From: andrew.glynn-AT-ca.pwcglobal.com
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:03:19 -0500
Subject: Re: deinotaton and impotence


--0__=bIEW4tvbB43CZVS8tAgo4TiwX2gimWyqE8yVqxwRY6ZEU1mTOoXxEhmR

Is violence merely a human affair? - for instance if my pit bull bit off my
arm I would consider it  a violent act, we refer to harsh storms as
violent, or violent eruptions of volcanoes etc.  Is this just
anthropomorphism or is being-violent a propensity of being?  The current
violence against Iraq is the violence of a state, not a person, as far as I
can make out with the sketchy reports "news" services provide.

H.'s analysis of "imperial" actions in the Parmenides volume, the 'trick'
or the sneaking around the back and tripping up seems key to the economic
pax americana where actions like the current bombing are (relatively)
rarely necessary in order to control the anarchic society of nations.  The
word peace itself comes out as an imperial form of control.

cheers
Andrew





capurro/42:45 PM

Please respond to heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

To:   heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
cc:
Subject:  Re: deinotaton and impotence



--0__=bIEW4tvbB43CZVS8tAgo4TiwX2gimWyqE8yVqxwRY6ZEU1mTOoXxEhmR



Tom,

you are talking about _actors_ of violence/non-violence. I think this is
strictly a _human_ affair. Violence and nonviolence are a _human_
phenomenon
(by the way: if you use: war/non-war, then the question is about the
difference between non-war and _peace_. Why do you not use the word _peace_
?)
H. is talking about the relation between Being and Da-sein, which is not an
(anthropomorphic) relation to be thought in the _categories_ of
violence/non-violence (this is precisely what Lévinas intends to do).
The relation of Being and Da-sein is called, according to the Greek
(Sophoclean) experience: _to deinon_, I translate: the Overwhelming.

The problem of violence concerning two (or more) ek-sisting beings (=human
beings) concerns the _Sorge_ (_cura_, care) with its forms of _Besorgen_
and
_Fuersorge_ and their _negative_ aspects. So an extreme form of _negation_
between ek-sisting beings is the negation of their Ek-sistence, i.e.
considering them as _things_ (or _Zeug_, instruments, see also: I. Kant).
>From this point of view is non-violence just a very primitive form of
_Fuersorge_ (I am not saying that this is your position, I am just trying
to
_use_ your categories in a Heideggerian context).

This has _nothing_ to do with your _egoic_ interpretation, as precisely the
_Fuersorge_ is essentially (!) non-egoic. This could (!) co-respond to the
tradition of "ahmisa" you are talking about.

>The centration in Heidegger seems to be egoic: "using power, roughness,
despotism" is a characterizatin on the side of the actor and not of the
recipient. How this pertains to the translation issue I don't know. >


kind regards,
Rafael






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




----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

--0__=bIEW4tvbB43CZVS8tAgo4TiwX2gimWyqE8yVqxwRY6ZEU1mTOoXxEhmR--



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