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)
I can't understand you. What does doubt have to do with power? And how is it that it wills oneself as subject/fundament which is what you seem to say. I am looking at volume two and there is nothing on the dominion of the subject. My volume two has two parts; one on the ER and the other on "Who is Niezsche's Zarathustra?".
Modern times is the begining of what? Egocentric selfishness? Or a complete blindness of a a network of intentional rays of thoughts that prevent one from seeing the world around them? Before the modern is what? People living in the truth? I doubt it. Epictetus shows often example of how we are caught in iilusory thoughts or appearances that betwitch us and prevent us from being present and paying attention to whatever surrounds us. I wonder Rene if the issue is not perhaps the nature of the imagination and its role with memory and will and some kind of processing that projects a screen that prevents us seeing things as they are.
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)
Imo Niezsche helps certainly but there are many others who helps through illusion and ignorance. Heidegger was stuck in his own cultural context. He sounds so limited today where the clash of cultures and ideas from the whole world is so intense. It's a question of who's memory will survive in the end. I like the chances of Lao Tzu and Heraclitus.
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)
Eminem helps like you do sometimes but beyond showing contempt I think one has to have a clear sense of a path that one travels on a daily basis as matter of resistance that is never over and done with but always reaffirmed. It's the little motions everyday in this direction that counts because they add up into something like an abiding stability and spiritual power. I'm convinced (partly just from experience by which I mean nothing internal and special but an activity, a daily mode) that by detachment or letting go of everything that prevents us from being with our immediate surroundings and so being attentive to life in the here and now we can live well in the happiest manner possible and that is what is most likely to lead to prosperity and perhaps glory. None of this is possible seriously unless the egocentric propensity of the subject has been broken down hard by tragedy. Em was born into a shithole that came with an alcoholic mother. He figured out how to channel his anger into art but most just self-destruct and fuck up everything. Your "first..."s sound like they are an easy thing but they are not. It takes a person years and years to figure out what the real issues are much less how to go about living a good life that makes them happy which is the bottom line surely. We can hide our ignorance and stupidity by getting lost in apparently intelligent philosophical discussions. You think I am being too easy going and popular but for me it's a constant war against the ignorance of my own dishonest philosophical use of jargon. I write with my own blood Rene. I write a very long and drawn out adieu...
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"
I'm going to get his new cd. I here even the grandmas are listening to him now which means he is probably too safe like Elvis was.
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)
Now your saying things that are helpful in getting all of us on a path. As the disintegration of an undergoing in Zarthustra's manner which is similar to that of depth psychologists goes on; how what remains is understood depends on one's cultural context. Someone who likes Indian thought might think of Dasein as Self, a Taoist Confucian might think of an integrated oneness with society, a more anarchic Taoist might just think of readyness for whatever the future brings be it good or bad just like Epictetus would have thought. And love? To me it seems like an Arabic invention. I'm not producing anything Rene. I am allowing something to emerge, making room for a passage of X.... and not forcing any issue with actual power. To constantly cultivate potential power or possibility is just this kind of hospitality for who knows what. Dasein is a state of preparation for participatory events as the situation requires and nothing more than this readyness to act from the 'ground' of a kind of dynamic potential energy that just WAITS for a SPARK. It's a discipline and an education of the will.
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.
I don't think its a bad thing to encourage people to do their own thinking. It's better than letting them pretend to be representatives of another's thought. That's what you do sometimes, pretend to be Heidgger's little dog (cf. Jud's photo) not to mention your comments on world events as if you were a conecerned responsible member of the G8 with grand ideas about how things should not be or be. Real little people know global politics and its discourse for the bullshit power talking that it is. It's the media that leads to illusory topics that are not relevant to the pursuit of real happiness that is really liberating. We need media that liberates us from our egocentric subjectivity that's what I am saying is our responsibility as philosopher artist of the everydday.
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)
What is supposed to be this negative power? We need to deepen our meditative practice Rene that is what I say and do post after post. The good meditators that I read say all that is necessary as the most worthwhile is just to become aware of how our thoughts emerge and pass away and that is takes constant awareness that's all. The way Heidegger thinks thinking as an abiding dwelling in the there... is of course this kind of contemplative meditation which you don't value enough as what is most necessary. I keep saying that in no way is this informative of Osama or Bush. We can exercise ourselves in this manner, make it apart of everyday life. I don't know about freeing the others. I think each has to free himself. Others can deepen their own practice by listening and engagement int these conversations but in the end you can't force people to think or do anything. The way of power thinks it can force an issue but mindfulness has faith in the intellect and its ways with the body.
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.
No one is saying H can be discussed by all. I don't care if the list gets down to ten people. I think there is too much writing that is worthless as it is. I care about lucidity and that means speaking from the heart or with blood as much as it means having the courage to be simple with one's expression instead of hiding behind a lot of gnomic jargon that is poorly digested and that shows little real experience as a philosopher who practices philosophy. Life is too short and amazingly brief specially when you are having fun so we could be expecting and demanding a lot. A philosopher has to show their scars otherwise he is worthless and trivial on this list. The mind has to be broken down hard because it is at bottom a wild animal just like each of us. And when then it is tender and fragile and flexible? Well, there is where we show the fruits of a protracted and singular taste.
regards
tymp
regards
rene
I'm going to finish responding later Rene,
tympan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---