File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0304, message 358


Subject: RE: its a new world order stupid
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:02:02 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Anthony Crifasi [mailto:crifasi-AT-hotmail.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2003 11:42
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: its a new world order stupid


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>>It is one thing to
>>disagree with Bush; it is quite another to cast him through a filter that 
>>that blinds you even to what's genuinely there
>
>Huh? What's 'genuinely there'? I've already told you I don't think he's a 
>genuine christian but more of a straw man front for his party machine. You 
>'cast him through a filter' of your belief in the genuine christian values 
>of the GOP, and perhaps that 'blinds you even to what's genuinely there' - 
>in this case the purely amoral machination of power

But again, you fail to address the argument I gave - that there is a 
non-Christian fan of WtP on this list also sees Bush's faith as genuine. So 
since HE definitely is not seeing Bush through a Christian filter, you 
cannot simplistically dismiss my interpretation as a mere projection of my 
Christian beliefs.


--------


Bush or Anthony or anyone adhering to the Christian faith might really believe
that what they're doing/supporting is based on that faith, or they might not.
That does not change wtp. It's just 2 versions of wtp, one being stronger than
the other, according to the perspective that is chosen or, as mostly, is not chosen. 

The omnipresence of wtp (nothing besides) has as a consequence that of themselves 
there are no principles left to act upon. What is left is only the possibility to
*believe* in this or that principle, or in none, for the bigger pay-off. The power
is in the believing of the subject, in the subject. Remember that 'subject' to Nietzsche
is the source of all illusion, the biggest illusion being the will to truth.
If we assume that things are thus, when wtp is their unifying factor, then wtp as the
main fact of this world is something 'ontological'. By which I do not mean more than
that it is capable to relate to everything that is (collect) - to that what Heidegger
calls beings-as-a-whole - , in showing beings as they are: as becoming.

A nasty consequence of not going all the way to the ground of wtp, and that is:
seeing the *ontological* (wtp AS wtp), all-encompassing character of it, is to
remain entangled in practical illusions as to the nature of the ontological, and
that means: of the ontic too. Here, in Nietzsche's wtp, would be the chance to see
that at last ontology, the saying of ta onta with help of a basic meaning of being,
or a highest being, makes itself impossible, by taking away the meta-physical realm
itself. Not by a simple denial or reversement a la Feuerbach though, but by a strangely
*founded* one, which gains an overall, 'total' validity. (Wtp as the new PRINCIPLE of
valuation). We would be touching now the hidden identity of metaphysics and nihilism. 

Another nasty consequence would be that when nihilism as metaphysics is left out,
also Heidegger's new approach of man in terms of Dasein and being-in-the-world,
cannot be understood. Angst, it is said, is not about an object in the world,
but about 'nothing'. "Nothing" would be explained, according to Anthony, because
it is entirely different from any-thing in that it is not a thing: all right.  
What this nothing 'is' itself, whether as nothing it can 'be' something, however
remains unsaid. It can be, and almost always is, the null nothing: a nothing
that is worth nothing, also not attention. It can also be experienced as that
which normally carries all beings, because all of a sudden things in their
entirety showed themselves as ungrounded. Then the annihilating effect of the
nothing is not only 'suffered' ("it was nothing"), but accepted in the
profoundness of its devastation of beings as a whole. 
With the nothing that is experienced in the mood of Angst, a mood that par excellence
comes and goes, is thus dis-covered: world, component of our "being-in-the-world.  
But what happens with Dasein when it does not notice Angst, nothing, world, and 
thus its own being-in-the-world? Then beings press themselves forward only harder,
in order to fill the void. 

That was my point with the Blair Witch project: if we are related to world as a
nothing, we cannot escape from it, we're 'obliged' to be that way.
The harder we try to escape, the more unessential, eerie things become. 
Maybe from here can be conjectured that Nietzsche's prophecy that his thought of the ER
will be a sifting one, is not a personal whim, but the most courageous Fuersorge towards
us, in the 19th century philosphy.

One can doubt whether thinking can change the world, but not-thinking certainly
changes, ruins it.

rene 








 















>>And it will still more or less function, unless you are saying that US has
>>more of an obligation towards the UN than, say, the USSR had when it 
>>bypassed its authority.
>
>The USSR had to deal with the USA. The UN 'more or less functioned' as a 
>way of arbitrating between these exceedingly dangerous super powers and 
>their global cold war. The USSR no longer exists but when it or the US 
>bypassed the UN this did not signal the end of that international forum. I 
>can't put it more plainly than this - your government no longer recognises 
>the authority of the UN at all, from now on and into the future.

If you are saying that what lacks precedence here is the combination of the 
facts that there is only one superpower AND that superpower has bypassed UN 
authority, then by appealing to the moral seriousness of this new situation, 
you are somehow maintaining that it is morally not-as-bad for a superpower 
to bypass UN authority if there is another superpower! So you are basically 
stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue: (1) either you are 
saying that a superpower's moral obligation towards the UN mysteriously 
depends on the presence or absence of another superpower, or (2) this is not 
the case, in which case the new situation with only one superpower, which 
lacks precedence, is completely irrelevant to the moral issue.

>>"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq
>>pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply 
>>with,
>>and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall
>>constitute a further material breach of Iraq^s obligations"
>>
>>given that the inspectors explicitly said that they
>>found certain items which were omitted from the Iraq arms declaration, and
>>that they did not receive anywhere near FULL cooperation from Iraq (exact
>>words above), then it is not a mere opinion that according to paragraph 4
>>above, Iraq is in explicit material breach of resolution 1441.
>
>This matter was argued in the security council, in the opinion of the 
>majority of the representatives the inspectors reports did not constitute a 
>reason for war, and this was backed up by those inspectors themselves who 
>suggested that the inspections were indeed working and that they needed 
>more time.

Malcolm, do not just fall back upon the fact that others have debated this 
and came to different conclusions. That would be like if I were to answer 
your reading of Husserl by simply saying that others have debated this and 
come to different conclusions, without even addressing the text! YOU read 
the above text (and the whole resolution if necessary - it isn't very long 
and is easy to find on the web), and YOU tell me how you can avoid a 
material breach given the exact words above. Keep in mind that the 
inspectors have explicitly said that they have found items which were 
supposed to be listed in the Iraqi arms declaration but were not, and that 
they were NOT receiving FULL cooperation (look at the words above) from 
Iraqi officials. If you can find a way to avoid the US conclusion that Iraq 
was in explicit material breach of resolution 1441 given what it says above, 
then be my guest.

>I have already told you that I don't think you understand the 
>ontical/ontological distinction at all.

Yes, and you did not reply to the text that I gave you in my reply to your 
post in which you said that. Would you like me to post those texts on 
anxiety again - the one in which Heidegger describes "real" anxiety as rare 
but with scare quotes around "real"? Until you address the texts I gave you, 
then the fact that you merely told me the above is irrelevant. As with 
resolution 1441, please address the text.

>This latest is a good example. Can you explain to me how it is that 
>Heidegger himself clearly thought his ontology 'lends an enlightened status 
>to certain ontic positions' regarding the problem of technology and the 
>power structure of machination's will to will and explicitly as regards the 
>'inner truth and greatness' of national socialism in its world historical 
>conflict with democracy and communism?

For example, take the problem of technology. The SPECIFIC problem that 
Heidegger has with technology is when the technological orientation starts 
to exclude other ways of understanding being (for instance, those involved 
with works of art), since it is understanding being in manifold ways which 
makes us the being we are. Although Heidegger says that technology is 
especially prone to such an exclusive orientation, this problem of excluding 
per se would also apply when the artistic or environmentalist orientation 
excludes technology as a way of understanding being (i.e., as a true 
revealing), which is precisely what many radical environmentalists tend to 
do when they condemn capitalism and technology as intrinsically negative per 
se, and forget that these too involve ways of true revealing. So Heidegger 
is not saying that the Enframing orientation of technology per se is 
"unenlightened" compared to art or environmentalism (since enframing is also 
a revealing), but rather the forgetting that we are a being which 
understands being in other ways too.

Anthony Crifasi


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



     --- 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