Subject: RE: technology and o/o and mitsein and trivia
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:35:03 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>


Anthony's best phrasing:

 "My phrasing was precise - existentials constitute every phenomenon" 


 You've capslocked this EVERY about 30 times (no guarantee), and thus
 used it as the piece de resistance of your argumentation, that for instance
 wars are ontic trivia that have to be kept separated from ontological
 questioning. But that is just formalisation, needed to get into view
 existentiality, which as such is indeed nothing war- or peacelike, also
 not sweet and sour.
 Well, if you think you've already touched ontological difference by that
 - the very word does not even exist in BT - you're just grossly wrong.
 And showing yourself not accessible to repeated criticisms of it, you
 then use that same selfmade od for a post-ww2 Heidegger text, that treats
 the also in peace time seemingly unstoppable domination by technology
 that people loses itself in.  That's what i call cheating and betrayal.
  
 Heidegger asked in BT for the Sinn/sense and being, because there seems no
 sense of being left. (See the aporetic motto of BT) But not bacause he held
 the ontological barometer out of his window. But it was ww1 that had made
 the loss of the sense of being shockingly palpable. It might be argued if
 something like 'facticity' would be experiencable without such an enormous
 disaster. That's what you play down, and that is inhuman. I don't say that
 you are inhuman, i say: in the way that you think and the way that you show
 it, is the inhuman one-track persisting, that ironically is one of the
 topics of the same Discourse on thinking, as it is of What is called
 thinking. And that is busy to produce the third ww. 
 
 Rene

  this is the last time, Anthony. 


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