From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gestell
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:34:24 +0000


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>>Take the largest corporation in the United States - Walmart. If the 
>>hydroelectric plant transforms the Rhine into a "water-power supplier," 
>>then for Walmart to be an equivalent case, it would have to transform its 
>>source into a "Walmart supplier." Now what supplies Walmart, and with 
>>what?
>
>I'd say primary industry along with the manufacturing industry and the 
>suppliers of its raw materials in textiles and steel sourced on the global 
>market would supply Walmart with its stuff that you buy.

Well yes but remember that according to Heidegger's Rhine example in QCT, 
Walmart would have to transform its source such that it would exist "in NO 
other way than as" a Walmart supplier (last line in Rhine paragraph in QCT). 
So you would have to judge on a case by case basis, because very rarely 
(thought admittedly it does happen sometimes) is a supplier limited to only 
one retailer, especially as large as the global market is today. Walmart may 
be huge, but compared to the entire US economy (let alone the world 
economy), it is literally a drop in the bucket.

In addition, remember that the relationship goes BOTH ways. In other words, 
Walmart PURCHASES products from its sources, unlike the hydroelectric plant 
which doesn't give anything back to the Rhine in return for what the Rhine 
supplies to it. So although it is true that Walmart's sources supply 
Walmart, Walmart also supplies its sources. So depending on the supplier, 
Walmart may be more of a supplier to them than they are to it. So it is not 
at all clear that multi-national corporations such as Walmart wield the kind 
of essence-transforming power that Heidegger refers to in the Rhine example, 
since depending on the case, they may be more transformed than they 
transform.

>There you go Anthony, whenever you buy those Nike's you have a calculative 
>relation to some poor Indonesian worker and the ransacking of their 
>rainforests that also supports the economic order they live under. I can't 
>see as how global commerce and regulated trade isn't a form of ordered 
>transaction, where commercial power is mediated by state interests that 
>together regulate the domestic economies in which real people live out 
>their lives.

I agree that it is a form of ordered transaction, but again remember that no 
commercial power exists in a one way relationship with either its suppliers 
of raw material or consumers. The supplier, the retailer, and the consumer 
all supply EACH OTHER. The hydroelectric plant, however, does not supply the 
Rhine with anything in return, so the transformation goes only one way. And 
in addition, as long as there are stores besides Walmart (and there are a 
myriad of such stores which price competitively), then it is not true that 
we exist "in no other way than as" Walmart suppliers. Again, we could be who 
we are without Walmart, but not vice versa.

>I'd suppose that if you choose to shop at Walmart instead of the family 
>business down the road it might be because they have a wider range of 
>pretty much the same crap at cheaper prices. If you supply them with cash 
>then I'd also say you've transformed yourself into a 'Walmart money 
>supplier' which is of course your consumer choice.

The essence-transformation which Heidegger describes in the Rhine example in 
QCT is hardly just matter of shopping at Walmart and supplying them with 
cash sometimes. It is a matter of existing "in NO other way than as" a 
Walmart supplier. And again, this means certain things: first, that I am not 
in a cash supplying relationship with any other entity for the same 
products, and also that Walmart is not a hardware supplier, a food supplier, 
etc. for us too (in which case Walmart would be at LEAST as defined as a 
supplier to us as we are supposedly defined as suppliers to it). Regarding 
the latter, I would say that Walmart is far more defined by us as our 
hardware supplier, food supplier, etc. than we are defined by it as its 
money supplier. Again, we can be who we are without Walmart, but not vice 
versa. Walmart would cease to be what it is without us, but not vice versa.

>Who supplies you with money Anthony, and what do you have to do to get it? 
>Or more to the point, who and how do you have to be?

I have to supply my employer with something, and then my employer supplies 
me with money. The relationship goes both ways, and it is not immediately 
clear who transforms who more.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Need a shot of Hank Williams or Patsy Cline?  The classic country stars are 
always singing on MSN Radio Plus.  Try one month free!  
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio



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