Rene writes:
> 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.
yes, the greeks assimilated jesus to their old corn god forms. but did
either, certainly nietzsche, who labels every cry for justice,
'resentiment', have any sense for jesus, his teaching for the little ones,
the powerless and despised, ..."slaves"? jesus is more than a corn god, so
that to equate them, and then to prefer dionysos, as in nietzsche, seems
not only retro, but wilfull formalism.
>
> (i saw that Negri (Empire) has written on Dionysos. Filled some of the
> marxist deficit..)
i should read this. but what's the marxian "deficit" to which you refer?
>
> 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.
i don't think so, rene. Merkan fundamentalist xianity is a primitive stage
of religiosity. It is this naivete', not xianity, which is easily led down
the garden path.
> 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.
the "ugly american" is pretty ugly, that's true enuf, ...and no doubt will
be as ugly as he has the power to be; but it's still no more than the law of
nature, the strong eat the weak, ...the real "abysmal- sensuous", no? and
america has its racist legacy, equally virulent and more real.
>
> 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.
again, christ is greek; so christianity is greek religion gone global!
...
> 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.
what about marxian "alienation" (all that is solid melts into air), and
fixed capital, and "reification" and "commodification"?
>
> Who could be the modern Stauffenberg in the era of the Worker?
this isn't a proletarian era. le stil stauffenberg is insider business,
then as now it would have to be an insider elite
> 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.")
...
> 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)
i think i somewhat understand, rene, but tend to find this same less
mystically within the tradition of marx (labor theory of value, not power)
and jesus (fellow feeling, solidarity, sympathy with the invisible ones, not
power), ...tho perfectly happy and eager to take what i can from heid, and
even to observe the congruencies.
bob
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> 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.
yes, the greeks assimilated jesus to their old corn god forms. but did
either, certainly nietzsche, who labels every cry for justice,
'resentiment', have any sense for jesus, his teaching for the little ones,
the powerless and despised, ..."slaves"? jesus is more than a corn god, so
that to equate them, and then to prefer dionysos, as in nietzsche, seems
not only retro, but wilfull formalism.
>
> (i saw that Negri (Empire) has written on Dionysos. Filled some of the
> marxist deficit..)
i should read this. but what's the marxian "deficit" to which you refer?
>
> 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.
i don't think so, rene. Merkan fundamentalist xianity is a primitive stage
of religiosity. It is this naivete', not xianity, which is easily led down
the garden path.
> 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.
the "ugly american" is pretty ugly, that's true enuf, ...and no doubt will
be as ugly as he has the power to be; but it's still no more than the law of
nature, the strong eat the weak, ...the real "abysmal- sensuous", no? and
america has its racist legacy, equally virulent and more real.
>
> 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.
again, christ is greek; so christianity is greek religion gone global!
...
> 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.
what about marxian "alienation" (all that is solid melts into air), and
fixed capital, and "reification" and "commodification"?
>
> Who could be the modern Stauffenberg in the era of the Worker?
this isn't a proletarian era. le stil stauffenberg is insider business,
then as now it would have to be an insider elite
> 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.")
...
> 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)
i think i somewhat understand, rene, but tend to find this same less
mystically within the tradition of marx (labor theory of value, not power)
and jesus (fellow feeling, solidarity, sympathy with the invisible ones, not
power), ...tho perfectly happy and eager to take what i can from heid, and
even to observe the congruencies.
bob
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---