From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Anxiety is about nothing...whatsoever, was distortions
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:56:37 +0000


John Foster wrote:

>Anthony argued that the UN organization is an 'entity' in the world, and
>therefore a definate real object, an expression of ontical-existentielle
>phenomenon.
>
>I countered by indicating that the US and 2 allies, which are plundering, 
>or
>allows plundering, is an expression of a 'lack of consensus', an expression
>of an 'inauthentic one-sided' attempt to fulfill it's own agenda. There is
>no authentic ontological equivalent of plunder, but there is a an 
>equivalent
>to disarmament and peace where there is a general consensus.

No authentic ontological "equivalent" of plunder? There is nothing 
incompatible between plundering and authenticity! A Nazi can be authentic 
(viz., Heidegger), and look at the things they did. Similarly, an 
ontological "equivalent" to disarmament and peace? Mitsein pervades 
everything from our most universal agreements to our most private, defiant 
thoughts. It is not as if one is mitsein but the other is not.

>Anthony argues from the 'historical situation' and thus approves of the US
>acting unilaterally in the world. We on the other hand emphasize
>understanding and the 'being-possible' of harmony and accord within the
>world. This can only be achieved through a 'recognition' in the meaning
>'intended' in the relation between authentic selves.

There is nothing incompatible between factical dis-harmony (such as war or 
murder) and authenticity. Again, look at what the Nazis did.

>I have not related this belief as of yet on this list, but I am assuming 
>now
>that there are some serious obstacles to understanding metaphysics,
>ontology, and existential philosophy as long as there is a ongoing
>dedication to the 'historical situation' as represented by Anthony's
>arguments.
>
>Anthony, unlike Malcolm, and others, has failed to explain, discuss and
>elaborate on the function of anxiety. Anxiety is the one
>ontological-existential which makes thinking possible, ney understanding
>possible. If consciousness could only be aware of the actual, or the
>necessary, then there could be no United Nations which is predicated on
>understanding. War is force, and war is 'organized death' and the direct
>expression of 'misunderstanding'.

Oh John you are using Heidegger's terms so loosely! Understanding, in the 
ontological sense, is the condition for ANY factical being-in-the-world, 
including being at war. Understanding is simply projection upon Dasein's own 
authentic potentiality for being. So it is nonsensical to say that Dasein 
can misunderstand in the ONTOLOGICAL sense - just as nonsensical as saying 
that it is possible for Dasein to not be-with-Others, ever. As long as there 
is being-in-the-world (authentic or inauthentic), there is understanding in 
the ontological sense. If you want to speak of some ontic meaning of 
understanding, THEN you can speak of a misunderstanding, but that is an 
ontic meaning, not Heidegger's ontological meaning!

>It should be recalled that the US was 'impatient' with Saddam Hussein
>because they were slow in disarming their 'supposed' weapons of mass
>destruction (the US expressed unfounded allegations of WMD and also was
>found itself of being in possession of forged documents - eg. Nigerian
>Uranium shipments); the US also wanted a 'regime change in Iraq, which was
>clearly not allowable under the UN Charter.
>
>The US operates unilaterally without understanding that there is any other
>means to resolve peacefully the issues the world has with regard to
>diarmament of weapons of mass distruction;

John that is such a blatantly ontic meaning of understanding! Please, before 
you just go off with other terms like understanding, stick to ONE first, 
like anxiety. Answer my last reply to you, in which I focused on the 
specific text in which Heidegger explicitly says that the object of anxiety 
is not anything present-at-hand, nor anything ready-to-hand, NOR EVEN ANY 
SPECIFIC FACTICAL POSSIBILITY FOR THESE. The object of anxiety is no-thing, 
Dasein's authentic pure potentiality for being.

>The ontological is largely an 'interpretation' of the factical and the
>factical (or ontic) is largely a 'description' of entities, definate
>entities.

John it is not merely a difference between a factical description and an 
interpretation of that description! That is a purely ontical distinction. 
Interpretation or understanding (in the ontological sense) is the condition 
for the factical in the first place!

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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