-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 november 2004 18:02
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.
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.
Not at all. I'm amazed at the overall meekness.
Btw, the Moroccan boy that shot Van Gogh, appeared to be parentless.
That is: he belongs to those parts of our society that are excluded.
So he found a house with friends, and the importance of a a goal.
Now mosks are attacked here. The Dutch Americans are as despicable
as their antisemite brothers in new Amsterdam. 'Shoot them all'.
You are the one that says that people call you "Nazi" and
threaten to call your employer and such.
We are a long way past that, but you recharged it.
You don't seem very aware of contamination.
You seem to get into a lot fights maybe too many.
It was enough fro me. Now you're starting all over.
You don't upset me often since you and I do in fact
co-operate to open texts that would otherwise remain close.
Oh yes, there's also the minor thing of breaking into
philosophical texts.
I don't ever complain, dear boy, i'm having too much fun.
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
I see. Reading all Heidegger volumes once more, while thinking as slow as
possible. He too showed some incredible hybris recently. Trapped in the
academia. Boating on the Ister.
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
I don't. There *is* horror. And horrible reading.
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.
Happy that i'm not fat:
Risk of Leukemia High in Older Obese Women (ABC)
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.
I'm not at all interested in self-centered perceptions. If you would show
a tenth of Jud's empathy, you would talk differently than now. As i've said
to others, you're responsible for what you're doing now. I don't mind to
be attacked, but can you say the same?
If it is taken seriously then you are in trouble because he is
half serious at most. The other half is a clown.
Yes, so what?
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.
I have already. And others too. It's your problem not mine.
Having said that once 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.
That's all very fine, Ariosto polyeides. I hope sthing comes out of it.
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.
Just words. I see nothing happening.
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.
Now you're getting at sthing! Have you heard Rammstein singing on the moon:
"We're all living in Amerika"? The Germans are waking up btw. The Spiegel
even remembers great Germans now without throwing them back into the fire.
This would mean that they would have overcome a disgust, that is still not
discovered by their successors. They assemble behind their president, 99%.
The essence of democracy: voluntary tyranny.
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.
But that's the serious Jud talking. But you don't understand nothing of
what i mean by 'Americans'. What an absolute lack of empathy, after so
many clues. And the filthy language to prove it. The 'American', as the
last of the last men, is running away from himself - herself - but she
can't, and you show that in an examplary way now, Ariosto tympan plato
whatever.
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.
We smelled it yes...
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.
More hybris?
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.
That's what i mean.
No, Gewesenheit is nothing overwhelming. But language, as is said in
GA 39, is the most innocent *and* the most dangerous of all practices.
One reads Heidegger very wrong when one does not apply this to oneself.
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.
You dropped the notions, that's all! You have not said anything to it, so
'that's merely despicable'.
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'm curious, how you will go on with it. You can count on my help,
as you've helped me.
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.
Yes you are. Watch it, the evil is hiding in banality these days.
I'm not 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.
Are you a jealous person?
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
Don't apologize, you're doing it yourself.
(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.
Not 'as such', that's buddhism. Everything depends on what this raging
banality is. There's no evading: 'i'm already there', the hedgehog
continually repeats.
rene
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---