Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:34:55 +0100 Subject: Re: Godt, Wahrheit und Amerika From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> Anthony wrote: mP: >>> 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? Anthony: >> 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. Anthony, the point I was making was that both sides might as well be characterised as (All!) death-loving thugs. Without thinking from no-sides these dichotomies, differences, divisions, this-side & that-side, etc, are merely conventional (convenient) categories (and thus, from another perspective (!), all on the same side (of being a side). When thinking, as I understand it, is engaged, it might be possible to see that the sides depend upon one another in various ways and are not simply opposed or even posed; or that they might dissolve into the nothingness they hide with their merely conventional safe wisdoms; for example, Marx's understanding that socialism is necessary to capitalism (and thus that your chracterisation of capitalist-dasein and socialist-dasein is somewhat questionable, apart from the questionability of adjectivising dasein at all), belongs to it and out of it. The main point is that all these dichotomous categories might be vacuous if not prologued by the kind of thinking that I characterise by the not-taking of the side of not-taking-sides, an a-spiration, not something I personally can easily live up to. I mean, why not try? before just multiplying the (always already given in the papers, the TV, the adverts, the subverts, the demos, the ideologies, the theographies, by the politicos, the pub theorists, etc, etc) distinctions that keep the warriors in eternal business? regards mP --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005