This notion of ground as 'fundamentum' has no phenomenal verity. I asked
too, and thought, if there is a fundamental ground, but there is not, at
least not phenomenally. That would be a contradiction to 'subsistence' and
'persistence' and why?
Well because within what exists, in consciousness, not the simple abstract,
reflective sort, but what supports the existence of consciousness, or in
pure phenomenal 'presence', there can be nothing more primary than what
'subsists' and 'persists, the mere stratum of being there, dasein. This is
why the truth is both simple and real. There are no 'complex' forms of
truth, which rely on other supporting truths which have not be 'tested.'
Kenoth is absolute right.
A white sheet cannot exist in perception without something else there which
is just as real; no inference can be valid without its existence being
there, equally present; Heidegger may have believed that there was a
'fundamentum', but it has no phenomenal reality, rather it is an
'approbrium' of reflection, or a form of inferential wisdom. Inferential
wisdom is not the knowledge of what is there, but rather a product of
disciplined reasoning, sometimes valid and sometimes not. The *problem* with
reason lies in it's 'universality' which merely stated [a term meaning
absolute] is dependent on an 'interpretation' of 'related' phenomenon, which
in most cases is: (1) social, (2) cultural, (3), individualized, et cetera.
This is why in the Meditations, Decartes, states that what exists in
consciousness, in mentation, is what persists and subsists. Niether of that
which persists and subsists is a ground or fundamental 'thing'. Ground or
fundamentum cannot be a thing, rather an 'arrangement', a classification, or
heirarchy. There is no hierarchy in perception or consciousness, because
consciousness is in 'itself' a whole, and cannot be divided.
chao
jhon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tympan Plato" <daxsein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: nietzsche's secret
>
>
>
> Tympan,
>
> In my view, you see the old and the new too much as oppositions.
> The Nietzsche saying: 'Art is more valuable than truth' might
> suggest that knowledge, reason, principles are mere obstacles
> for rising life. Initially this is certainly so, and Heidegger
> responds to it by beginning his Nietzsche lectures with will-to-
> power as art. Strikingly, right away the ambiguity - not at all
> a negative notion with me - of the relation art-truth, starting
> with Plato, and leading to an appalling opposition in Nietzsche
> himself, is there. The second lecture is on Eternal Return, as
> the first and main thought of Nietzsche, and which will enable
> the unity of will-to-power. In fact, in the third lecture:
> WtP as knowledge, Heidegger begins by explaining that the WAY
> TOWARDS WtP, gone by Nietzsche, is urged by the thought of ER
> itself. Right after the blow, the plans for a work 'The will
> to power', or other titles, start.
> Let me restrict myself now to Heidegger's title: apparently it
> is essential for WtP to know itself. And getting to know oneself
> is going a way. Although it remains true that Nietzsche dissects
> all previous conceptions of knowledge as misleading (leading to
> a wrong world), nonetheless he does not throw knowledge and its
> elements away. On the contrary, he takes excruciating pains to
> re-interprete. Of categories, the principle of non-contradiction
> etc. as indispensable means for life towards solidification.
> Would he simply be a destroyer of the old, and throw off the
> inherited and incorporated errors, then nothing would have
> remained. But they are all we are, that's the tragedy.
> Zarathustra's BEGINS by going down.
>
> From here it's a long way to the change of tone of the principle
> of ground, but the 'same' can be seen there: without pacing off
> the take-off area, there is no jumping, or alone an imaginary one.
> And notably when it is swamp one is moving in.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments. First right at the beginning of this thread I
said
> that I wasn't concerned with discussing Heidegger's view of Nietzsche. I'm
> making my own way here through the obstacles. i knew this was going to
> happen that's why I said what I did in the first three lines of my
postings
> on N. I knew you would take up the role of being Heidegger's
representative.
> I did connect everything to Heidegger's discussion of Leibniz's priciple
of
> sufficient reason but had not the four volumes in mind which I have not
> digested well yet. I just don't want my mind full of those issues
> necessarily. As far as throwing away the old Rene I have to smile... It's
> not like someone who is descending into the dark night of knowing in
search
> of Persephone or innovation is exactly throwing out the old ways of moving
> along. Cultivating possibility is older than the hills eh? Again the
crucial
> question that makes a real difference from a practical point of view is
HOW
> is it that we are refining ourselves by questioning the rush towards
> actualization that then would make everything only a matter of our own
> subjective willfulness? I'm not the one that is cutting off the
traditional
> ways of discussing this whole issue. I am even including taoist buddhism
in
> not wanting to get stuck in purely Greek-Jewish roots. I'm careful on how
I
> proceed with my own sense of renewal or recycling. With Schelling I'm not
> even being anti-rational but hyper rational in the sense that direction in
> this regard is from an epoche of understanding into a constriction of an
> absolute idea whose crisis is a breaking apart of that very identity. In
> Fichte, Schelling, Schopenahauer Reason is freedom-will-possibility.
> Hartmann influenced by Schopenhauer says this is the unconscious.
Heidegger
> when it comes to Nietzsche I don't think brings out the history ideas that
> is in the back of his mind. For sure one can't avoid Schopenhauer but what
> does this mean? In The _Parerga and Paralipomena_ he writes "For our
> civilized world is nothing but a great masquerade. you encounter knights,
> parsons, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, priests, philosophers and a thousand
> more: but they are not what they appear -- they are merely masks behind
> which as a rule a money-grubbers are hiding. One man puts on the mask of
> justice the better to attack his fellows; another, with the same object
> inview, chooses that of the public good and patriotism; a third that of
> religion and purity of faith [...] Then there the universal masks without
> any special character, as it were dominoes, which are therefore to be met
> with everywhere: among these are strict honesty, politeness, sincere
> sympathy and grining affability [...] Man is at bottom a dreadful wild
> animal." Nietzsche talks like this all the time except that he comes to
have
> more faith in animals than perhaps Schopehauer did. This is the pessimist
> school that Nietzsche says he doesn't drop but takes to its logical
> conclusion. He mentions writers like Pascal and La Rochefoucauld one
> remembers also Macheavelli, Leopardi, Pyrrho, Gracian.
>
>
> The ER is important and there is lots of ways of thinking of it. In thus
> spoke in Of The Vision and the Riddle ER is the gateway of the MOMENT,
> Zarathustra's "most abysmal thought". ER says it seems to me, "Are you
> prepared to live your life over and over again?". Can you think of
anything
> else that is more worthwhile Rene than living your life over and over
again?
> If ER is the philosophical now then it operates like an aporetic riddle
> which slows thinking down pointing to nothingness. Thinking starts to
> incubate in its ownmost possibility and THIS is the beginning of an
> undergoing (untergehen). It's an annihilating breaking down of
> consciousness. The subject is destroyed, broken, split apart in a tragic
> manner. The big problem here, and it's Zarathustra great temptation as he
> listens to the cry of distress in book four; is PITY. Thus Spoke finishes
> with great dark laughter which is an overcoming of pity for the 'higher
> men', for us and for ourselves. The great wisdom is finally not public but
a
> withdrawal into the hermetic silence and solitude of an ASS: "He goes
> through the world unpretentiously. Grey is the favourite colour in which
he
> wraps his virtue. If he has spirit, he conceals it; but everyone believes
in
> his long ears" (Thus Spoke: The Awakening). Secrecy was Nietzsche's way.
We
> will never know what he believed.
>
>
> tympan
>
>
> rene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
> Verzonden: woensdag 17 november 2004 0:49
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: RE: nietzsche's secret
>
>
>
>
> Rene and list phantoms,
>
> Time passes and the memory with it. Sometimes it's impossible finding what
> you want in Nietzsche books they don't read from cover to cover as if a
> clear argument was being explicated from page to page. No they are
> rhizomatic short-term memory arrivals of a flowing wave that as soon as it
> seems it is delivering its pearls does it withdraw into the open sea where
> it drowns for all time in the universal confusion of all things. The
> aphorisms that I appreciate the most in Nietzsche often allude to the
> frustration of trying to give words to something that is really
captivating
> and like the doorway to an unexpected horizon promising the world and then
> some. Words seem not to be able to catch up with the quick flash of
insight
> and only make there way into darkness and forgetfulness. One of these is
> #298 of _The Gay Science_ : "Sigh. -- I caught this insight on the way and
> quickly seized the rather poor words that were closest to hand to pin it
> down lest it fly away again. And now it has died of these arid words and
> shakes and flaps in them -- and I hardly know any more when i look how I
> could ever have felt so happy when I caught this bird." You are funny
Rene
> your mind is old and still attached to yesterday in some alleged polemic
> that happened worrying conscientiously about being overly subjective
LOL...
> Me I'm going with the ebb and flow of the high seas trying to find some
> point of stability that can operate as a port in an ongoing becoming
> unconscious of an itinerary of the foreign, nomadic adventure of the
> homeless;-- to whom Niezsche commends his 'secret' science as the ones
being
> most worthy of it: "For their fate is hard, their hopes are uncertain; it
is
> quite a feat to devise some comfort for them -- but what avail? We
children
> of the future, how *could* we be at home today [...] We ourselves who are
> homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all too thin
> "realities" [...] We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to
any
> past periods [...] We are delighted with all who love,as we do, war,
danger,
> adventures" (#377 TGS) Embark! Rene! before you are too old for it.
Thinking
> with Nietzsche of briefness again he writes that being an adventurer one
> does best when one is not attached to whatever comes along. A good rule of
> thumb is not to get too involved and dig too deeply into what appears and
> this is hardly any less the wisdom of Pyrrho that beautiful skeptic of
> yesteryears for whom the surface and skin of things was enough. Does a
> letter sink in much further than the support over which it lays itself out
> like a homeric dawn? Do you know what the happiness of Homer was for
> Nietzsche? It was to "got through life with a calm eye and firm step,
always
> prepared to risk all -- festively, impelled by the longing for
undiscovered
> world and seas, people and gods; to harken to all cheerful music as if it
> were probably seeking their brief rest and pleasure there -- and in the
most
> profound enjoyment of the moment, to be overcome by tears and the whole
> crimson melancholy of the happy.." (TGS #302). This is the fresh air that
> Nietzsche the convalescent needed as matter of survival. The light air of
> the mediterranean, of Italian Renaissance virtu. In #295 TGS he tells us
how
> much he loves the light air of brief habits and that it is due to his
bouts
> of sickness and the imperfections of his state that he has a multitude of
> ways to get out of the thick, stale air of enduring habits, of a stable
> being. Becoming conscious is always the work of eduring habits of memory,
of
> stable being that constructs the illusion that there is subject in control
> of the will that is free to act or not to act in a particular way and
> because of this freedom this subject is responsible and accountable for
his
> or her actions. Becoming unconscious on the other hand implies an active
> forgetting, the ability to be done with experience, to let go of habits.
It
> is a becoming unconscious that takes us from the stability of being to the
> innocence of becoming, from the subject to Dasein at its ownmost
> possibility. Dasein here is young like Dionysus and a rehabilitating
> fountain of youth, red dawning of Persephone. This is what Nietzsche calls
> HOMO NATURA which is always denaturalized, mutilated and castrated by a
> becoming conscious of one's actions that are then felt to require a reason
> or a why. The will as denaturalized would require motives and would be an
> opus operatum. The last thing a noble convalescent needs is to work. Work
> can never lead to justice or health: "For works, which may proceed from a
> person's intentional (ie. motive-determined) action, can never justify us,
> from the very nature of that action, just because it is INTENTIONAL, and
> produced by motives, OPUS OPERATUM" (Schopenhauer, _The World as Will and
> Idea_ book four, section 70). Real freedom in Dasein is an independence
from
> the principle of sufficient reasons and its principium individuationis,
from
> having to answer the demands for reasons. At play, indeed its a question
of
> being free to play;-- is a dissolution of consciousness through the
negative
> labour of the negative concept of freedom that naturalizes a person so
that
> he or she poetically dwells between the earth and sky and between mortals
> and gods on the fourfold. The higher type is always instinctive and not
> self-conscious because their reason has PAUSED which is why they are a
> becoming animal. For Schopenahuer to get here involves a resignation of
the
> will so that it becomes inoperative labour, a quieting resignation and
even
> skeptical indifference one of whose models for him was the heretic Madame
> Guyon: "the higher type is more UNREASONABLE (than the common type), for
> those who are noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificial do sucumb to their
> instincts, and when they are at their best, their reason PAUSES. An animal
> that protects its young at the risk of its life, or that during the mating
> season follows the female unto death, does not think of danger or death;
its
> reason also pauses, because the pleasure in its young or in the female and
> the fear of being deprived of this pleasure dominate totally; the animal
> becomes more stupid than usual -- just like those who are noble and
> magnanimous" (#3 TGS). This for Niezsche was clearly the beast of prey,
the
> "mother" type who knew how to forget and was the immoralist priest leader
of
> the herd.
>
>
> tympan
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
too, and thought, if there is a fundamental ground, but there is not, at
least not phenomenally. That would be a contradiction to 'subsistence' and
'persistence' and why?
Well because within what exists, in consciousness, not the simple abstract,
reflective sort, but what supports the existence of consciousness, or in
pure phenomenal 'presence', there can be nothing more primary than what
'subsists' and 'persists, the mere stratum of being there, dasein. This is
why the truth is both simple and real. There are no 'complex' forms of
truth, which rely on other supporting truths which have not be 'tested.'
Kenoth is absolute right.
A white sheet cannot exist in perception without something else there which
is just as real; no inference can be valid without its existence being
there, equally present; Heidegger may have believed that there was a
'fundamentum', but it has no phenomenal reality, rather it is an
'approbrium' of reflection, or a form of inferential wisdom. Inferential
wisdom is not the knowledge of what is there, but rather a product of
disciplined reasoning, sometimes valid and sometimes not. The *problem* with
reason lies in it's 'universality' which merely stated [a term meaning
absolute] is dependent on an 'interpretation' of 'related' phenomenon, which
in most cases is: (1) social, (2) cultural, (3), individualized, et cetera.
This is why in the Meditations, Decartes, states that what exists in
consciousness, in mentation, is what persists and subsists. Niether of that
which persists and subsists is a ground or fundamental 'thing'. Ground or
fundamentum cannot be a thing, rather an 'arrangement', a classification, or
heirarchy. There is no hierarchy in perception or consciousness, because
consciousness is in 'itself' a whole, and cannot be divided.
chao
jhon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tympan Plato" <daxsein@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: nietzsche's secret
>
>
>
> Tympan,
>
> In my view, you see the old and the new too much as oppositions.
> The Nietzsche saying: 'Art is more valuable than truth' might
> suggest that knowledge, reason, principles are mere obstacles
> for rising life. Initially this is certainly so, and Heidegger
> responds to it by beginning his Nietzsche lectures with will-to-
> power as art. Strikingly, right away the ambiguity - not at all
> a negative notion with me - of the relation art-truth, starting
> with Plato, and leading to an appalling opposition in Nietzsche
> himself, is there. The second lecture is on Eternal Return, as
> the first and main thought of Nietzsche, and which will enable
> the unity of will-to-power. In fact, in the third lecture:
> WtP as knowledge, Heidegger begins by explaining that the WAY
> TOWARDS WtP, gone by Nietzsche, is urged by the thought of ER
> itself. Right after the blow, the plans for a work 'The will
> to power', or other titles, start.
> Let me restrict myself now to Heidegger's title: apparently it
> is essential for WtP to know itself. And getting to know oneself
> is going a way. Although it remains true that Nietzsche dissects
> all previous conceptions of knowledge as misleading (leading to
> a wrong world), nonetheless he does not throw knowledge and its
> elements away. On the contrary, he takes excruciating pains to
> re-interprete. Of categories, the principle of non-contradiction
> etc. as indispensable means for life towards solidification.
> Would he simply be a destroyer of the old, and throw off the
> inherited and incorporated errors, then nothing would have
> remained. But they are all we are, that's the tragedy.
> Zarathustra's BEGINS by going down.
>
> From here it's a long way to the change of tone of the principle
> of ground, but the 'same' can be seen there: without pacing off
> the take-off area, there is no jumping, or alone an imaginary one.
> And notably when it is swamp one is moving in.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments. First right at the beginning of this thread I
said
> that I wasn't concerned with discussing Heidegger's view of Nietzsche. I'm
> making my own way here through the obstacles. i knew this was going to
> happen that's why I said what I did in the first three lines of my
postings
> on N. I knew you would take up the role of being Heidegger's
representative.
> I did connect everything to Heidegger's discussion of Leibniz's priciple
of
> sufficient reason but had not the four volumes in mind which I have not
> digested well yet. I just don't want my mind full of those issues
> necessarily. As far as throwing away the old Rene I have to smile... It's
> not like someone who is descending into the dark night of knowing in
search
> of Persephone or innovation is exactly throwing out the old ways of moving
> along. Cultivating possibility is older than the hills eh? Again the
crucial
> question that makes a real difference from a practical point of view is
HOW
> is it that we are refining ourselves by questioning the rush towards
> actualization that then would make everything only a matter of our own
> subjective willfulness? I'm not the one that is cutting off the
traditional
> ways of discussing this whole issue. I am even including taoist buddhism
in
> not wanting to get stuck in purely Greek-Jewish roots. I'm careful on how
I
> proceed with my own sense of renewal or recycling. With Schelling I'm not
> even being anti-rational but hyper rational in the sense that direction in
> this regard is from an epoche of understanding into a constriction of an
> absolute idea whose crisis is a breaking apart of that very identity. In
> Fichte, Schelling, Schopenahauer Reason is freedom-will-possibility.
> Hartmann influenced by Schopenhauer says this is the unconscious.
Heidegger
> when it comes to Nietzsche I don't think brings out the history ideas that
> is in the back of his mind. For sure one can't avoid Schopenhauer but what
> does this mean? In The _Parerga and Paralipomena_ he writes "For our
> civilized world is nothing but a great masquerade. you encounter knights,
> parsons, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, priests, philosophers and a thousand
> more: but they are not what they appear -- they are merely masks behind
> which as a rule a money-grubbers are hiding. One man puts on the mask of
> justice the better to attack his fellows; another, with the same object
> inview, chooses that of the public good and patriotism; a third that of
> religion and purity of faith [...] Then there the universal masks without
> any special character, as it were dominoes, which are therefore to be met
> with everywhere: among these are strict honesty, politeness, sincere
> sympathy and grining affability [...] Man is at bottom a dreadful wild
> animal." Nietzsche talks like this all the time except that he comes to
have
> more faith in animals than perhaps Schopehauer did. This is the pessimist
> school that Nietzsche says he doesn't drop but takes to its logical
> conclusion. He mentions writers like Pascal and La Rochefoucauld one
> remembers also Macheavelli, Leopardi, Pyrrho, Gracian.
>
>
> The ER is important and there is lots of ways of thinking of it. In thus
> spoke in Of The Vision and the Riddle ER is the gateway of the MOMENT,
> Zarathustra's "most abysmal thought". ER says it seems to me, "Are you
> prepared to live your life over and over again?". Can you think of
anything
> else that is more worthwhile Rene than living your life over and over
again?
> If ER is the philosophical now then it operates like an aporetic riddle
> which slows thinking down pointing to nothingness. Thinking starts to
> incubate in its ownmost possibility and THIS is the beginning of an
> undergoing (untergehen). It's an annihilating breaking down of
> consciousness. The subject is destroyed, broken, split apart in a tragic
> manner. The big problem here, and it's Zarathustra great temptation as he
> listens to the cry of distress in book four; is PITY. Thus Spoke finishes
> with great dark laughter which is an overcoming of pity for the 'higher
> men', for us and for ourselves. The great wisdom is finally not public but
a
> withdrawal into the hermetic silence and solitude of an ASS: "He goes
> through the world unpretentiously. Grey is the favourite colour in which
he
> wraps his virtue. If he has spirit, he conceals it; but everyone believes
in
> his long ears" (Thus Spoke: The Awakening). Secrecy was Nietzsche's way.
We
> will never know what he believed.
>
>
> tympan
>
>
> rene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
> Verzonden: woensdag 17 november 2004 0:49
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: RE: nietzsche's secret
>
>
>
>
> Rene and list phantoms,
>
> Time passes and the memory with it. Sometimes it's impossible finding what
> you want in Nietzsche books they don't read from cover to cover as if a
> clear argument was being explicated from page to page. No they are
> rhizomatic short-term memory arrivals of a flowing wave that as soon as it
> seems it is delivering its pearls does it withdraw into the open sea where
> it drowns for all time in the universal confusion of all things. The
> aphorisms that I appreciate the most in Nietzsche often allude to the
> frustration of trying to give words to something that is really
captivating
> and like the doorway to an unexpected horizon promising the world and then
> some. Words seem not to be able to catch up with the quick flash of
insight
> and only make there way into darkness and forgetfulness. One of these is
> #298 of _The Gay Science_ : "Sigh. -- I caught this insight on the way and
> quickly seized the rather poor words that were closest to hand to pin it
> down lest it fly away again. And now it has died of these arid words and
> shakes and flaps in them -- and I hardly know any more when i look how I
> could ever have felt so happy when I caught this bird." You are funny
Rene
> your mind is old and still attached to yesterday in some alleged polemic
> that happened worrying conscientiously about being overly subjective
LOL...
> Me I'm going with the ebb and flow of the high seas trying to find some
> point of stability that can operate as a port in an ongoing becoming
> unconscious of an itinerary of the foreign, nomadic adventure of the
> homeless;-- to whom Niezsche commends his 'secret' science as the ones
being
> most worthy of it: "For their fate is hard, their hopes are uncertain; it
is
> quite a feat to devise some comfort for them -- but what avail? We
children
> of the future, how *could* we be at home today [...] We ourselves who are
> homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all too thin
> "realities" [...] We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to
any
> past periods [...] We are delighted with all who love,as we do, war,
danger,
> adventures" (#377 TGS) Embark! Rene! before you are too old for it.
Thinking
> with Nietzsche of briefness again he writes that being an adventurer one
> does best when one is not attached to whatever comes along. A good rule of
> thumb is not to get too involved and dig too deeply into what appears and
> this is hardly any less the wisdom of Pyrrho that beautiful skeptic of
> yesteryears for whom the surface and skin of things was enough. Does a
> letter sink in much further than the support over which it lays itself out
> like a homeric dawn? Do you know what the happiness of Homer was for
> Nietzsche? It was to "got through life with a calm eye and firm step,
always
> prepared to risk all -- festively, impelled by the longing for
undiscovered
> world and seas, people and gods; to harken to all cheerful music as if it
> were probably seeking their brief rest and pleasure there -- and in the
most
> profound enjoyment of the moment, to be overcome by tears and the whole
> crimson melancholy of the happy.." (TGS #302). This is the fresh air that
> Nietzsche the convalescent needed as matter of survival. The light air of
> the mediterranean, of Italian Renaissance virtu. In #295 TGS he tells us
how
> much he loves the light air of brief habits and that it is due to his
bouts
> of sickness and the imperfections of his state that he has a multitude of
> ways to get out of the thick, stale air of enduring habits, of a stable
> being. Becoming conscious is always the work of eduring habits of memory,
of
> stable being that constructs the illusion that there is subject in control
> of the will that is free to act or not to act in a particular way and
> because of this freedom this subject is responsible and accountable for
his
> or her actions. Becoming unconscious on the other hand implies an active
> forgetting, the ability to be done with experience, to let go of habits.
It
> is a becoming unconscious that takes us from the stability of being to the
> innocence of becoming, from the subject to Dasein at its ownmost
> possibility. Dasein here is young like Dionysus and a rehabilitating
> fountain of youth, red dawning of Persephone. This is what Nietzsche calls
> HOMO NATURA which is always denaturalized, mutilated and castrated by a
> becoming conscious of one's actions that are then felt to require a reason
> or a why. The will as denaturalized would require motives and would be an
> opus operatum. The last thing a noble convalescent needs is to work. Work
> can never lead to justice or health: "For works, which may proceed from a
> person's intentional (ie. motive-determined) action, can never justify us,
> from the very nature of that action, just because it is INTENTIONAL, and
> produced by motives, OPUS OPERATUM" (Schopenhauer, _The World as Will and
> Idea_ book four, section 70). Real freedom in Dasein is an independence
from
> the principle of sufficient reasons and its principium individuationis,
from
> having to answer the demands for reasons. At play, indeed its a question
of
> being free to play;-- is a dissolution of consciousness through the
negative
> labour of the negative concept of freedom that naturalizes a person so
that
> he or she poetically dwells between the earth and sky and between mortals
> and gods on the fourfold. The higher type is always instinctive and not
> self-conscious because their reason has PAUSED which is why they are a
> becoming animal. For Schopenahuer to get here involves a resignation of
the
> will so that it becomes inoperative labour, a quieting resignation and
even
> skeptical indifference one of whose models for him was the heretic Madame
> Guyon: "the higher type is more UNREASONABLE (than the common type), for
> those who are noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificial do sucumb to their
> instincts, and when they are at their best, their reason PAUSES. An animal
> that protects its young at the risk of its life, or that during the mating
> season follows the female unto death, does not think of danger or death;
its
> reason also pauses, because the pleasure in its young or in the female and
> the fear of being deprived of this pleasure dominate totally; the animal
> becomes more stupid than usual -- just like those who are noble and
> magnanimous" (#3 TGS). This for Niezsche was clearly the beast of prey,
the
> "mother" type who knew how to forget and was the immoralist priest leader
of
> the herd.
>
>
> tympan
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---