File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0311, message 497


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:22:12 +0000


michaelP wrote:

> >> on 27/11/03 6:02 pm, Malcolm Riddoch at m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au wrote:
> >> >>> As you might guess, I have no idea where you're going with this
> >>> corporate line with respect to Gestell, I think we're both on a
> >>> tangent.
> >> >> Yes, Malcom, gestell will have nothing of these mundane
> >> distinctions since such distinctions are themselves showings of
> >> gestell, and not gestell it self. Step back (in) thinking again.
> > > I'm not saying that such distinctions are gestell, or that the
> > entities distinguished are gestell. I am saying that entities can be
> > distinguished in ways that make one a better example of a showing of
> > gestell than the other. For example, a totally dammed Rhine is a
> > better illustration of a showing of gestell than the same Rhine
> > bursting through the dam. And the same Rhine bursting through the
> > dam once is a better example of a showing of gestell than the same
> > Rhine bursting through the dam every single time a dam is attempted.
> > In both comparisons, the Rhine is shown as possible "water power"
> > less in the latter than in the former. That means that although
> > gestell itself is not a mundane distinction, it does IMPLY certain
> > mundane distinctions, such as how much power an entity has to
> > exclude alternatives to the end it foresees.
>
>Anthony, certainly one can make such distinctions as to what is a
>better or worse example of gestell in beings; we can compare and
>contrast, we can measure fittedness of beings to some notion of a best
>fit of beings to (the finest display, example of its being-at-work,
>etc) gestell. we can measure such fittedness with estimates of the
>amount of power an entity 'has' (to control, order, in short:
>mathematise, render to ac-count). We can accomplish all of this and
>more (and more), but such multiplication of distinctions and measures
>and estimations and accounting (in this theorising of gestell and its
>manifestation in beings) is itself a manifestation of the
>being-at-work of gestell and thus is a perfect obfuscation of the
>*essence* of gestell whilst being in its very grip. That's what *I'm*
>saying...

Do such distinctions have to be a manifestation of gestell? The Rhine as 
water power when it is dammed is a manifestation of gestell. But the very 
distinction between the Rhine as water power when it is dammed but not 
possible water power if it could not be dammed - why is that very 
distinction a manifestation of gestell? Or take the wind blowing an old 
windmill's sails. Is it a distinction of gestell to oppose that to gestell, 
as Heidegger does? As opposed to some "damming" of the wind, if it could be 
done? Why would that very distinction have to itself be a manifestation of 
gestell? In fact, isn't this precisely the kind of levelling of distinctions 
that Heidegger ascribes to gestell?

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
>From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you’ll find a 
range of helpful holiday info here.  
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005