From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: neither/nor (was: Righteous War? Or bluff?)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:47:49 -0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Re: neither/nor (was: Righteous War? Or bluff?)
> I think I can elaborate. Heidegger's philosophy does not imply that we can
> actually live neutrally. We are already thrown into the world. What is 
> "neutral" is not our actual living, but the ontological structure of that
> living. As the structure of being-in-the-world in general, it must encompass
> ANY possible existence in the world, and therefore any possible "side" 
> whatsoever. But some mistake the ontological for the ontic (for example,
> mistaking being-with for an ontic "community" such as the UN), and therefore
> try to claim that Heidegger's philosophy has more of an affinity with this
> or that side. They therefore think that Heidegger's philosophy of living
> cannot be neutral, without specifying the precise way that it is neutral,
> and the way it is not.
>
> Anthony Crifasi

There are only 2 'behaviours' - if you like - observable in humans.

They are 'acts' and 'consciousness', and there are intermediates involving both 'consciousness' and 'acts'.

Heidegger had a great impact in environmental ethics, especially with on the foundations of 'Deep Ecology'. The tenets of Deep Ecology were first elaborated on by Arne Naess. One of the nicest expressions I know of by Naess is 'Simple in means, rich in ends'.

This simple expression, or proposition, is open ended. It expresses a simple ethic which considers all things. This possible division (ontic?ontological) is an abstraction in that nothing under consideration is entirely 'ontic' nor is it entirely 'ontological' otherwise there would be no real use of symbols, and therefore consciousness, and acts arising from consciousness.

Humans share many values with other animals. Indeed there are 'animal values' which all animals share, but may not be shared by plants.

Individual or personal preference does not make 'invalid' an existing organization as long as it functions according to the agreed apon rules and proceedures. Unilateralism cannot be a matter simple of 'holding' and 'monopolizing' the truth. This is why the UN is the organization which it is supposed to be, a largely 'humanitarian' organization which is not set up solely for the 'advantaged' to lord it over the 'disadvantaged' much similar to the auspices of the World Trade Organization.

Recently Kurdish survivors of the chemical attacks were interviewed by a major network. These Kurdish people reported that the chemical attacks were the result of Iranian military attacks on Iraq. Iran accumulated most of it's weapons during the reign of the Shah of Iran. It is also reported, especially in "The Arms Bazaar" by Anthony Sampson, that the Shah or Iran was one of the largest buyers of military equipment and arms in the world, and the largest buyer of US military supplies during the 1960's and the 1970's.

"In February 1973 the Pentagon revealed that Iran had contracted to buy $2 billion worth of weapons from the United States - the biggest single deal ever negotiated: it would include 175 jet fighters, five hundred helicopters, and numbers of air-to-surface missiles....The transmuting of oil into arms was now quickening, until by the end of 1974 the Pentagon were selling nearly half their world exports to Iran...."

Total arsenal held by the Shah or Iran delivered by the US Pentagon:

"In 1975 his arsenal included 300 Chieftan tanks, with another 1,680 on order, 860 medium tanks, with another 250 Scorpion tanks on order, three destroyers, with six more destroyers and three submarines on order, and a total of 238 combat aircraft, with 349 fighters, including the Tomcats, on order. His total defence expenditure for 1975-6 was an estimated $10.405 billion, or nearly a third the total Gross National Product of Iran, and slightly more than the defence expenditure of Britain ($9.974 billion), which had five more times Iran's GNP."

"Soon after Kissinger's visit, the Shah was allowed to buy 160 General Dynamics F16 fighters (which had just been ordered by NATO) at a cost of about $3.4 billion, together with missiles worth another $600 million."

I would like to know which part here consists of the 'ontic' and which part consists of the 'ontological'? Which country during the Iraq-Iran war was most capable of using 'chemical weapons'?

The Kurdish people are indicating that it was the Iranians who attacked them with chemical weapons during the war with Iraq, not the Iraqi's....myths may die, but not quickly.

jmf

HTML VERSION: