From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms-AT-globalxs.nl>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:38:24 +0200
Subject: Re: ontology enjoys invisibility


High Soren

Op woensdag, 23-sep-98 schreef Soren Pedersen:

SP> I suppose that the point Nietzsche was trying to make with his 
SP> famous "only things without history can be defined" was exactly 
SP> that there's nothing outside history and that ontology is an illusion 
SP> produced inside various metaphysical discourses. I don't agree that 
SP> ontology is something to be held onto. It is misleading; a thing of 
SP> the past. I bumped into a wonderful aphorism from Gay Science 
SP> the other day. It went something like this: "those slow in 
SP> knowledge presuppose that slowness is a property of knowledge". I 
SP> suppose one could also say that the slowness or even the fixity of 
SP> reality has governed the philosophical discourse for a long long 
SP> time. It is here that Virilio's interest in dromology, or speed, the 
SP> acceleration of reality, is of major interest. Perhaps it is true that 
SP> the introduction of the concept of speed is the only truly novel 
SP> development in philosophy since Nietzsche. It seems to me that it 
SP> signals an entirely new approach to social studies. One 
SP> preoccupied with movements, cybernetic processes, instead of 
SP> ontology. Before. I leaned towards an interpretation of Baud's 
SP> simulacrum as the 'being of non-being', but I now see that this was 
SP> entirely misunderstood. What is needed is in investigation into the 
SP> mechanisms that make us believe in the reality, the bogus 
SP> ontology, of the simulacrum despite the fact that it obviously thrives 
SP> on a dislocatory frantic, aleatory movements of signifiers.
SP> 
 Interesting thought. However I'm reluctant to take another category to replace the old ontological ones. BTW my point is that it doesn't matter very much wether you abjure ontology and change direction or redefine it into the new direction. This is just a matter of words. Of course I do agree with you that the old holy trinity of being-truth-consciousness is not a serious topic of discussion of discussion any more. 
Now back to speed. If we replace being by speed, what is speed? Change diveded by time? What is change, a 'sickness of being'(Sartre)? What is being? What is time? If something changes, shouldn't it exist as well? How can we examine speed without first examine illusion? How do you know that speed exists (I don't mean upper's, amphies, bennies etc.)? Is speed illusion or vice versa? 
Call me old fashioned, but to me ontology becomes fun when I stop believing in it. lmost anything becomes without belief. Belief is an old x-ian illusion.

  erik


 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
  Erik Hoogcarspel           <    jehms-AT-globalxs.nl     ><       Boerhaaveln 99b     >
                             <    tl+31.(0)104157097    ><       3112 LE Schiedam    >
                             <    fx+31.(0)842113137    ><       Holland             >
 *===================================================================================*