Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:15:52 +0200
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Re: Godt, Wahrheit und Amerika


Cologne 11-Sep-2003

Anthony Crifasi schrieb Thu, 11 Sep 2003 06:20:56 +0000:

> michaelP wrote:
>
> >Anthony:
> > > The problem is that (1) it is not at all clear that even if God were
> >dead,
> > > we should be living as though God is alive, and (2) a true atheist also
> >has
> > > limits, bounds, and conditions for thinking. So whether as hypothesis or
> >as
> > > a limit, bound, and condition for thinking, I don't see how such
> > > explications of God can be phenomenologically sufficient.
> >
> >Such explications may not be sufficient, rather, necessary as a starting
> >point, a direction. Another either/or came up in the Guardian today with an
> >article concerning the "two 9/11s", the other being the bombing of Santiago
> >in 1973.
> >
> >"I am not writing about September 11 2001 in New York City. I am writing
> >about another September 11 - an equally horrible one - in 1973. The planes
> >I
> >saw were warplanes and their target was the presidential palace in
> >Santiago,
> >Chile."
> >
> >He goes on to say at the end of the article:
> >
> >"It is fundamentally a struggle over where globalisation will take us,
> >whether the powerful economic and political interests of the world headed
> >up
> >by reactionary US leaders will create a new world order that relies on
> >intervention and state terrorism, or whether a globalist perspective from
> >below based on a more just and egalitarian conception of the world will
> >gain
> >ascendancy."
> >
> >Reactionary/radical, above/below, etc, simply will not do... why not
> >neither? No globalisation and the attendant nationalisms and
> >internationalisms and all that rancid yap about
> >freedom-fighters/terrorists,
> >etc. All death-loving thugs. What about no-sides?
>
> It is as impossible to take no-sides (in the sense you mean) as it is for us
> to not be in the world. For example, your characterization of them all as
> "death-loving thugs" is already to take a side - the side opposed to
> distinguishing freedom-fighters from death-lovers. Your no-side already
> betrays your side, thereby illustrating the impossibility of taking no side.

Too right, Anthony. Eleven-Sep-oh-One is a watershed, the knife-edge ridge of a
crisis that forces a decision.

The US-led invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation perhaps one of the most
generous acts toward the Iraqi people and the whole region. Here seems to be an
instance where US self-interest forces the US to pursue a universal interest. If
just ten per cent more girls in the Islamic world from Marocco to Indonesia get
some school education, that is already a step forward. Is this the "cunning of
reason" (Hegel), das Allgemeine, das sich durch das Besondere hindurch
durchsetzt (the universal that asserts itself through the particular)?

> >Should we not be attending to these limits of thinking instead of trying to
> >define "true" atheism" (as compared to merely intellectual atheism)? Which
> >means, surely, not taking sides and not taking the side of not taking
> >sides...
>
> To emphasize an explication of God in terms of the limits of thinking is to
> already take a side - the side that God is a mere limit of thought, not
> more. Mother Theresa did not encounter the limit of thought on the streets
> of Calcutta.
>
> Anthony Crifasi

Strange things happen to people, perhaps one of the most destinal for humankind
was what happened to Abraham and Moses. Unheimlich (creepy). Believers believe,
the faithful have faith. That has consequences beyond just holding to one's
opinions. Human beings hold the world to be, each in their own way. This is part
of the Jemeinigkeit der Existenz (unique mineness of existence).

Not feeling quite up to Nietzsche's formula for affirmation -- the "ideal of the
most high-spirited, most lively and most world-affirming human who has come to
terms with and has learned to bear not only what was and is but wants to have it
again, as it was and is, in all eternity". (Beyond Good and Evil Aph.56)

In going beyond good and evil, Nietzsche wanted to remain here, this side. He
wanted to discourage the apparently irrepressible desire to climb over to a
beyond, to flee the world. The transcendentalists (and aren't we all,
tendentially, in certain moments?) can hardly stand being here. Transcendence to
a beyond becomes a transgression in Nietzsche's thinking. Instead, as Heidegger
uncovers, we climb over 'only' to a world and continually overlook nothing. That
is hard to stand (finite being-in-the-world), and that is what Nietzsche's
formula of affirmation is about.

Thankful for nothing. Unheimlich (uncanny).

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact-AT-t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_






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