From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: technology and o/o
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:50:48 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

>Are you saying that Heidegger does not really believe what he said in that 
>passage from the Discourse on Thinking? What exactly in that passage in any 
>way contradicts anything he says anywhere else, such as in the volumes to 
>which you refer above? And if not, then why not take what he says as what 
>he says?
>
>   You're concerned about contradictions, Heidegger has divided the little
>   book in two, first the adress to the people, then the dialogue for the
>   'experts'. The first part is enough here, i just called attention to the
>   second part. If you can't take the first hurdle, the one we all have to
>   pass, you're not fit for the second.

And again, you have yet to show anything from one part which precludes 
anything in the other. Until you do so, then there is no reason to take 
Heidegger as meaning anything other than what he said in the text I quoted 
concerning technology.

>    But he's speaking to ordinary people! Is he saying that they must learn 
>to
>think?
>    That they must learn the od?
>
>    This is not rhetorics.
>    Is he saying that they must learn to think?    Answer: yes.
>    That they must learn the od?            I say: no

Where? Show me anywhere in the text I quoted or anywhere else in that 
context where he says that they should NOT learn the od? Just because he is 
speaking more generally (in terms of "something higher" than technology 
without specifying what that is) doesn't mean that he is saying that they 
must NOT learn the od. And it definitely doesn't mean that what he is saying 
is not what he believes.

>    What do you say: Heidegger tells his fellow Messkirchers that if they 
>don't
>want
>    to get enslaved by technology, that they'll have to learn thinking. You 
>said:
>    thinking begins with the ontological distinction. Are you gonna learn 
>to them
>    the od?

Where does he say otherwise?

>    They can't learn the od, but what they have in them, all, is the 
>ability to
>think,
>    to sense, the 'more' i asked you to elucidate. Strauss merely grants 
>his
>flock the
>    ability to kill (him). So that again everything is brutally turned 
>upside
>down,
>    and you have now the opportunity to see that what you're doing is 
>despise the
>people
>    and betray Heidegger.
>
>    Let's see what Heidegger has to give to the people of Messkirch:
>
>    P. 13: "...Everyone can follow the ways of thinking in their own way 
>and
>limits.
>    Why? Because man is the THINKING, THAT IS SENSING creature/being. 
>Therefore
>we don't
>    need to go far out high. It is enough, when we stay with the nearby and
>meditate on
>    the nearest-by: on that, what concerns us, every one for theirselves 
>here and
>now;
>    here: on this spot country earth, now: in the present world hour."

And how does this in any way address or preclude anything I said, or the 
text I posted earlier?

>    What Heidegger tells the people of Messkirch is the boredom analysis 
>from
>GA29/30.
>    I've said more than once, that the direction for Grundstimmung leaves
>explicitly
>    the ontological procedure of BT.

Yes I know you have SAID that, just as I SAID in reponse that the very text 
from GA 29/30 you posted also specified what Heidegger meant - that the 
ontological distinction is a DIFFERENT without being a difference between 
two occurring things. That's quite different from leaving the ontological 
procedure altogether. He's leaving the ontological distinction AS AN ONTIC 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO THINGS, and he never said in SuZ that it was an 
ontic distinction: "...we only have the different of a difference, but not 
this itself," "this distinction does not originate afterwards, merely 
through a distinguishing of occurrent differents (different things)". So you 
have yet to show that he is leaving the ontological procedure simply.

>    I don't give and i don't want courtesies. Read that book, at least the 
>page
>    that i typed for you, and you will be able to see  - as a human who has 
>it
>    in him -  that your stiffening of distinctions is the remotest from 
>what
>    Heidegger is doing.

I assume you mean the text you typed above. And again, how is it in any way 
different from anything I've been saying?

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected?  Get a FREE computer virus scan 
online from McAfee.    
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



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