-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Tympan Plato
Verzonden: maandag 22 november 2004 19:58
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: nietzsche's secret - our responsibility
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?".
You have 4 volumes? The original has 2.
The dominion of the subject is a paragraph in "Nietzsche's metaphysics".
I spoke of it a.o. in two mails from 22 and 24 April 2004 (to Anthony),
RE: will to will (nietzsche 2)
I assumed you had read this text or a similar one, the last part of H's
Schelling, for instance. Without it, it makes no sense to discuss
subjectivity in modern times.
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.
I stay with my approach. I think, if you would read the texts meant, you
would stop talking and comparing like you do now.
I'm always there to discuss Heidegger's works.
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...
Yes Tympan, the things one has to go through, one has to go through and that
takes time. Philosophy though is still another thing. Because we mostly hear
of philosophy at a young age, we risk to find there answers that can only be
found by living. In this sense i quoted 'First living, then philosophizing."
But then: living in this world, has obstacles that lastly can be understood
only philosophically. Heidegger says: we're now in a time that everyone for
himself is touched by the abenlandish (now: global) Geschick.
Eminem sings afterwards: How the fuck was i supposed to know? Philosophically
spoken, one is without a chance to find out where one is in. The worrying though
is that all are in it. For Americans it is the hardest to ever admit, as the
'best' that are. Heidegger told how he got the idea, while talking to an American,
that this one had really no idea of what he was talking about. This is not at all
anti-americanism, but you seem not be able to understand it differently.
Maybe now that America is going down, the NEED for comprehension is growing.
The demise is a general, global one, and a result of metaphysical nihilism.
The Nietzsche volumes write its history - another sort of history, no word of it
appears in history books.
Anyhow, near the time that the Germans will be back, it would be better for the
others to be prepared. And they'll be back, because 'Germany' is not sthing
that can be bombed away, not even by re-education.
This situation implies the grossest of misunderstandings. Thinking that one is
too good for it, means just placing oneself off-side. The lying peace after
1945 must be made undone, and we should start all over again. That's probably
all just illusory, but THAT is not my problem...
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.
He has something for everyone. When my son heard the new CD for the first time,
i heard him laughing and laughing upstairs.
His listening to Eminem is not unlike my reading Hoelderlin. He picked out
the word 'source', and said, that that may be sthing, because in another song
he speaks of 'going back to my source'. Now, because he is not an intellectual,
i was surprised to hear him explaining that source can mean origin, but also
Quelle (fount?). Dry principle, and wet splashing, if you will. Anyhow, he
has his own thinking, and it's not at all mine. We're different, and that's
good for both.
rene
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---