Subject: RE: creeps, gitten them
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:55:57 +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: woensdag 6 augustus 2003 19:51
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: creeps, gitten them


michaelP wrote:

> > But it is indeed necessary to oppose traditional meanings insofar as 
>they
> > are taken as indicative of what Being primarily is, and of how beings
> > primarily present themselves. Heidegger opposes traditional meanings in 
>that
> > way.
>
>But, Anthony, the point for me is that you cannot say (seriously) or even
>speak directly about what being is because it cannot properly be 
>predicated,
>is not the answer to a "what?" is not a whatness of the traditional or any
>other kind. Although the questions as to how and what being and beings are
>do belong together... if you like, being is not (something or everything or
>nothing) so that beings are (something) {or is this more metaphysics, 
>Rene?}

Then we can say that Being is NOT a being, as opposed to the traditional 
meaning of being, which was a being. For example, my students have the 
hardest time with Heidegger's basic idea that Dasein's essence is existence, 
because they all naturally start by trying to see what he is saying Dasein 
IS, and of course it is impossible to imagine or form a concept of what 
Heidegger means by "existence". They have a much easier time when I tell 
them to start with what Heidegger is saying Dasein is NOT - Dasein's essence 
is NOT an existent (soul, body, etc.). This is much easier precisely because 
existents are metaphysical, and therefore imaginable and conceivable. There 
are so many people who try to introduce Heidegger to beginners by trying to 
explain what Being is, or what Dasein is. 99 percent of students in those 
classes have no idea what the professor is saying, much less Heidegger. The 
professor probably doesn't really even know what he is talking about.

Anthony Crifasi

 Very well. But this is only a first step. An initializing criticism of
 "logic", focusing on the logos and its S-P structure, is necessary in order
 to see that such way of representation is inappropriate for Dasein.
 But that does not mean that we already know what is the appropriate way
 of rendering factical Dasein, and that is: in what consists the being,
 expressed by the word Dasein, itself. At most one has a hunch for where
 to look and how to ask. Even that is too much: THAT one has a hunch
 that something is inappropriate, is the only indispendable. If you're
 thinking that this purely negative 'method' already justifies to make
 the kind of statements you make, you also don't know what you're talking
 about, and failed to apply the method to yourself, which is indispendable,
 because Dasein, yours for you, mine for me, is the issue.

 For instance, saying that traditionally Being is conceived as 'a thing', is
 not incorrect, but highly insufficient. In fact, I&D brings explorations
 which aim at discovering the [post-]metaphysical structure, something like
 Dasein is in, as long as it has not another language than that S-P structured
 one. But 'is' Dasein, when it explains itself as subject, truly, eigentlich?
 In fact, all metaphysical distinctions  - what-how , possibility-actuality,
 Being-beings a.o. - in their interrelatedness, form a formidable barrier
 against the being of Dasein. Metaphysically, possibility is always the 
 possibility of an actuality, actuality the actualisation of a possibility,
 and necessity the possibility that is always connected with actuality.
 Our thinking and doing is impregnated by these templates of what in Thomas
 or Kant is productive, apophantic thinking, so that, as in the Grimm tale of
 the hare and the leech, the leech is always already there, no matter how fast 
 the hare is running. And all those constructions have to be destructed, when
 the possibility of Dasein is to be relieved, a possibility that is higher than
 any actuality. (BT and TB)
 Contrary to what your speaking tone suggests, Heidegger kept on repeating that
 taking the direction into Dasein, transforming oneself from subject into Dasein,
 is almost impossible, and is becoming only harder. That already preparative
 moves are knocked off by the powers of self-evidence, which even affected H's
 own hunches in BT and brought him to desperation. 
 
 I'd say, the problem is not the reading of Heidegger texts, it is the not-reading
 of the metaphysical texts that layed the fundament of this world now, and somehow
 still keep it going. No Dasein without Geschichte. But modern man, esp. professors,
 are little gods that conduct their Erlebnis worlds, and even do not have an idea
 of history anymore, in opposition to which a notion of Geschichte could solely be won. 
 
 And as long as the leading nations think themselves free from all this - and that is an
 option, nobody and nothing can forbid - they will be the leading nations in nihilism.
 We're free to let ourselves in with difference or not; it, difference, can do without 
 us. This is said in I&D. If you, and i'm talking to all now, have not seen it, even
 if you've read the book 10 times, you're the one who should be worried.
 So far i don't see one philosopher to take responsibility, and i throw my glove
 at all of them, and call these rappers a bunch of cowards and faggots as long as they,
 or their followers, keep silent. And the only philospher to be taken seriously:
  
  Eminem: So this is like a full blown attack I'm launchin at 'em	 ('Till I collapse')

  The spokesman of white America is greeted by the Fuersprecher of old Europe.

 





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