-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
Verzonden: zondag 21 november 2004 23:27
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: nietzsche's secret
Rene writes:
i just read the beginning of Descartes' Discours how to manage reason.
he is asking the reader to value his method - the one of doubting
everything
and accepting only the evident - , not to do the same, because who
can say
he is fit to after taking notice of Descartes' laborious vigilance.
Subjectivism
for him is just another sort of dogmatism. So that Descartes new
determanation
of the subject is nothing 'subjective'.
The only possible following of Dscartes would consist in trying to
attain
for oneself
the position of doubting subject, but so that only by doubting a
subject is
revealing, re-presenting itself. The rest is hearsay. Interesting that
he rather
would call his writing piece a fable than a history, indicating that
philosophy
is never the representation of the existent, but creative.
You might be right with your authority argument - others coem to mind
again -
but before the question of how to read and interpret Heidegger can be
raised,
one should first have thought about subject and subjectivism. Esp. in
view of the
problem Nietzsche detects, that the basis for subjective stances is no
more.
When that would be done, THEN the next question would be: when
Heidegger
considers tuned Dasein as more basic than reflexivity, how can i then
follow
Heidegger? Surely not by representation [this is funny] , but, as
Heidegger suggests,
by being the Da.
In short, you represent the common feature of these times: i don't want
authority.
But that is not said, but someone else is searched for and accused of
following
aother leading.
But i am looking for more than posturemaking, and that is already the
beginning
of searching authority. It demands discipline and honesty, and what
not.
Moreover: where to stay meanwhile as long as one is not that far,
which one never is?
(Descartes' question beginning third paragraph)
And what also comes to mind is Heidegger's warning to let be the
already thought.
Not copying, but thinking oneself is required for that.
It's interesting that you bring up Descartes who seems to beblamed for
everything these days Heidegger contributing not a little to this.
It all merely seems so. But everything today is precisely the opposite
of what really is. Descartes is the already-thought, that is still waiting
for those who are aware that they're still not thinking.
Blame is just for fuckers, and is wholly out of context now.
I have
been thinking about doubt a lot and its relation to what I would call a
pragmatic skeptical epoche that pauses and abides with questions that seem
to be outstanding.
I think only the specific (metaphysical) determination of thinking as
doubting is what concerns us here and now. It's a doubt that should
lead to the self-assurance of the 'masters and owners of nature' -
Descartes' words, and an indication that not Nietzsche should be blamed
for power. The real beginning of modern times is marked by a necessary
willing of one-self as subject/fundament. (Heidegger, Nietzsche 2, The
dominion of the subject)
Te risk that i point to is that 'subjective' positions are still doing,
copying this, while now other is needed. Heidegger shows that only
Nietzsche's (metaphysics of) will-to-power explains the ongoing blindness
and lying as necessary asylums of the modern 'Mischmasch' human, that is
so easily mislead, that 99% agreed that black is in fact white.
(the supporters of presidential authority)
First thing to be done now, is to get away as far as possible from this
strangling majority. Eminem pukes it out, very sensible!
We're only allowed to say things like these because the 99% are fixed like
glue, and are far far from being capable of radical doubt and stable refusal.
(it is thus that history keeps us prisoner, is not over with)
Em:
"Let us beg to differ." - just for the sake of it, not for rewards.
Out of shame...
A spark in the dark
"Someone's tryin to tell us something
Maybe this is God just sayin' we're responsible
For this monster - this coward that we have empowered"
Thinking here slows down to a crawl and no doubt folds in
on itself to ponder more carefully any decision it might take that would
determine its future direction. I'll come back to these thoughts that I have
been mulling over lately. The first question is the subject as you mention
but what is going on with this subject? For Nietzsche its reactive,
revengefull, communicates far too easily, is full of ressentiment, it's for
itself and other shows lack of respect for growth through undergoing or
tragic breaking apart, it doesn't have a distended will but a needy one that
takes instead of gives, etc. For Heidegger emphasis falls on more epistemic
aspects such as that the subject believes in a representational theory of
truth that always asks "what is ....?". This the GUIDING question to use the
language of the Nietzsche volumes and contributions. In Kantian language one
is looking at the way the understanding through the categories is organizing
our ongoing experience. I agree Rene that this is an important subject that
has to be questioned but it's complex and never done with and so constant
vigilance and practice is required to resist our reactions and tendency
to be lazy and complacent in this matter. I have been reading a chapter in
Epictetus's discourses (24, book three) and he reminds me how physical this
is for me. Thinking is a PHYSICAL exercise when it is ACTIVE rather than
reactive. It is the overcoming of a real obstacle. Because philosophy in
this regard is a physical exercise the thinking mind that ponders things
slowly and therefore is a kind of incubator of what is yet to be thought is
cooking up new ideas whose novelty can be a real fermention of activity that
makes wordsmiths happy campers on their nomadic travels over this supportive
medium that just lays itself out and waits to be impressed. Oh yes, God
lives Rene! LOL... It is not about following Heidegger. I think you are
being too dogmatic and possibly restricting what is possible to anyone who
cares about the open quality of highminded thinking that as Heidegger
teaches us is always a kind of gift that is thankful for this brief spark of
I don't know what. The GROUNDING question where we find ourselves
lose the subject that we are, the name that we carry; and find our
(je-meinige) self. 2 sides of the same.
in an another beginning as if we were recycling our old approach which now is
sooo broken down and cut up into little pieces bordering on nothingness;
that it is a tragic sight for human pity and a tempatation for Zarathustra.
It's like the old subject is food, rich topsoil on which Dasein emerges if we
only allow it to break apart and disintegrate into airy nothing. I don't
know everyone has to find their own way to change to self-transformation
where an old skin is shed and a new one emerges that places us in the DA.
We cannot, and therefore should not create/produce this DA, but we can get
rid of the subject that is hiding the Da that it really is. This only SEEMS
negative, because subjectivity is all we can think of while being subject.
It IS though 'positive' insofar insistent blocking of our own will can hold
the space free where something -being- shows OF ITSELF, allbeit a hardly
noticable hint. (that this beckoning takes place, i don't doubt that anymore,
it cannot be proven though and i would not wish it to, because it would be
instantly destroyed, so love is the only way - not subjective selflove, but
'amo ut sis'. So that also tradition enters suddenly. (cf. timing)
To be in this regard I take to be in state of awareness where one is
attentive to just whatever happens to be our current situation and I think
the approach to this mode of being is very individualistic. Otherwise what?
What happens otherwise is that we start believing in some dogmatic doctrine
that then has to be followed like a model which is protected by
authoritative representatives. People have to be encouraged to think through
things for themselves
But they should STAY AWAY!!!! Do something better: lead their lives between
earth and sky, the only constant theme. Mind their own business, but nobody
sees theirs, so they go voluntarily into the machine.
And it is THERE that they are encouraged to do their own 'thinking'.
But that is Hornvieh solution. The modern individual is the trouble, the
willing butcher, usable for all purposes.
Eminem sees sharper in the dark.
because in the end what works for you as far as
getting you more attuned to being-t/here might not work for someone else
whose character is not like yours. All the great philosophers who are also
teachers are aware of this and are not afraid of being an 'origin' --
usually of a school that differentiates itself from what has been because it
is identified as corrupt. Higher education in particular today is bankrupt
and this list proves it because all our academics are pretty dumb imo not
knowing how to describe anything in a brief and clear manner, not knowing
how to respond to the smallest provocation without coming across as father
knows best, not knowing how to defend their faith because they don't really
have one aside from the visible marks of institutional affiliation. I don't
know it's a sad sad situation whose only hope is the kids who are growing up
interacting through writing on the net today who will find pleasure and
happiness outside all visible order and will recognize how gifted they are
by squandering their intelligence in astonishing works of admiration for
themselves and life.
Although i find you, and what you say here, sympethatic, i am afraid it is not
enough. But that's not your, a subject's, fault, the disgrace lies deeper.
Good will and intentions are not enough, in fact we're in a situation wherein
they merely harm. First the negative power should be fathomed and attacked,
only then (time-)space might open.
We're all carrying the dog's necklace, strangling the mnemosyne that everybody
has in them as poetical dwellers. It's no use to say: think and act while still
necklaced. First the necklace should be pointed at: as jemeinig Dasein one has
to take it off oneself. Or, as bridled subject leave it where it is. Even that
deserves respect, as H suggests, meaning that overcoming widerwille this way
even 'frees' the others. (transformation implies that we too are not what we
think we are)
I repeat that i believe that Heidegger, not the person, but what he stands for,
is for all. But not to be read and discussed by all, that's just madness.
regards
rene
I'm going to finish responding later Rene,
tympan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---