Date: 	Sun, 11 Aug 1996 15:29:03 -0400
From: paul.murphy-AT-utoronto.ca
Subject: Re: Dasein's guilt / debt




On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Tom Blancato wrote:

> 
> Paul,
> 
> Since you are anticipating my response, could you explain whether "no
> thanks" is your response to that which you anticipate to come from me or
> if it is what you anticipate I am to, in your anticipation,
> irresponsibly, say? 
> 
> Sensitively,
> 
> Tom B.

Tom:

Perhaps I sounded rather rude to anticipate. This is far from my intention. 
The 'no thanks' is not my response 
-- in fact, I'm very grateful for your posing of the question of (non)violence. 
The anticipated 'no thanks' is my playful projection of what I take to be 
a position you have been articulating, especially in the context of your 
response to Dr. Eldred's citation of the _Beitraege_ on 'reservedness' -- 
namely, that impatience and outrage are justified ('responsible') 
responses to prevailing historical violence. Hence, 'no thanks' would be  
*against* Heidegger's thinking-thanking, against grateful acceptance or  
affirmation of history, 
against Heidegger's skew or spin of 'responsibility' towards 
'response-ibility' with respect to the history of being (wherein the 
response is to the call of Being and not to the call of others). 
I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting you or putting words in your mouth. 

On another note: By your discussion of 
'responsibility' in your previous post, are you arguing for a more 
Sartrean determination of the term than one derived from Being and Time?

Anticipating your response,
Paul


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---