File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0304, message 204


Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 01:14:36 -0700
From: Kenneth Johnson <beeso-AT-pop.charter.net>
Subject: Re: and the cure


The be leaver anthony rote;

>I've got some extra time, so I figure it's time to finally follow up on your
>reply Jan about Levinas a while back, because otherwise you will forget
>about those nasty little limitations and write lovely posts like the above.
>
>ETHICS AND INFINITY
>Chapter 8: Responsibility for the Other
>
>Nemo: In your last great book published, Otherwise than Being or Beyond
>Essence, you speak of moral responsibility. Husserl had already spoken of
>responsibility, but of a responsibility for the truth; Heidegger had spoken
>of authenticity; as for yourself, what do you understand by responsibility?

SO WHY DON'T THE LEGION BE LEAVERS EVER READ "ON TRUTH AND LIE IN AN
EXTRA-MORAL SENSE" EH??

ANSWER: CAUSE THEY AIN'T "THERE"

>
>Levinas: In this book I speak of responsibility as the essential, primary
>and fundamental structure of subjectivity. For I describe subjectivity in
>ethical terms. ETHICS HERE DOES NOT SUPPLEMENT A PRECEDING EXISTENTIAL BASE;
>TEH VERY NODE OF THE SUBJECTIVE IS KNOTTED IN ETHICS UNDERSTOOD AS
>RESPONSIBILITY. I understand responsibility as responsibility for the Other,
>thus as responsibility for what is not my deed, or for what does not even
>matter to me; or which precisely does matter to me, is met by me as face.


ok anthony, a Levinian under.standing, eh? let's start there:

"responsibility as the essential, primary and fun.damental structure of
subjectivity'.

???????????????????????????????????? huh ?????????????? the structure of
subjectivity is response ability?????????????? or responsibility???

or: "the very node of the subjective is knotted in ethics under stood as
response ability"

anthony, i must ask, do you have even the remotest clue of what the fuck
"SUBJECT.IVITY" IS??????   I guarantee you it has not one whit to do with
ethics, which is only arti.fice. It's not so much the cogito here, the "i
think therefore- - -" shit.  or to say, in order for there to be thought,
there must be an I THINK that thinks, incipit the religious "I Think". But
there is no thought, and there is no think, no more than there is a logos
as "a thing", as some "logos thing" but only relation ships.  this means
also and in the same way, there is no "word" thing, but only mediating, as
a relation ship. so why the fuck don't you and levinas quit co-opting aural
"relation ships" as things? you got some agenda here? ethics? ain't that
"behavior" and nothing be sides too? but then so is shooting your self in
the foot a be.havior, or getting a pass to a priest hoodedness so you can
get your jollys by getting a 'piece' of the innocent little future tithe
paying classes



>Nemo: How, having discovered the Other in his face, does one discover him as
>he to whom one is responsible?

huh???????? the "Other", "in his face", "dis.cover this other face as
"response able fer?????"

u an levinas are inventing, nothing wrong with inventing, that's what makes
the world appear to go round, but there is a hierarchy of value in
invention, the value of you and levinas is not worth a rats fuck tho, yes,
you are no less will to power here than the man hatten project was, and
you're detrimental effect is about par at that low ape level - - - s'cuse
me while i puke


>Levinas: In describing the face positively, and not merely negatively. You
>recall what we said: meeting the face is not of the order of pure and simple
>perception, of the intentionality which goes toward adequation. Positively,
>we will say that since the Other looks at me, I am responsible for him

[ha ha ha ha ha ohhhhhhhh ho ho ho ho ho and gimmee a ten turd break chile uns]

>without even having taken on responsibilities in his regard; his
>responsibility is INCUMBANT on me.

[HUH?????? ETC.]

 It is resonsibility that goes beyond what
>I do. Usually one is responsible for what one does onself. I say, in
>Otherwise than Being [Otherwise than Being???? THAT'S PRETTY LO FALUTIN
>RHETORIC COWGIRL], that responsibility is initially a for the Other. THIS
>MEANS THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS VERY RESPONSIBILITY.

HUH?????? get a job boy, try to quit thinking, and if you don't heed that
warnin' you are doomed to spend an eternity in some heaven hole some where

of course the "real" dis.ease is, that you think you really are a "you",
and not just a gramma 1

>Nemo: What in this responsibility for the Other defines the structure of
>subjectivity?

or all this shit only to say, u set em up fer me Levinas, i set em up fer
u, and what happens is "The Subtle Truth that Only the True Truer's are
privy 2, meanin "we [fill in the saddamic blink here] ones"

>Levinas: Responsibility in fact [IN "FACT"??? FUCK} is NOT A SIMPLE
>ATTRIBUTE OF SUBJECTIVITY,

are u the one capitalizing this shit ant thony?? Response ability,
responsibility, tis true, is certain lee not a simple attribute, nor even a
complex attribute, nor no attribute what so ever, of subject ivity, nor
subject to attributition, nor nor nor nor nor

>AS IF THE LATTER ALREADY EXISTED IN ITSELF, BEFORE THE ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP.

BUT THERE IS NO POSITIVE WILL TO POWER AS ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP, ONLY WILL
TO POWER AS FICTION GENERATOR, LIE, OR 'THE TRUTH'

>Subjectivity is not for itself; it is, once again, initially FOR ANOTHER. In
>the book, the proximity of the Other is presented as the fact that the Other
>is not simply close to me in space, or close like a parent, but he
>approaches me essentially insofar as I feel myself - INSOFAR AS I AM -
>RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM. It is a structure that in NOWISE resembles the
>intentional relation which in knowledge attaches us to the object - to no
>matter what object, be it a human object. Proximity does not revert to this
>intentionality; in particular it does not revert to the fact that the Other
>is known to me.


THIS IS "TRUTH AS COMPLEXITY", TOO SUBTLE FOR WILL TO POWER TO 'een BOTtER
WIT, SUPRAFACIAL, ACADEMIC, AND REMOTE FROM uncommon sense (may the gods
have mercy on god)

>
>Nemo: I can know someone to perfection,  [HUH HUH HUH HUH AD INFINITUM]
>but this knowledge will never by
>itself be a proximity?

'COURSE, THAT'S CAUSE IT AIN'T A REAL TOUCHABLE SCALEABLE KNOW LEDGE, BUT
AN ACADEMIC SYLLOGISTIC LICENSED EQUATORIAL PILE OF thomas crapper

>
>Levinas: No. The tie with the Other is knotted ONLY AS RESPONSIBILITY,

[YOU, ANTHONY ARE [RADICALLY] OTHER TO ME, BUT I DID NOT MAKE YOU AN IDIOT,
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE]

 this
>moreover, whether accepted or refused, whether knowing or not knowing how to
>assume it, whether able or unable to do something concrete for the Other.

[BUT [INFERRED] THAT UNLESS YOU SWALLOW THIS SWILL, YOU ARE UNABLE TO BE ABLE]

[AH WELL, THERE IS ALWAYS TO POUR CONCRETE OVER THE CONCRETE 'OTHER', but
to do that, you would FIRST have to make a syllogism]

 To
>give. To be human spirit, thats it. The incarnation of human subjectivity
>guarantees its spirituality
[GOD, IF ALL THIS WERN'T TAKEN SO SERUMIOUSLY BY ALL THE DEPRAVED ANTHONIAC
LOCUSTS....]  Dia-chrony before all dialogue: I analyze
>the inter-human relationship as if, in proximity with the Other - beyond the
>image I myself make of the other man - his face, the expressive in the Other
>(and the whole human body is in this sense more or less face) [FINALLY, A
>DROP OF SENSE], were what
>ordains me [SHORT DROP THO] to serve him. I employ this extreme
>formulation. The face orders
>and ordains me. Its signification is an order signified. To be precise, if
>teh face signifies an order in my regard, this is not in the manner in whcih
>an ordinary sign signifies its signified; this order is the very
>signifyingness of the face. [UHH, NO IT AIN'T - "HOW DO YOU REFUTE THE
>TRANSCENDENTAL MONKEES? (KICKING A STONE): "I REFUTE THEM THUS"]
>
>Nemo: You say at once "it orders me" adn "it ordains me." Is this not a
>contradiction?
>
>Levinas: It orders me as one orders someone one commands, as when one says:
>"Someone's asking for you."
>
>Nemo: But is not the Other also responsible in my regard?
>
>Levinas: Perhaps, but that is HIS affair. One of the fundamental themes of
>Totality and infinity about whcih we have not yet spoken is that the
>intersubjective relation is a non-symmetrical relation. In this sense, I AM
>RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER WITHOUT WAITING FOR RECIPROCITY, WERE I TO DIE FOR
>IT. Reciprocity is HIS affair. It is precisely insofar as the relationship
>between the Other and me is NOT reciprocal that I am SUBJECTION to the
>Other; and I am "subject" essentially IN THIS SENSE. It is I WHO SUPPORT
>ALL. You know that sentence in Dostoyevsky: "We are all guilty of all and
>for all men before all, adn I more than the others." This is not owing to
>such or such a guilt which is really mine, or to offenses that I would have
>committed; but because I am resopnsible for a total responsibility, which
>answers for all the others and for all in the others, EVEN FOR THEIR
>RESPONSIBILITY. The I always has one resopnsibility MORE than all the
>others.


[OH WHY BOTHER, ALL THIS CAN ONLY BE SWALLOWED BY THE QUAVERING
TRANSCENDENTALISTS WHICH, AS IS AS OBIOUS AS THE NON NOSE ON THEIR NON
FACES, ARE THE LEGIONS OF THE EVERYMAN - MORAL? DUMP MAN, GET BACK TO WHAT
IS THERE BENEATH ANY ARTIFICIAL 'YOU'

OR TO SAY, YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY ON THIS EARTH IS TO BE
IRRESPONSIBLE, "TO BE" NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING BEING, TO NOT SPEND AN
OUNCE OF ENERGY ON JUST I FYING QUIVERING TOUCHY FEELY BULLSHIT BUT RATHER
TO BUILD A BEAUTY FULL RAIL ROAD ROUND A BEAUTY FULL JAPANESE GARDEN


>Tired of spam? Get advanced ANTHONIAN junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005