Subject: RE: the death of god for kids Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:12:19 +0200 From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl> I was thinking or dreaming: Otto Poeggeler has criticized Heideggereans and Juengerites, that, as easily as they seemed to drop this world into the gutter, so little did they propose alternatives for the future. First: alternatives are not makeable. If they are, they are no longer alternatives, because makeability is part of the subjectivity to be overcome. (what can come about without making? Gelassenheit: non-passive waiting) So a change cannot be made, and cannot be representated. One has to go in, without guarantees. What can this mean practically? As long as persuasion is needed, nothing will do. The need must be there, and probably desperation. Either a series of disasters, or the contrary: overall technological domination combined with utter boredom. The feeling must arise: this is not enough. As for instance now in the scandalous policy for the Middle East. What can be expected from a bunch of liars (Blair, Bush), murderers (Sharon), traitors (Abbas). More real is Kenneth's garden with trains. What if his idea of saving the woods would be proposed to the world population? Wouldn't that be something, they would be willing to work for, knowing that it would be for all, while every humanist end that is proposed now is just a lie, which everyone deep inside knows. The greatest happiness for the most: that's a hell of a lie, people. It cannot be realized without a suffering and growing majority. And one can see that on world scale and also now in the US and Europe itself. So you must be double blind if you still believe in consumerism. Don't read the reference in "Principle of ground" then. Ah, you didn't already. The same with the sneering remarks on peace conferences in "What's called thinking?". Eminem says litteraly the same. And Orwell. (peace=war) r --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005