the most banal thing possible and that is the question of whether one is happy here or not and that makes a difference in getting past lack of trust, bad air, etc. We need to trust the direction of others. More or less I trust your sense of direction as far as Heidegger is concerned. It jus lacks rigor and a few other things like emphasis on comportment or a meditated stance and attitude. There is no emphasis on kung-fu :-) and no smilling :-( You don't seem very happy here.
sorry I'm being banal.
I'm no trying to get rid of Jud if that is what you think btw. It's just that you don't see him for the clowning fool that he is.
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.
Whatever Rene, the important thing is HOW do we reach whatever it is that we are supposed to be reaching. I'm not trying to confuse people with obscuring depth. I'm trying to be very superficial and open minded. I'm just waiting here with the rest of the peeps to have an intelligent thought that is going to illuminate the darkness that surrounds me ;-)
sorry for all this banality
(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.
stepping back from the strange and unique is the key it seems and just let it be, laissez-faire... we need to meditate in the most URGENT manner possibe otherwise we fool ourselves and others. I'm trying to accept the refusal or withdrawal or mystery of it all but still we need to go deep into the depth of the darkest night of cognition to come out with Persephone and see the shining shimmering aura of Athena and the banal surface of the ten thousand things as such.
tympan tzu ariosto plato
rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out!
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---